Neat idea, but I would tie it to energy prices and make it directly under the control of the consumer. The utility could then increase prices significantly when they're in a crunch, and my devices could power off when I decide it's too expensive for them to run.
As I said I don't think ID is good science but if it is not taught then people that hear it might fall for it.
This would have to be done carefully. The goal of a science classroom is to teach students how to think scientifically. Note an observation. Attempt to explain the observation. Devise an experiment to test your explanation. Revise, repeat. Most attempts to introduce ID in a science classroom involve mucking up scientific definitions and teaching students that non-scientific theories should be considered alongside scientific ones. This has a disastrous effect on the abilities of the students to recognize science and the importance of the scientific method.
If the topic is approached from the perspective of teaching what is not a scientific theory, that might not be a bad thing, but this would surely ignite a lot of controversy; there are other non-scientific theories that would work just as well for this lesson.
Once students have a firm grasp of the scientific method and can learn to think about these things critically, once they do set their mind on origin theories, they will be prepared to see non-scientific explanations for what they are.
My question is, how is teaching evolution, or any origin theory, useful?
Evolution is not an origin theory. Like many, you are confusing it with abiogenesis.
Will it make you a better veterinarian?
All branches of biology, including medicine (veterinary and otherwise) have benefited enormously from the realization and acceptance of evolution (both the fact and theory aspects of it). We now understand how viruses and bacteria adapt to their environments and our attempts to control them. This is a very fundamental aspect of modern medicine and biology generally. In most fields were evolution actually matters, the fact of evolution (as in, the observation that evolution occurs) has been accepted for decades.
Further, evolutionary theory (how observed evolution comes about) has found uses in fields such as computer science and engineering, where software and hardware design is modified through a form of artificial evolution: parts are mutated and tested in simulation.
Someone needs to come up with a list of every practical measure for improving safety from the evil terrorists, the cost to implement (per capita), and how much each improves the safety of the average person. Rank them by cost effectiveness (cost/life saved) and poll everyone to see where they would draw the line. How much of their own money would they spend to get that extra 0.001% increase in their safety?
And then repeat the survey with measures for improving safety from all dangerous things people might encounter.
You point out that our understanding improves with every day, but continue to justify the fact that it's not perfect as a reason to distrust it? It will never be perfect, but it's the best/most accurate knowledge we have. Feel free to come up with your own studies and conclusions, but I guarantee that they're going to be right more often than you. It's not about putting absolute trust in someone or something, it's about trusting the right authority and their conclusions, even as they change over time.
I would be concerned that she would offer her "medical advice" to patients (solicited or unsolicited). "Oh, I forgot to ask the doctor, does your office give flu shots?" "Oh, darlin', you don't want to do that. Let me tell you about vaccines..."
TFA discusses highway driving only for the near term, and talks about how the liability issues still need to be worked out.
For the purposes of regulations, I imagine a more machine-friendly method will be added to traffic lights to make it clearer which lanes the signals apply to, for example, and eliminate the likelihood that a signal will be missed or misinterpreted. With today's laws, I imagine a car that still runs a red light would cause the operator of the car (snoozing or not) to get hit with the fine. I imagine it might be possible for some future laws to rework that a bit and push some or all of those costs onto the manufacturers of these systems.
The bigger issue is where the cars cause accidents. A system like this could conceivably reduce deaths and injuries due to car accidents by an order of magnitude, but it's going to cause some deaths and injuries despite that reduction. From the perspective of society as a whole, it's a net win, but our current liability framework in the US would allow people to sue those car manufacturers into bankruptcy for causing those deaths. So I think we're going to have to see some fairly major changes for this technology to ever see the light of day.
Yes, I completely agree. The whole concept is fundamentally too complex for people to understand and for developers to implement in a way that insulates consumers from that complexity.
I believe the problem is with the DRM licenses, not with the movies themselves. The licenses are stored in a centralized Windows database, so if you "reset" DRM and wipe those licenses out, you no longer have the ability to decrypt (watch) the DRM-protected videos you previously purchased. You'd need to somehow re-obtain the licenses (which may be easy to do, I don't know). It doesn't matter where the movies themselves stored.
