...and show the secular manifestations of harm produced by pornography.
It seems like there's some very basic Psych 1-type research that could be done here. Have a long-term study with a control group that watches no porn, vs. groups that watch different types of pornography or with different frequency. Then administer a test that measures reaction to a variety of emotional situations, questions about relationships, reaction to sexual violence, etc.
If a causal link could be showed between porn and homosexuality (not necessarily a bad thing, just an interesting piece of data), an inability to form romantic relationships, etc. etc., then the debate would be worthwhile.
The groups arguing against porn seem to take it for granted that such effects exist. Okay, then they should have study results from neutral researchers... right? Heck, I think they're probably right. I just think they'd do a much better job of convincing people if they had real numbers to back them up.
Why not just nuke the DMZ and turn it into a radioactive wasteland?
During the '50s General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use radioactive material (dirty bombs) along the Yalu river, the border between Korea and China, to prevent the flow of Chinese reinforcements into Korea. So this kind of idea certainly has come up before... (Mac got fired for it, however.)
The reinterpretation is a product of political motives and an uneducated public.
Also because the Courts believe that the Constitution has a spirit as well as a letter.
However, amending the constitution is the proper way to update it to reflect the ever-changing world. If Congress wants the power to regulate communication, and the states ratify it, they're welcome to (pending re-election, of course).
As far as Communism goes -- I'm happy that the government in which I participate collects resources from all citizens in order to do things which no individual or corporation would have the resources to do alone.
The intent to liberate does not justify all possible applications of force! Restraint must be exercised where civilian population and infrastructure are concerned, otherwise you end up alienating the people you came to liberate.
I'm sure that the US military commanders know this better than I do -- I just want to make sure the grunts remember it.
1. We aren't there because they asked us to come. 2. We've caused damage (albeit accidental) to the civilian population. 3. There is a propaganda campaign being run against the US (e.g., Al-Jazeera, radical clerics) which is reminding the Iraqi people of this daily. 4. There is a force of insurgents recruiting fighters from the disaffected population.
The more civilians we alienate, the stronger the support for the insurgents. If we fight the insurgents with overwhelming force, we cause more collateral damage, which in turn strengthens support for the insurgency... etc., etc.
So that's it. That's what the protesters are saying. Exercise restraint. Hope that reminds you of what you really should be fighting for.
That's scary... the government of the Soviet Union was completely insane during the 50s. (We're talking paranoid batsh*t crazy -- Stalin and then Krushchev.) The USSR was pumping massive resources into publicity stunts and international PR efforts. Meanwhile, internal political oppression and poverty ran rampant. I don't want to see China following in their footsteps.
I hope China is funding this mission for the cause of science, not as part of a PR campaign for the People's March of Progress.
Nobody really cares if it would do any real good for the environment, it makes Americans suffer and is therefore a victory for the rest of the world.
Americans like me who are in favor of the Kyoto accord obviously don't feel this way. I feel that we have a responsibility as a polluting nation to limit the damage we do to the environment. Since we are the forefront of consumption and pollution, we should be at the forefront of reduction efforts. Other countres need to participate too, and playing shell games with carbon credits won't cut it.
If Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty because he thinks it is fundamentally flawed and will not benefit the environment, great. If he rejected it because he dislikes the world community, or because of his ties with the energy industry, he's an idiot.
Deep inside I hope Bush just doesn't think it will work, and is trying to sell that to us in terms of lost profits and "global control of America", instead of telling us what he really thinks. I'm afraid that's not the case, though...
I can't think of any sane raeason my neighbor (in a heavily populated area) could have for owning a machine gun. Potential revolt against a totalitarian state (results of Nov. 2 notwithstanding) seems much less likely than the chance of it being used to harm a large number of innocent people. Or consider an RPG or similar "military" weaponry... I just don't think in belongs. If you want to go out of town to shoot it at a range, well, be my guest. Hmm. I guess I'm more against usage than owning, then...
Regardless, the point of this post is to say that, if guns were allowed, it wouldn't be just the criminals who would have easy access to weapons. An armed society is a polite society, as they say.
Or, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
In fact, even that is a little too strong. It implies self-censorship, and might prevent you from saying something that needs to be said just because it's not nice.
