When the work that is being done is physical labor, hiring more people to get the job done on time makes sense.
There are intellectually demanding jobs such as software engineering where adding more people to a job will not necessarily make it get completed similarly sooner (there are rapidly diminishing returns after only a very small number of engineers on any single project).
Of course, maybe it's better if every game development studio, including the smaler ones that have no more than a couple of dozen employees, just went under.
What the game depicts is the main character being violent against other characters who are in actuality nothing more than computer generated pixels with particular behavior traits associated with them. Any alleged violence against human beings occurs only in the mind of the player, and not in the game itself. Said computer generated pixels are no more women, or men, than a mannequin or dummy would be.
I might suggest that you may only be correct about your assumptions in that no star which has collapsed has yet turned into a singularity... all that is required for a black hole is sufficiently bending space in the region of a mass such that no straight line near the mass, and where it is within some finite volume as measured from outside of that region, ever leaves said vicinity of the mass. It is entirely possible that the entire universe may be within a black hole, which itself is inside of another, much larger and much older universe.
Not sure that is proof at all, and from what I remember they recently came up with some new theory that said black holes can't exist (not that this new theory is any better)
Yeah... a new theory where instead of going through a thorough peer review process first, the person who came up with it simply had a press release about it, giving the theory loads of disproportionate publicity over time-tested theories that explain what we observe far more readily.
In actuality, that recently announced theory that black holes don't exist, if you actually read carefully what they are really saying, is that it is singularities which are impossible... and they only conclude that black holes are impossible from that by suggesting that any black hole must have a singularity at the center. This is a commonly accepted idea, but it has never been scientifically proven... it is implied only by the fact that we can find no evidence of any force in the universe which could prevent it. There are, however, alternative explanations for how a black hole might not contain a singularity which do not require any particular force to act against the gravitational pull within the event horizon... explanations that the recently publicized theory you mentioned does not even attempt to address.
By its strictest definition, black does not reflect any light either, and so does not qualify as a color either. We can usually see so-called black objects either because they are perhaps just a very dark grey, and are thus still reflecting some amount of light that we can detect, or else in the case of something like Vantablack, because of objects nearby.
Why can't a chimpanzee be taught to read and to write.... to use the ability independently with purposeful and constructive utility, and in particular, be capable of teaching other chimpanzees to do likewise?
Of course, as the common argument against this goes, that you perhaps can find people who may be similarly lacking in cognitive ability, but the reality is that such a lack in human beings is always either directly attributable to physiological abnormalities in the brain of THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, or else attributable to a lack of education for, again, THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, and is not reflective of the cognitive ability of the species as a whole.
With regards to sign language, when has any primate who might have been taught sign language has ever ended up teaching to others such that over the course of generations, they end up utilizing it as an ordinary means of communication because they have discovered, entirely on their own, an increased level of productivity through its use? That is, after all, how humans first acquired language... if primates are so similar, why, even with an initial kick-start of trying to teach them into acquiring communication abilities, do they always just intellectually fall right back down to their baseline if then left to their own devices?
Humans are smart. No primate in existence comes anywhere even close to human levels of reasoning and thinking ability.
Such inability is reflective of the limitations on that particular individual's education or intelligence, not the species as a whole, and as a member of a species that *IS* capable of doing such, they automatically inherit such rights, even when they may not have acquired the ability to file for them personally.
So basically, a chimpanzee can have such rights not only when it knows how to file for them, but when chimpanzees in general can do so, which would probably entail chimps being taught to read and to write, to independently exercise said ability with purposeful utility, and to pass on this ability to successive generations through teaching.
So probably not in anyone's lifetime that is alive right now.
A lot of people seem so incredulous at the very notion that as far as intelligent life goes (that is, an organism capable of questioning its surroundings and its very existence), human beings are "it". Many suggest that it should be mathematically improbable for such a thing, and yet in reality, we only have a sample size of 1,and have absolutely no way to know how likely such life may actually be anywhere else. Neither, of course, do we have any particular reason to conclude that we *are* actually alone in the universe, but the reality is that if such life didn't actually exist anywhere else, absolutely nothing in our world would be changed by such a revelation, if it were possible to ever know that for certain.