The guy writing this post doesn't seem to understand a lot about what he's writing, so take everything with a grain of salt.
I think it's likely that the Netflix solution of "resetting" DRM is sort of like the "reinstall Windows" solution you'd give to someone when you don't think it's going to be productive to fully troubleshoot their issue. There's probably a real root cause with a less painful solution if only someone would investigate.
is it not fair that all teachers should get a percentage of the income of all the students they teach?
That's actually an interesting idea. I wonder how our educational system would change if teachers' compensation were directly based on the median income of their students, or perhaps just the students entering the field being taught. I wonder if the incentive to help your students make money would improve their education.
[3DO] died, because it meant 3DO machines on shelves that cost a grand, and when introducing a console, it's customary to subsidize it somewhat.
Couldn't a subsidy work here too, though? "If you want to sell Xbox 360 variants, we'll pay you $X per unit to offset some of your costs." Microsoft is "losing" the same amount per unit, whether they build it or someone else does, but presumably they'd see a return on game sales both ways.
the Xbox360's media service competes with services like Comcast's On Demand, so I can't imagine they'd be all that receptive.
That's just one service, though, and it ought to be modular enough that a Comcast-branded 360 box might work with Comcast's On-Demand service, possibly reworked, possibly in partnership with Microsoft, or possibly even just a Comcast-branded version of the same video service other 360 users get, with a portion of the profits going to Comcast. There are lots of ways you can approach it.
Of course, this is all just brainstorming and conjecture, but it's interesting to think about.
The problem with this approach (different terms for corporations vs. individuals) is that it's easy to work around. Authors working for a corporation will enter into a contract with that corporation to copyright the work as their own, but license it exclusively to the corporation that employs them. Isn't this how patents already work today?
"OMG, some greedy guy's trying to get rich off Christie."
Though, this wouldn't happen if the punitive damages were given to someone other than the plaintiff. The goal is to take money away to discourage the behavior. Giving it to the guy that was "harmed" isn't equitable. I say use it to fund government programs, or go to a charity of the plaintiff's choosing. Don't give it to the plaintiff, because he really hasn't done anything to deserve it.
Now imagine you are flying a helicopter, and you are blinded by the flash bulb for that tiny amount of time.
If pilots are unable to reorient after that "tiny amount of time" with the aid of their instruments, or experience vertigo when flying solely on instruments, I submit that they are not medically fit to be flying. This is a basic component to being a pilot.
but like another poster noted, when you fire a gun, you are responsible for what is downrange of it, and the same holds true here.
I haven't read the comment you're referring to, but this is true only in a civil context. If the pilot can't demonstrate he was harmed and in need of compensation, it doesn't matter. On the criminal side, it would depend entirely on how the law was written, and whether the guy with the laser intended to do the thing that the law forbids. If the law only forbids someone from specifically targeting aircraft, then he's not guilty unless they can prove that he intentionally targeted aircraft. It wouldn't matter that his laser pointer found its way there. But it depends on how the law is written.
Firing a gun is different, because that's inherently dangerous. There are crimes on the books to deal with endangering people's lives by way of a deadly weapon. Typical laser pointers are, by definition of classification, perfectly safe. In a civil context, of course, it doesn't matter if the instrument is safe or dangerous; it's the outcome that matters. But since crimes are defined by the intent of the person committing them just as much as the outcome, the nature of the instrument matters a lot.
There's a big difference between a brief scotoma from a flash of light, which is a distraction that you normally quickly recover from, and experiencing disorientation, pain and discomfort (especially hours after the event).
Typical laser pointers cannot damage your eyes unless you deliberately ignore your blink reflex and stare into the beam for an extended period of time. What people experience by a quick flash is the same thing you experience with any other bright flash, like a camera flash. While this is still most certainly a hazard, and this guy's actions deserve some investigation, the pilot's statements still sound heavily embellished.