A better analogy would be the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Don't be an ass if you don't like people being asses to you.
The hoopla over political correctness is amusing. I'm constantly suprised by the knee-jerk negative reaction it garners. I can sum up the complex philosophical and moral principles behind political correctness in rule:
Don't be an asshole.
That's it. It's very simple! You could also say, "Try not to hurt other people's feelings." Or, "Think first, talk later." Or, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
All being PC means is empathizing with your audience. Consider how your words will effect them.
If, after doing that, you think "this wouldn't be insulting to them," or, "this may be insulting to them but it's still important to say; I will say it anyway, but not because I want to insult them", then go ahead. If they're still insulted, that's their problem! It true that many people are thin-skinned these days. But if you thought about their feelings first and acted accordingly, you fulfilled your duty to be nice to them.
That said, Bias Response Teams and such are ridiculous. The rule above doesn't read "walk on eggshells" or "censor your thoughts". That's all crap, and obviously so, and I'm glad you're treating it as such. Just don't go too far the other way and forget the original rule: don't be an asshole.
We could also go a long way by expanding the capabilities of the existing communications channels.
For instance, why not have brake lights shine brighter the harder you're braking? That would give people behind you an indication of how hard they need to brake, without waiting to judge your change in velocity.
Or brake lights that shine forward? Or acceleration lights that shine green (brighter the faster you accelerate)? Or turn signals that tick louder the farther you've traveled with them on (to remind you to turn them off)?
Lots of innovations in car UI just waiting to happen, but it's so fscking standardized that no one's going to make them. I'm glad to see Toyota's at least thinking about what it means to actually drive a car, rather than just trying to build the latest rendition of an old concept.
P.S. I get really incensed by the ads that are running right now -- I forget whose -- where the company claims to have 're-invented the wheel', 'rethought the car from the ground up', and 'come up with something completely revolutionary'. Then they show you a picture and it's... a sedan. Same as every other car on the road. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
or making headlights that can be "ub3r" that don't blind everyone on the road
What about polarizing headlights and windshields at a 45-degree angle, so that you can see the reflection from your headlights, but oncoming headlights won't blind you?
Or, to make sure you can still see oncoming cars in the dark, polarize at a 40-degree angle. It would still cut down on the glare. Then you could crank up the output (or leave it the same but have less night-blindness due to glare).
The drawback is that you'll get the internet/chat room phenomenon. Anonymous communication leads to insults ('u r g4y'), flame wars, etc. Some people would hopefully use it well, but (as with CB radio), it risks turning into a pissing contest.
That said, when you commute you're traveling as part of a community of drivers. I think that having the ability to convey a limited set of phrases ('go ahead', 'thank you', 'sorry/my bad') would be beneficial. Pre-programmed voice macros would solve the problem: give people the ability to transmit, but enfore curteous phrasing. As soon as you open it up to allow people to say anything, it's likely to lead to more road rage.
No one thinks that a parrot understands the words it says. There's nothing going on behind the eyes (or what there is is much simpler -- hunger, boredom, instinct).
When an A.I. talks to you, it knows there is a you. It knows there is a you, and an it, and it knows that you know that too. It can generate new utterances with the intent of conveying information, and with an expectation that you will understand what it says. It will have a little model of you in its head that it can play with. It will be able to empathise and introspect and do all those things that are the province of rational, thinking creatures.
That's one hell of a tool. Once you go from "mimicing" to "generation", you enter a whole new realm.
If flies had thoughts and emotions, and could communicate with us, don't you think that would effect how we treated them?
For a functionalist, a perfect simulation of an inner mental life is all that's necessary for sentience. It doesn't matter whether it's implemented in silicon or organic compounds.
Once a thing has thoughts, feelings, and memory, we have the same responsibilities towards it that we do towards any human.
I'm going to be harsh in the face of evil and I refuse to give predators the benefit of the doubt.
I see where you're coming from, I just hope you're never wrong. This standpoint may be effective in deterring enemies (except suicide bombers), but is it morally justified?
Imo, considering reasonable options is never a waste of time. Knee-jerk reactions rarely lead to a de-escalation of violence.
Sometimes killing is right. During war, none of our rules of civility apply.
