I would categorically disagree in the strongest possible terms - i.e., vehemently - with your premise that "if one isn't prepared to face whatever the consequences are for the choices that they make, then they probably shouldn't be doing that in the first place". Yes, there is a need for heroes, but asserting one's rights - the rights of the people - should not require every individual to be a hero.
You are absolutely right about this.... it does not require that every individual be a hero. And in my view, Snowden is not one. What he did was good, yes...Important, even. But heroic? Sure, he still had to make a sacrifice, but the concept of living to fight another day by however wisely choosing to run away doesn't fit that word, in my book.
If he'd stayed in the US, he'd more than likely be dead now
Like killing him would somehow undo what he had done? If they didn't make it public, his death wouldn't deter anyone from doing something similar, and if they *DID*, the martyr effect would probably do the exact opposite.
A hero, in my view, isn't somebody who runs away from a fight they don't think they can win.... if it was important enough to start, then it's important enough to finish. Like I said above... it's probably not a popular sentiment.
Torturing Snowden or otherwise subjecting him to unjustified treatment in the USA wouldn't change anything that's already happened, and because particularly controversial treatment, such as violating any of his constitutional or inalienable rights, would not dare ever become public knowledge (the public outcry would be enormous if it were, and probably reach all the way to the whitehouse), it wouldn't practically serve to deter other people from doing the same thing in the future. In fact, regardless of what happened, it might even do exactly the opposite.
This may be an unpopular sentiment, but I think he should have stuck around to face the consequences of what he did.
And I'm not saying that every hero necessarily needs to be a martyr, of course... but feeling the country just doesn't sound particularly heroic.
Like I said, this might be an unpopular notion, but I believe that if one isn't prepared to face whatever the consequences are for the choices that they make, then they probably shouldn't be doing that in the first place.... if it's really important enough to do, then it's important enough to own up to and take full responsibility for.... whatever the consequences, even if those consequences may be unjust.
Children too young to be vaccinated are affected by other unvaccinated people who have come in recent contact with the disease. If the latter people had instead been vaccinated, the likelihood of passing on the disease to anyone who hasnt't been is immensely reduced (in addition to the fact that they will not get it).
I've heard it said before that preventable disease outbreaks like this happen because children who are typically not yet old enough to be vaccinated come into contact with a more mature individual who was never vaccinated.
If so, it seems to me that the only reason this kind of thing keeps happening is because of THEIR choice... and their choice is directly affecting the lives of other children that they could communicate the disease to.
As for how to really get them to support vaccinations? I can only suggest something that is at least mostly preventable through vaccination, but particularly virulent and lethal as what may be the only thing to have any impact. It won't necessarily convince them to do anything about it if they succumb themselves, but the memory of the incident will stick around for at least a couple of generations in the survivors.
If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.
Not only does that seem rather pointless, but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.
This matter really feels one of those times when scientists should be reminding themselves that just because we *CAN* do something does not necessarily mean that we *SHOULD*.
The only time people in sufficient positions of power go to jail for crimes is when they governing body been sufficiently embarrassed by the situation they've created that they want to start over with a clean slate, and at least pretend like they never condoned whatever crime was committed Since this is determined by what the *government* actually wants, and not anything constituents may want or choose to do, there is no way that citizens can exercise any control over this.
... that you know your shit as well as or better than any graduate, then more power to you.
I have found, however, when one does not yet have an abundance of expierence, that having a formal education makes a significant difference to just getting by the initial filtering process.that many companies use.
Yes,,, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually being monitored or spied on, it only means that they COULD be... which was my point. I didn't see anywhere that it said that such spying was actually occurring.
Like I said... the day after this occurred, a new law was passed which does pretty much exactly what I was suggesting... if you have a problem with it, take it up with the state.
I wasn't suggesting that it did... only that it took an awful long time for evolution to do it... and equating that amount of time to how much you'd have to pay a worker even just one lousy dollar a day for that amount of time, it's really not very cheap.
The point would be to make something that can utilize existing infrastructure, so there will be immediate practical application. Over time the infrastructure could change to accommodate radically different styles of robots, but that would mean waiting far longer for prices to come down because the slowness of any wide scale adoption (due to the slowness at which infrastructure changes) would cause prices to stay much the same as they started.
Who said that they actually were? It said that what they were doing made them to be able to do this, but nowhere that I can see does it say that is what they were actually doing.
Most places aren't fitted with such devices. The point that I was getting at is that by modelling a robot after humans you get an appliance that can, with nothing more than a software update or an installation of different software, work in all of the many different environments and use all of the same tools that humans do (or formerly did, as the process becomes increasingly automatic), obtaining an immediate practical application without requiring what can turn out to be a prohibitively costly expense to change the physical infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, you don't have to be a hero to do something extremely important or valuable, or even worthy of being admired by others.