Your own statement that you were "totally blinded" suggests your assailants weren't using a standard 5mW laser pointer and were using something far more powerful. You're lucky that something bright enough to totally blind you after a fraction of a second didn't cause long-term damage.
Maybe it's different where you live, but I suspect you're confusing "ATM" with "debit card". ATM processing charges you the same fees you'd be charged if you walked up to a random ATM and got cash. Debit cards, I believe, use the same infrastructure as credit cards, with the addition of the PIN. In any event, I've used my debit card for years, entering my PIN whenever I bought something, and was never charged a fee anywhere. It's actually my understanding that the debit card processing is cheaper for the merchants than credit card.
if you "fundamentally" disagree that a young child being molested isn't seriously screwed up emotionally by the experience, then you have some serious issues yourself.
I KNOW it is wrong.... What is sad is that you appear not to.
Nice straw-man. This is why I didn't want to continue this discussion with you: your feelings are preventing you from having a logical, rational discussion.
Why should it be my concern that this individual now feels isolated?
As a member of society, it should be your concern, because it is society's concern that these individuals be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society once the system has determined that it's appropriate for them to do so. When you continue to isolate these people and continue telling them that they're evil, it virtually destroys any chance that they will lead normal lives, and increases the risk they will commit further crimes, even if their original crime was non-violent, and even if they would have posed no risk whatsoever.
And then there are those that are murdered, usually because the person committing the murder is confused about the crime or the exact individual that committed it.
odds are that I'm safer.
Have you actually run these numbers? I doubt these risks are elevated in any meaningful sense, especially when compared against the "background" of other dangers particular to your community. But I'd love to see the numbers either way.
My point is that your response here is completely emotional, not rational. You're not a bad person for thinking with your feelings, but surely you realize that when feelings are guiding public policy in the face of reason, bad things happen, right?
I agree with harsher punishments for heinous crimes once convicted.
Just plain "harsher"? Across the board? You're making my point for me. People seem to have this short-circuit in their brain that connects "this is bad" with "let's punish them" without stopping at "have they been punished?" You could torture a man for a solid year for stealing an old lady's purse, and 10 clean years later, if that information re-surfaces, people will still find ways to continue punishing him. It's human nature. It's instinct.
You can't go out and say "he's been punished enough" because that's like saying "no, he doesn't need to be punished", and who can say something like that without causing someone else to respond exactly as you did to me? My response irritated you and you responded 100% emotionally. You're not the only one that would have, given the opportunity. This is a problem.
The need to punish is instinctive, just like rape is. As a civilized society, we can, of course, work to suppress instinct, and temper it with reason. This usually works, but as you're demonstrating here, not always, especially when thinking rationally might involve defending someone that everyone's feelings say is evil; reason becomes unpopular. Reason is most important when it's unpopular.
So, why should it be surprising that a People with no legal recourse will take an illegal recourse
Because it's illegal? Because the will of the community should be respected? "My community doesn't feel that this crime is worthy of the death penalty anymore. I disagree, so I think it's OK for me to kill these people." How can you possibly condone this?
If you disagree with your community's laws, work with your community to get them changed. If they disagree, and elect not to change the law in your favor, you need to accept that, not become a vigilante.
The idea that a today convicted rapists and murders are turned loose in society after a stay in prison, even if they openly admit their intention to commit their crime again, is utterly insane.
Take out the "even", and I would agree with you. I do not agree that every person convicted of rape or murder is forever a menace to society and should never be allowed to rejoin it.
we should at least make any release of such people from prison contingent on a thorough analysis that shows them to be rehabilitated and reformed.
I agree.
If such a system were in place, and worked, I would have no problem with wiping the slate clean for such people.
Let's pretend for a moment that such a perfect system exists. Let's pretend that 50% of people convicted of rape or murder are successfully released from such a system and we can say with some certainty that they are no more dangerous than the average person that's never been convicted of a crime. These people are now "innocent" in the eyes of the law, right?
But since such a system doesn't exist, you're suggesting that those 50% remain locked up for the rest of their lives. But I thought we just classified them as innocent, and not a threat? You are effectively condoning locking up (or executing) people that do not deserve it! This is equivalent to locking up an innocent person along with every guilty person, just to ensure you get that guilty person. I thought we preferred to let the guilty go free than imprison an innocent?