Morality and civility still apply during wartime. Declaring war doesn't mean morality gets thrown out the window. The man pulling the trigger still has to ask himself whether he's doing the right thing.
Is the person you're shooting at a combatant? Are you sure? If you don't have time to think about this during combat -- okay, then you'd better think about it pretty hard before or after. Killing innocents isn't justifiable by war. It may be explainable by it, but it isn't justified. Even during wartime, we have to continue thinking about our actions.
If we ever hit complete immortality though, this is going to stop being the case. As long as the birth rate is even slightly higher than the rate of deaths due to accidents, killing, etc., you will have positive population growth. Forever.
Of course right now the world has a wild, unbelievable, staggering population growth. So I don't think that's going to get any worse, or certainly people living longer won't be main cause of the problem. Given our existing birth rate, we're screwed at some point regardless.
I do not equate "self-defense" with "slaughter millions based on prejudices".
This distinction is only murky because so many people throughout history have used self-defense as an argument to justify slaughter based on prejudice.
If you're using self-defense to mean "actions necessary to prevent someone who is trying to kill or injure you from succeeding", then there's no confusion.
However, since death is final, you have to be sure that (a) killing is the only way to defend yourself, all other reasonable options have been exhausted, and (b) you confine the injury you cause to those who intended to injure you.
Wives will just get tired of thier husbands if they have to live together that long and vice versa.
I think our idea of paired bonding would necessarily change in a world of immortality. People would come together, fall in love, live amicably together for 20, 40, 100 years, then fall apart again. People are already doing this on a compressed timespan. Take away the biological imperative, take away the feeling of "I'm too old to start again," and you have a stable system of semi-permanent bonds.
Fall in love, live together, enjoy each other's company, then one day decide together to just be friends. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Slashdot Mirror
...and show the secular manifestations of harm produced by pornography.
It seems like there's some very basic Psych 1-type research that could be done here. Have a long-term study with a control group that watches no porn, vs. groups that watch different types of pornography or with different frequency. Then administer a test that measures reaction to a variety of emotional situations, questions about relationships, reaction to sexual violence, etc.
If a causal link could be showed between porn and homosexuality (not necessarily a bad thing, just an interesting piece of data), an inability to form romantic relationships, etc. etc., then the debate would be worthwhile.
The groups arguing against porn seem to take it for granted that such effects exist. Okay, then they should have study results from neutral researchers... right? Heck, I think they're probably right. I just think they'd do a much better job of convincing people if they had real numbers to back them up.
I'm glad to hear there's at least one other sane person out there!
:)
Next time I'm cranking some tunes with a drink in my hand, I'll raise a glass to you, no matter what you believe.
Why not just nuke the DMZ and turn it into a radioactive wasteland?
During the '50s General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use radioactive material (dirty bombs) along the Yalu river, the border between Korea and China, to prevent the flow of Chinese reinforcements into Korea. So this kind of idea certainly has come up before... (Mac got fired for it, however.)
See here for more.
The reinterpretation is a product of political motives and an uneducated public.
Also because the Courts believe that the Constitution has a spirit as well as a letter.
However, amending the constitution is the proper way to update it to reflect the ever-changing world. If Congress wants the power to regulate communication, and the states ratify it, they're welcome to (pending re-election, of course).
As far as Communism goes -- I'm happy that the government in which I participate collects resources from all citizens in order to do things which no individual or corporation would have the resources to do alone.
The intent to liberate does not justify all possible applications of force! Restraint must be exercised where civilian population and infrastructure are concerned, otherwise you end up alienating the people you came to liberate.
I'm sure that the US military commanders know this better than I do -- I just want to make sure the grunts remember it.
1. We aren't there because they asked us to come.
2. We've caused damage (albeit accidental) to the civilian population.
3. There is a propaganda campaign being run against the US (e.g., Al-Jazeera, radical clerics) which is reminding the Iraqi people of this daily.
4. There is a force of insurgents recruiting fighters from the disaffected population.
The more civilians we alienate, the stronger the support for the insurgents. If we fight the insurgents with overwhelming force, we cause more collateral damage, which in turn strengthens support for the insurgency... etc., etc.