If uniqueness can exist in a domain like mathematics, where actual infinities can be encountered and explained, it seems vastly more likely that in a universe that is quite clearly of finite age, uniqueness would be that much more common.
Actually, that's exactly right... they DON'T have exclusivity when somebody else infringes... Obviously, for any single act of infringement, a relatively small percentage of the overall exclusivity is lost, but it is still lost nevertheless.
What is being "stolen" is the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, which are assigned by virtue of the copyright, to dictate who may copy the work. Exclusive means that nobody else gets to do it, so by the very definition of the term, a copyright infringer is depriving the copyright holder of their exclusivity in that regard.
If anything which has value to someone, and which can be taken away from that person can be stolen, then yes... it definitely qualifies. The fact that what might be getting taken away from the authorized person or persons in this case has no physical representation does not diminish the value that it was legally declared to be The fact that the person who might take it would not gain the same value out of it as the value that the person who took it lost by having it taken does not diminish its value either, any more than the fact that one could steal somebody's money to burn in a campfire does not reduce the value of the money that they stole to that of kindling. Although this factor can easily keep many people from recognizing that value, or respecting it. Once faced with that fact, they will either have to give up piracy, or else more commonly admit that they believe the entire notion of copyright to be an unfair mechanism designed to artificially create exclusivity. The problem with the latter conclusion is that even with all of its problems, copyright is still vastly better system for providing exclusivity than censorship, including self-censorship, which is the only really viable ultimate alternative. Much of the best content that would be publicly available in such a situation would be lost in an endless sea of mediocre tripe that nobody cared enough about to want exclusivity on in the first place.
Of course, you could also just try reprogramming the entire human race to not be greedy or to desire any kind of exclusivity in the first place, but I strongly suspect that you won't accomplish that.
... is not that they reclassified it, per se... but that it can't help but remind of the word "atom", and how at one time it meant "indivisible". And particles smaller than atoms were discovered, they didn't turn around and say that they should change what *they* were called.
The answers to those questions revolve around societal issues, and have a lot to do with cultural inertia, which is not an easy thing to explain in ways that are quantifiable, which is where scientific study tends to look for answers. In actuality, if you took an infant born in one of those underdeveloped countries and raised him or her in a more developed nation, it is highly unlikely you would not notice any difference.
You can.... but speaking for myself, when I do that, I usually put ellipses on the end of the comment to indicate that the text is continued in the comment beneath, and begin the comment itself with ellipses to specifically indicate that the beginning of the sentence is earlier.
Without ellipses, reading comments that start in the subject field is admittedly confusing, but with them, I don't see any problem.
Wrong. It's purpose is to distribute content. That it's alleged main purpose being is to facilitate piracy is only accurate to the extent that the content that people seem to actually want to distribute happens to be pirated. Before bitorrent, people were using ftp. Before that, they were downloading from dial-up bulletin boards. Before that, they were photocopying books and before that they were manually copying stuff by hand.
Piracy has been around for as long as copyright itself... it is not driven by the availability of tools that might accomplish it, it is driven by much more fundamental aspects of human nature.
If you have put something unpleasant behind you, then really it should not matter if details of it are still available for other people to read... In fact, if it does, then the matter isn't really behind you at all. if other people are going to judge you by your past, that's unfortunate, but that's also just life... It shouldn't be up to legislation to change how liable people are to judge books by their covers, as it were.... That's a moral failing on their part.
People need to live their lives the best that they can... everyone fucking makes mistakes, and we learn to live with them. I used to know somebody who was crippled for life as a teenager because he was being reckless. he could easily still be reminded every single day of his life, even now over 30 years later, of what he should have done... so you can't somehow say that the Internet is somehow different just because something online can last forever, because there's other stuff that can be just as interminable.