I appreciate your comments. Unfortunately, I don't think I can respond productively, because we have some fundamental disagreements. Consider looking into evolutionary psychology a bit, and examine the origins of rape, cultural definitions of evil, and the idea that when enough people tell you that something is wrong with you, you will believe it. I refuse to believe that prehistoric humans were perpetually in a "scarred", emotionally devastated state.
Slashdot Mirror
Neat idea, but I would tie it to energy prices and make it directly under the control of the consumer. The utility could then increase prices significantly when they're in a crunch, and my devices could power off when I decide it's too expensive for them to run.
This would have to be done carefully. The goal of a science classroom is to teach students how to think scientifically. Note an observation. Attempt to explain the observation. Devise an experiment to test your explanation. Revise, repeat. Most attempts to introduce ID in a science classroom involve mucking up scientific definitions and teaching students that non-scientific theories should be considered alongside scientific ones. This has a disastrous effect on the abilities of the students to recognize science and the importance of the scientific method.
If the topic is approached from the perspective of teaching what is not a scientific theory, that might not be a bad thing, but this would surely ignite a lot of controversy; there are other non-scientific theories that would work just as well for this lesson.
Once students have a firm grasp of the scientific method and can learn to think about these things critically, once they do set their mind on origin theories, they will be prepared to see non-scientific explanations for what they are.
Evolution is not an origin theory. Like many, you are confusing it with abiogenesis.
All branches of biology, including medicine (veterinary and otherwise) have benefited enormously from the realization and acceptance of evolution (both the fact and theory aspects of it). We now understand how viruses and bacteria adapt to their environments and our attempts to control them. This is a very fundamental aspect of modern medicine and biology generally. In most fields were evolution actually matters, the fact of evolution (as in, the observation that evolution occurs) has been accepted for decades.
Further, evolutionary theory (how observed evolution comes about) has found uses in fields such as computer science and engineering, where software and hardware design is modified through a form of artificial evolution: parts are mutated and tested in simulation.
Someone needs to come up with a list of every practical measure for improving safety from the evil terrorists, the cost to implement (per capita), and how much each improves the safety of the average person. Rank them by cost effectiveness (cost/life saved) and poll everyone to see where they would draw the line. How much of their own money would they spend to get that extra 0.001% increase in their safety?
And then repeat the survey with measures for improving safety from all dangerous things people might encounter.
You point out that our understanding improves with every day, but continue to justify the fact that it's not perfect as a reason to distrust it? It will never be perfect, but it's the best/most accurate knowledge we have. Feel free to come up with your own studies and conclusions, but I guarantee that they're going to be right more often than you. It's not about putting absolute trust in someone or something, it's about trusting the right authority and their conclusions, even as they change over time.
I would be concerned that she would offer her "medical advice" to patients (solicited or unsolicited). "Oh, I forgot to ask the doctor, does your office give flu shots?" "Oh, darlin', you don't want to do that. Let me tell you about vaccines..."
TFA discusses highway driving only for the near term, and talks about how the liability issues still need to be worked out.
For the purposes of regulations, I imagine a more machine-friendly method will be added to traffic lights to make it clearer which lanes the signals apply to, for example, and eliminate the likelihood that a signal will be missed or misinterpreted. With today's laws, I imagine a car that still runs a red light would cause the operator of the car (snoozing or not) to get hit with the fine. I imagine it might be possible for some future laws to rework that a bit and push some or all of those costs onto the manufacturers of these systems.
The bigger issue is where the cars cause accidents. A system like this could conceivably reduce deaths and injuries due to car accidents by an order of magnitude, but it's going to cause some deaths and injuries despite that reduction. From the perspective of society as a whole, it's a net win, but our current liability framework in the US would allow people to sue those car manufacturers into bankruptcy for causing those deaths. So I think we're going to have to see some fairly major changes for this technology to ever see the light of day.