So that's it. That's what the protesters are saying. Exercise restraint. Hope that reminds you of what you really should be fighting for.
Stay safe!
That's scary... the government of the Soviet Union was completely insane during the 50s. (We're talking paranoid batsh*t crazy -- Stalin and then Krushchev.) The USSR was pumping massive resources into publicity stunts and international PR efforts. Meanwhile, internal political oppression and poverty ran rampant. I don't want to see China following in their footsteps.
I hope China is funding this mission for the cause of science, not as part of a PR campaign for the People's March of Progress.
This is really interesting stuff. I'd love to hear more (i.e., why is it so screwed up?). Can you provide some details or links?
From the codebase I work on:
"// FUCK: this is here for you to grep for"
I couldn't agree with you more. Well said!
Watch 'em mod this one down too.
Would, but I'm all out of mod points. Damn.
Nobody really cares if it would do any real good for the environment, it makes Americans suffer and is therefore a victory for the rest of the world.
Americans like me who are in favor of the Kyoto accord obviously don't feel this way. I feel that we have a responsibility as a polluting nation to limit the damage we do to the environment. Since we are the forefront of consumption and pollution, we should be at the forefront of reduction efforts. Other countres need to participate too, and playing shell games with carbon credits won't cut it.
If Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty because he thinks it is fundamentally flawed and will not benefit the environment, great. If he rejected it because he dislikes the world community, or because of his ties with the energy industry, he's an idiot.
Deep inside I hope Bush just doesn't think it will work, and is trying to sell that to us in terms of lost profits and "global control of America", instead of telling us what he really thinks. I'm afraid that's not the case, though...
I can't think of any sane raeason my neighbor (in a heavily populated area) could have for owning a machine gun. Potential revolt against a totalitarian state (results of Nov. 2 notwithstanding) seems much less likely than the chance of it being used to harm a large number of innocent people. Or consider an RPG or similar "military" weaponry... I just don't think in belongs. If you want to go out of town to shoot it at a range, well, be my guest. Hmm. I guess I'm more against usage than owning, then...
Regardless, the point of this post is to say that, if guns were allowed, it wouldn't be just the criminals who would have easy access to weapons. An armed society is a polite society, as they say.
Or, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
In fact, even that is a little too strong. It implies self-censorship, and might prevent you from saying something that needs to be said just because it's not nice.
A better analogy would be the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Don't be an ass if you don't like people being asses to you.
The hoopla over political correctness is amusing. I'm constantly suprised by the knee-jerk negative reaction it garners. I can sum up the complex philosophical and moral principles behind political correctness in rule:
Don't be an asshole.
That's it. It's very simple! You could also say, "Try not to hurt other people's feelings." Or, "Think first, talk later." Or, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
All being PC means is empathizing with your audience. Consider how your words will effect them.
If, after doing that, you think "this wouldn't be insulting to them," or, "this may be insulting to them but it's still important to say; I will say it anyway, but not because I want to insult them", then go ahead. If they're still insulted, that's their problem! It true that many people are thin-skinned these days. But if you thought about their feelings first and acted accordingly, you fulfilled your duty to be nice to them.
That said, Bias Response Teams and such are ridiculous. The rule above doesn't read "walk on eggshells" or "censor your thoughts". That's all crap, and obviously so, and I'm glad you're treating it as such. Just don't go too far the other way and forget the original rule: don't be an asshole.
We could also go a long way by expanding the capabilities of the existing communications channels.
For instance, why not have brake lights shine brighter the harder you're braking? That would give people behind you an indication of how hard they need to brake, without waiting to judge your change in velocity.
Or brake lights that shine forward?
Or acceleration lights that shine green (brighter the faster you accelerate)?
Or turn signals that tick louder the farther you've traveled with them on (to remind you to turn them off)?
Lots of innovations in car UI just waiting to happen, but it's so fscking standardized that no one's going to make them. I'm glad to see Toyota's at least thinking about what it means to actually drive a car, rather than just trying to build the latest rendition of an old concept.