BTW... had it ever occurred to you actually link to the things you are talking about instead of just pretending to sound like you know what you are talking about by just expecting everyone else to do the same research that you allegedly did?
If you are going to claim to know something, then post the friggen links to the relevant material instead of just saying to other people that they should just go do it themselves like you claim you did... otherwise, for all anyone else knows, you're just full of a lot of hot air... which to be honest, is how your post comes across. Particularly since there is at least one factually incorrect statement. Specifically, the claim that no americans have died from the virus is false... one has, to date. While that's still a small number, the claim of none is still factually incorrect. Of course, even being factually incorrect is not necessarily unforgivable, if you show that you at least made an honest attempt to do some reseearch on the topic, and the detail about which you are incorrect does not detract from your main point. But again, this too requires that you cite your sources, so that people will be able to replicate your research. Typing stuff into google doesn't replicate anything because a page rank can easily change.
While I wouldn't ordinarily excuse the ad-hominem, when you feel like you might need to resort to a physically violent confrontation just because someone's challenged your credibility online, it only kind of affirms the possibility that they may actually have been right
It probably wouldn't bother me so much if the job that it performed could not equally be performed by just simply looking inside of the box before putting it away.
Ah, but here you're falling into one of the common misconceptions about cosmology. The universe isn't expanding *into* anything -- if it were, the universe would have a centre
First of all, I never suggested that the universe actually *was* expanding into anything... I only offered the notion that even if it *were*, the fact that it has only been doing so for a finite amount of time still makes the universe finite, even if the space it were expanding into were infinite.
Second of all, if it were expanding into an infinite space, there is no reason to conjecture that this space would be limited to three dimensions, so no "center" to our expanding universe can necessarily be found - any more than you could find the center of a soccer ball on the surface of the soccer ball. A center definitely exists, but it's not going to be found on the restricted topology of the soccer ball, and the center of the universe exists, but you can't find it at a point in space... it would therefore be most correct to say that the center of the universe is actually the instant in time of the big bang.
Slashdot Mirror
When the work that is being done is physical labor, hiring more people to get the job done on time makes sense.
There are intellectually demanding jobs such as software engineering where adding more people to a job will not necessarily make it get completed similarly sooner (there are rapidly diminishing returns after only a very small number of engineers on any single project).
Played any computer games lately?
Of course, maybe it's better if every game development studio, including the smaler ones that have no more than a couple of dozen employees, just went under.
What the game depicts is the main character being violent against other characters who are in actuality nothing more than computer generated pixels with particular behavior traits associated with them. Any alleged violence against human beings occurs only in the mind of the player, and not in the game itself. Said computer generated pixels are no more women, or men, than a mannequin or dummy would be.
I might suggest that you may only be correct about your assumptions in that no star which has collapsed has yet turned into a singularity... all that is required for a black hole is sufficiently bending space in the region of a mass such that no straight line near the mass, and where it is within some finite volume as measured from outside of that region, ever leaves said vicinity of the mass. It is entirely possible that the entire universe may be within a black hole, which itself is inside of another, much larger and much older universe.
Yeah... a new theory where instead of going through a thorough peer review process first, the person who came up with it simply had a press release about it, giving the theory loads of disproportionate publicity over time-tested theories that explain what we observe far more readily.
In actuality, that recently announced theory that black holes don't exist, if you actually read carefully what they are really saying, is that it is singularities which are impossible... and they only conclude that black holes are impossible from that by suggesting that any black hole must have a singularity at the center. This is a commonly accepted idea, but it has never been scientifically proven... it is implied only by the fact that we can find no evidence of any force in the universe which could prevent it. There are, however, alternative explanations for how a black hole might not contain a singularity which do not require any particular force to act against the gravitational pull within the event horizon... explanations that the recently publicized theory you mentioned does not even attempt to address.