Yes, I completely agree. The whole concept is fundamentally too complex for people to understand and for developers to implement in a way that insulates consumers from that complexity.
I believe the problem is with the DRM licenses, not with the movies themselves. The licenses are stored in a centralized Windows database, so if you "reset" DRM and wipe those licenses out, you no longer have the ability to decrypt (watch) the DRM-protected videos you previously purchased. You'd need to somehow re-obtain the licenses (which may be easy to do, I don't know). It doesn't matter where the movies themselves stored.
The guy writing this post doesn't seem to understand a lot about what he's writing, so take everything with a grain of salt.
I think it's likely that the Netflix solution of "resetting" DRM is sort of like the "reinstall Windows" solution you'd give to someone when you don't think it's going to be productive to fully troubleshoot their issue. There's probably a real root cause with a less painful solution if only someone would investigate.
That's actually an interesting idea. I wonder how our educational system would change if teachers' compensation were directly based on the median income of their students, or perhaps just the students entering the field being taught. I wonder if the incentive to help your students make money would improve their education.
Couldn't a subsidy work here too, though? "If you want to sell Xbox 360 variants, we'll pay you $X per unit to offset some of your costs." Microsoft is "losing" the same amount per unit, whether they build it or someone else does, but presumably they'd see a return on game sales both ways.
That's just one service, though, and it ought to be modular enough that a Comcast-branded 360 box might work with Comcast's On-Demand service, possibly reworked, possibly in partnership with Microsoft, or possibly even just a Comcast-branded version of the same video service other 360 users get, with a portion of the profits going to Comcast. There are lots of ways you can approach it.
Of course, this is all just brainstorming and conjecture, but it's interesting to think about.
Exactly! Just think what would happen if works by van Gogh or da Vinci ever fell out of copyright!
The problem with this approach (different terms for corporations vs. individuals) is that it's easy to work around. Authors working for a corporation will enter into a contract with that corporation to copyright the work as their own, but license it exclusively to the corporation that employs them. Isn't this how patents already work today?
Though, this wouldn't happen if the punitive damages were given to someone other than the plaintiff. The goal is to take money away to discourage the behavior. Giving it to the guy that was "harmed" isn't equitable. I say use it to fund government programs, or go to a charity of the plaintiff's choosing. Don't give it to the plaintiff, because he really hasn't done anything to deserve it.
This is a FAQ and documented on their site: http://www.google.com/support/news/bin/topic.py?topic=12285
You seem to be confused about what Android is. Google is not designing cell phones.
My dad's a doctor, my ex is a lawyer, and I'm currently working toward my pilot's certification.
So no, I'm none of those.
Which is exactly what pilots are trained to do.
If pilots are unable to reorient after that "tiny amount of time" with the aid of their instruments, or experience vertigo when flying solely on instruments, I submit that they are not medically fit to be flying. This is a basic component to being a pilot.
I haven't read the comment you're referring to, but this is true only in a civil context. If the pilot can't demonstrate he was harmed and in need of compensation, it doesn't matter. On the criminal side, it would depend entirely on how the law was written, and whether the guy with the laser intended to do the thing that the law forbids. If the law only forbids someone from specifically targeting aircraft, then he's not guilty unless they can prove that he intentionally targeted aircraft. It wouldn't matter that his laser pointer found its way there. But it depends on how the law is written.
Firing a gun is different, because that's inherently dangerous. There are crimes on the books to deal with endangering people's lives by way of a deadly weapon. Typical laser pointers are, by definition of classification, perfectly safe. In a civil context, of course, it doesn't matter if the instrument is safe or dangerous; it's the outcome that matters. But since crimes are defined by the intent of the person committing them just as much as the outcome, the nature of the instrument matters a lot.
There's a big difference between a brief scotoma from a flash of light, which is a distraction that you normally quickly recover from, and experiencing disorientation, pain and discomfort (especially hours after the event).
Typical laser pointers cannot damage your eyes unless you deliberately ignore your blink reflex and stare into the beam for an extended period of time. What people experience by a quick flash is the same thing you experience with any other bright flash, like a camera flash. While this is still most certainly a hazard, and this guy's actions deserve some investigation, the pilot's statements still sound heavily embellished.