P.S. I get really incensed by the ads that are running right now -- I forget whose -- where the company claims to have 're-invented the wheel', 'rethought the car from the ground up', and 'come up with something completely revolutionary'. Then they show you a picture and it's... a sedan. Same as every other car on the road. Whoop-de-fucking-do.
or making headlights that can be "ub3r" that don't blind everyone on the road
What about polarizing headlights and windshields at a 45-degree angle, so that you can see the reflection from your headlights, but oncoming headlights won't blind you?
Or, to make sure you can still see oncoming cars in the dark, polarize at a 40-degree angle. It would still cut down on the glare. Then you could crank up the output (or leave it the same but have less night-blindness due to glare).
The drawback is that you'll get the internet/chat room phenomenon. Anonymous communication leads to insults ('u r g4y'), flame wars, etc. Some people would hopefully use it well, but (as with CB radio), it risks turning into a pissing contest.
That said, when you commute you're traveling as part of a community of drivers. I think that having the ability to convey a limited set of phrases ('go ahead', 'thank you', 'sorry/my bad') would be beneficial. Pre-programmed voice macros would solve the problem: give people the ability to transmit, but enfore curteous phrasing. As soon as you open it up to allow people to say anything, it's likely to lead to more road rage.
No one thinks that a parrot understands the words it says. There's nothing going on behind the eyes (or what there is is much simpler -- hunger, boredom, instinct).
When an A.I. talks to you, it knows there is a you. It knows there is a you, and an it, and it knows that you know that too. It can generate new utterances with the intent of conveying information, and with an expectation that you will understand what it says. It will have a little model of you in its head that it can play with. It will be able to empathise and introspect and do all those things that are the province of rational, thinking creatures.
That's one hell of a tool. Once you go from "mimicing" to "generation", you enter a whole new realm.
If flies had thoughts and emotions, and could communicate with us, don't you think that would effect how we treated them?
For a functionalist, a perfect simulation of an inner mental life is all that's necessary for sentience. It doesn't matter whether it's implemented in silicon or organic compounds.
Once a thing has thoughts, feelings, and memory, we have the same responsibilities towards it that we do towards any human.
Heheh... uh, yeah, sorry about that. :)
Excellent point, I hadn't considered that. That will bear thinking on.
I'm going to be harsh in the face of evil and I refuse to give predators the benefit of the doubt.
I see where you're coming from, I just hope you're never wrong. This standpoint may be effective in deterring enemies (except suicide bombers), but is it morally justified?
Imo, considering reasonable options is never a waste of time. Knee-jerk reactions rarely lead to a de-escalation of violence.
Sometimes killing is right. During war, none of our rules of civility apply.
Morality and civility still apply during wartime. Declaring war doesn't mean morality gets thrown out the window. The man pulling the trigger still has to ask himself whether he's doing the right thing.
Is the person you're shooting at a combatant? Are you sure? If you don't have time to think about this during combat -- okay, then you'd better think about it pretty hard before or after. Killing innocents isn't justifiable by war. It may be explainable by it, but it isn't justified. Even during wartime, we have to continue thinking about our actions.
If we ever hit complete immortality though, this is going to stop being the case. As long as the birth rate is even slightly higher than the rate of deaths due to accidents, killing, etc., you will have positive population growth. Forever.
Of course right now the world has a wild, unbelievable, staggering population growth. So I don't think that's going to get any worse, or certainly people living longer won't be main cause of the problem. Given our existing birth rate, we're screwed at some point regardless.
I do not equate "self-defense" with "slaughter millions based on prejudices".
This distinction is only murky because so many people throughout history have used self-defense as an argument to justify slaughter based on prejudice.
If you're using self-defense to mean "actions necessary to prevent someone who is trying to kill or injure you from succeeding", then there's no confusion.
However, since death is final, you have to be sure that (a) killing is the only way to defend yourself, all other reasonable options have been exhausted, and (b) you confine the injury you cause to those who intended to injure you.
Wives will just get tired of thier husbands if they have to live together that long and vice versa.
I think our idea of paired bonding would necessarily change in a world of immortality. People would come together, fall in love, live amicably together for 20, 40, 100 years, then fall apart again. People are already doing this on a compressed timespan. Take away the biological imperative, take away the feeling of "I'm too old to start again," and you have a stable system of semi-permanent bonds.
Fall in love, live together, enjoy each other's company, then one day decide together to just be friends. Wash, rinse, repeat.