By its strictest definition, black does not reflect any light either, and so does not qualify as a color either. We can usually see so-called black objects either because they are perhaps just a very dark grey, and are thus still reflecting some amount of light that we can detect, or else in the case of something like Vantablack, because of objects nearby.
Why can't a chimpanzee be taught to read and to write.... to use the ability independently with purposeful and constructive utility, and in particular, be capable of teaching other chimpanzees to do likewise?
Of course, as the common argument against this goes, that you perhaps can find people who may be similarly lacking in cognitive ability, but the reality is that such a lack in human beings is always either directly attributable to physiological abnormalities in the brain of THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, or else attributable to a lack of education for, again, THAT PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, and is not reflective of the cognitive ability of the species as a whole.
With regards to sign language, when has any primate who might have been taught sign language has ever ended up teaching to others such that over the course of generations, they end up utilizing it as an ordinary means of communication because they have discovered, entirely on their own, an increased level of productivity through its use? That is, after all, how humans first acquired language... if primates are so similar, why, even with an initial kick-start of trying to teach them into acquiring communication abilities, do they always just intellectually fall right back down to their baseline if then left to their own devices?
Humans are smart. No primate in existence comes anywhere even close to human levels of reasoning and thinking ability.
And yes... that's the difference.
Because such conditions are reflective of the intelligence level or ability of the *INDIVIDUAL*, and not the species as a whole.
Such inability is reflective of the limitations on that particular individual's education or intelligence, not the species as a whole, and as a member of a species that *IS* capable of doing such, they automatically inherit such rights, even when they may not have acquired the ability to file for them personally.
So basically, a chimpanzee can have such rights not only when it knows how to file for them, but when chimpanzees in general can do so, which would probably entail chimps being taught to read and to write, to independently exercise said ability with purposeful utility, and to pass on this ability to successive generations through teaching.
So probably not in anyone's lifetime that is alive right now.
A lot of people seem so incredulous at the very notion that as far as intelligent life goes (that is, an organism capable of questioning its surroundings and its very existence), human beings are "it". Many suggest that it should be mathematically improbable for such a thing, and yet in reality, we only have a sample size of 1,and have absolutely no way to know how likely such life may actually be anywhere else. Neither, of course, do we have any particular reason to conclude that we *are* actually alone in the universe, but the reality is that if such life didn't actually exist anywhere else, absolutely nothing in our world would be changed by such a revelation, if it were possible to ever know that for certain.
If uniqueness can exist in a domain like mathematics, where actual infinities can be encountered and explained, it seems vastly more likely that in a universe that is quite clearly of finite age, uniqueness would be that much more common.
Actually, that's exactly right... they DON'T have exclusivity when somebody else infringes... Obviously, for any single act of infringement, a relatively small percentage of the overall exclusivity is lost, but it is still lost nevertheless.
What is being "stolen" is the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, which are assigned by virtue of the copyright, to dictate who may copy the work. Exclusive means that nobody else gets to do it, so by the very definition of the term, a copyright infringer is depriving the copyright holder of their exclusivity in that regard.
If anything which has value to someone, and which can be taken away from that person can be stolen, then yes... it definitely qualifies. The fact that what might be getting taken away from the authorized person or persons in this case has no physical representation does not diminish the value that it was legally declared to be The fact that the person who might take it would not gain the same value out of it as the value that the person who took it lost by having it taken does not diminish its value either, any more than the fact that one could steal somebody's money to burn in a campfire does not reduce the value of the money that they stole to that of kindling. Although this factor can easily keep many people from recognizing that value, or respecting it. Once faced with that fact, they will either have to give up piracy, or else more commonly admit that they believe the entire notion of copyright to be an unfair mechanism designed to artificially create exclusivity. The problem with the latter conclusion is that even with all of its problems, copyright is still vastly better system for providing exclusivity than censorship, including self-censorship, which is the only really viable ultimate alternative. Much of the best content that would be publicly available in such a situation would be lost in an endless sea of mediocre tripe that nobody cared enough about to want exclusivity on in the first place.