Your own statement that you were "totally blinded" suggests your assailants weren't using a standard 5mW laser pointer and were using something far more powerful. You're lucky that something bright enough to totally blind you after a fraction of a second didn't cause long-term damage.
Maybe it's different where you live, but I suspect you're confusing "ATM" with "debit card". ATM processing charges you the same fees you'd be charged if you walked up to a random ATM and got cash. Debit cards, I believe, use the same infrastructure as credit cards, with the addition of the PIN. In any event, I've used my debit card for years, entering my PIN whenever I bought something, and was never charged a fee anywhere. It's actually my understanding that the debit card processing is cheaper for the merchants than credit card.
Nice straw-man. This is why I didn't want to continue this discussion with you: your feelings are preventing you from having a logical, rational discussion.
As a member of society, it should be your concern, because it is society's concern that these individuals be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society once the system has determined that it's appropriate for them to do so. When you continue to isolate these people and continue telling them that they're evil, it virtually destroys any chance that they will lead normal lives, and increases the risk they will commit further crimes, even if their original crime was non-violent, and even if they would have posed no risk whatsoever.
And then there are those that are murdered, usually because the person committing the murder is confused about the crime or the exact individual that committed it.
Have you actually run these numbers? I doubt these risks are elevated in any meaningful sense, especially when compared against the "background" of other dangers particular to your community. But I'd love to see the numbers either way.
My point is that your response here is completely emotional, not rational. You're not a bad person for thinking with your feelings, but surely you realize that when feelings are guiding public policy in the face of reason, bad things happen, right?
Just plain "harsher"? Across the board? You're making my point for me. People seem to have this short-circuit in their brain that connects "this is bad" with "let's punish them" without stopping at "have they been punished?" You could torture a man for a solid year for stealing an old lady's purse, and 10 clean years later, if that information re-surfaces, people will still find ways to continue punishing him. It's human nature. It's instinct.
You can't go out and say "he's been punished enough" because that's like saying "no, he doesn't need to be punished", and who can say something like that without causing someone else to respond exactly as you did to me? My response irritated you and you responded 100% emotionally. You're not the only one that would have, given the opportunity. This is a problem.
The need to punish is instinctive, just like rape is. As a civilized society, we can, of course, work to suppress instinct, and temper it with reason. This usually works, but as you're demonstrating here, not always, especially when thinking rationally might involve defending someone that everyone's feelings say is evil; reason becomes unpopular. Reason is most important when it's unpopular.
Because it's illegal? Because the will of the community should be respected? "My community doesn't feel that this crime is worthy of the death penalty anymore. I disagree, so I think it's OK for me to kill these people." How can you possibly condone this?
If you disagree with your community's laws, work with your community to get them changed. If they disagree, and elect not to change the law in your favor, you need to accept that, not become a vigilante.
Take out the "even", and I would agree with you. I do not agree that every person convicted of rape or murder is forever a menace to society and should never be allowed to rejoin it.
I agree.
Let's pretend for a moment that such a perfect system exists. Let's pretend that 50% of people convicted of rape or murder are successfully released from such a system and we can say with some certainty that they are no more dangerous than the average person that's never been convicted of a crime. These people are now "innocent" in the eyes of the law, right?
But since such a system doesn't exist, you're suggesting that those 50% remain locked up for the rest of their lives. But I thought we just classified them as innocent, and not a threat? You are effectively condoning locking up (or executing) people that do not deserve it! This is equivalent to locking up an innocent person along with every guilty person, just to ensure you get that guilty person. I thought we preferred to let the guilty go free than imprison an innocent?
I appreciate your comments. Unfortunately, I don't think I can respond productively, because we have some fundamental disagreements. Consider looking into evolutionary psychology a bit, and examine the origins of rape, cultural definitions of evil, and the idea that when enough people tell you that something is wrong with you, you will believe it. I refuse to believe that prehistoric humans were perpetually in a "scarred", emotionally devastated state.