Of course, you could also just try reprogramming the entire human race to not be greedy or to desire any kind of exclusivity in the first place, but I strongly suspect that you won't accomplish that.
How about a little consistency, please?
.. blaming the telephone companies for scams like where "microsoft technical support" calls you about some alleged problems on your computer.
The answers to those questions revolve around societal issues, and have a lot to do with cultural inertia, which is not an easy thing to explain in ways that are quantifiable, which is where scientific study tends to look for answers. In actuality, if you took an infant born in one of those underdeveloped countries and raised him or her in a more developed nation, it is highly unlikely you would not notice any difference.
... metropolitan coverage of the technologies that are supposed to be available right now.
Without ellipses, reading comments that start in the subject field is admittedly confusing, but with them, I don't see any problem.
Wrong. It's purpose is to distribute content. That it's alleged main purpose being is to facilitate piracy is only accurate to the extent that the content that people seem to actually want to distribute happens to be pirated. Before bitorrent, people were using ftp. Before that, they were downloading from dial-up bulletin boards. Before that, they were photocopying books and before that they were manually copying stuff by hand.
Piracy has been around for as long as copyright itself... it is not driven by the availability of tools that might accomplish it, it is driven by much more fundamental aspects of human nature.
If you have put something unpleasant behind you, then really it should not matter if details of it are still available for other people to read... In fact, if it does, then the matter isn't really behind you at all. if other people are going to judge you by your past, that's unfortunate, but that's also just life... It shouldn't be up to legislation to change how liable people are to judge books by their covers, as it were.... That's a moral failing on their part.
People need to live their lives the best that they can... everyone fucking makes mistakes, and we learn to live with them. I used to know somebody who was crippled for life as a teenager because he was being reckless. he could easily still be reminded every single day of his life, even now over 30 years later, of what he should have done... so you can't somehow say that the Internet is somehow different just because something online can last forever, because there's other stuff that can be just as interminable.
BTW... had it ever occurred to you actually link to the things you are talking about instead of just pretending to sound like you know what you are talking about by just expecting everyone else to do the same research that you allegedly did?
If you are going to claim to know something, then post the friggen links to the relevant material instead of just saying to other people that they should just go do it themselves like you claim you did... otherwise, for all anyone else knows, you're just full of a lot of hot air... which to be honest, is how your post comes across. Particularly since there is at least one factually incorrect statement. Specifically, the claim that no americans have died from the virus is false... one has, to date. While that's still a small number, the claim of none is still factually incorrect. Of course, even being factually incorrect is not necessarily unforgivable, if you show that you at least made an honest attempt to do some reseearch on the topic, and the detail about which you are incorrect does not detract from your main point. But again, this too requires that you cite your sources, so that people will be able to replicate your research. Typing stuff into google doesn't replicate anything because a page rank can easily change.
Of the 17 cases of Ebola that have occurred outside of Africa, 4 of them have died. One of them was in the USA.
Granted, a lot lower than 70% mortality rate, but by no means are Americans immune.
While I wouldn't ordinarily excuse the ad-hominem, when you feel like you might need to resort to a physically violent confrontation just because someone's challenged your credibility online, it only kind of affirms the possibility that they may actually have been right
It probably wouldn't bother me so much if the job that it performed could not equally be performed by just simply looking inside of the box before putting it away.
First of all, I never suggested that the universe actually *was* expanding into anything... I only offered the notion that even if it *were*, the fact that it has only been doing so for a finite amount of time still makes the universe finite, even if the space it were expanding into were infinite.
Second of all, if it were expanding into an infinite space, there is no reason to conjecture that this space would be limited to three dimensions, so no "center" to our expanding universe can necessarily be found - any more than you could find the center of a soccer ball on the surface of the soccer ball. A center definitely exists, but it's not going to be found on the restricted topology of the soccer ball, and the center of the universe exists, but you can't find it at a point in space... it would therefore be most correct to say that the center of the universe is actually the instant in time of the big bang.