But no matter how prudent or practical running away might be, it isn't heroic.
Because "fleeing" is not heroic, no matter how practical or prudent the choice may be.
He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day may be true, but it's not how heroes are made.
Snowden doesn't have to be a hero to make what he did important.
But heroes don't run.
You are absolutely right about this.... it does not require that every individual be a hero. And in my view, Snowden is not one. What he did was good, yes...Important, even. But heroic? Sure, he still had to make a sacrifice, but the concept of living to fight another day by however wisely choosing to run away doesn't fit that word, in my book.
Like killing him would somehow undo what he had done? If they didn't make it public, his death wouldn't deter anyone from doing something similar, and if they *DID*, the martyr effect would probably do the exact opposite.
A hero, in my view, isn't somebody who runs away from a fight they don't think they can win.... if it was important enough to start, then it's important enough to finish. Like I said above... it's probably not a popular sentiment.
Torturing Snowden or otherwise subjecting him to unjustified treatment in the USA wouldn't change anything that's already happened, and because particularly controversial treatment, such as violating any of his constitutional or inalienable rights, would not dare ever become public knowledge (the public outcry would be enormous if it were, and probably reach all the way to the whitehouse), it wouldn't practically serve to deter other people from doing the same thing in the future. In fact, regardless of what happened, it might even do exactly the opposite.
This may be an unpopular sentiment, but I think he should have stuck around to face the consequences of what he did.
And I'm not saying that every hero necessarily needs to be a martyr, of course... but feeling the country just doesn't sound particularly heroic.
Like I said, this might be an unpopular notion, but I believe that if one isn't prepared to face whatever the consequences are for the choices that they make, then they probably shouldn't be doing that in the first place.... if it's really important enough to do, then it's important enough to own up to and take full responsibility for.... whatever the consequences, even if those consequences may be unjust.
From a scientific perspective, yes.... but what about from an ethical one?
Is it ethically justifiable to permanently subject wild animals to such conditions?
Children too young to be vaccinated are affected by other unvaccinated people who have come in recent contact with the disease. If the latter people had instead been vaccinated, the likelihood of passing on the disease to anyone who hasnt't been is immensely reduced (in addition to the fact that they will not get it).
I've heard it said before that preventable disease outbreaks like this happen because children who are typically not yet old enough to be vaccinated come into contact with a more mature individual who was never vaccinated.
If so, it seems to me that the only reason this kind of thing keeps happening is because of THEIR choice... and their choice is directly affecting the lives of other children that they could communicate the disease to.
As for how to really get them to support vaccinations? I can only suggest something that is at least mostly preventable through vaccination, but particularly virulent and lethal as what may be the only thing to have any impact. It won't necessarily convince them to do anything about it if they succumb themselves, but the memory of the incident will stick around for at least a couple of generations in the survivors.
If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.
Not only does that seem rather pointless, but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.
This matter really feels one of those times when scientists should be reminding themselves that just because we *CAN* do something does not necessarily mean that we *SHOULD*.
The government has always been above the law.
The only time people in sufficient positions of power go to jail for crimes is when they governing body been sufficiently embarrassed by the situation they've created that they want to start over with a clean slate, and at least pretend like they never condoned whatever crime was committed Since this is determined by what the *government* actually wants, and not anything constituents may want or choose to do, there is no way that citizens can exercise any control over this.
I would expect the government to just use direct deposit.
Violent crime is not a typical use case scenario that accompanies cell phone theft, which by itself is almost always a crime of opportunity.
That doesn't tend to be the typical use case of cell phone theft at all. The vast majority of cell phone thefts are crimes of opportunity.
Hence the use of ellipses. If you don't know how to read works that use them, that's not the fault of the writer.
... with the stipulation that it cannot be further modified by me at any time after I have been diagnosed as having such dementia.
I have found, however, when one does not yet have an abundance of expierence, that having a formal education makes a significant difference to just getting by the initial filtering process.that many companies use.
Yes,,, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are actually being monitored or spied on, it only means that they COULD be... which was my point. I didn't see anywhere that it said that such spying was actually occurring.
Like I said... the day after this occurred, a new law was passed which does pretty much exactly what I was suggesting... if you have a problem with it, take it up with the state.
I wasn't suggesting that it did... only that it took an awful long time for evolution to do it... and equating that amount of time to how much you'd have to pay a worker even just one lousy dollar a day for that amount of time, it's really not very cheap.
*YOU* might... most people would not.
The point would be to make something that can utilize existing infrastructure, so there will be immediate practical application. Over time the infrastructure could change to accommodate radically different styles of robots, but that would mean waiting far longer for prices to come down because the slowness of any wide scale adoption (due to the slowness at which infrastructure changes) would cause prices to stay much the same as they started.
[nt]
Only in North America.
Everywhere else that english is spoken, the word is spelled with a 'y'
Who said that they actually were? It said that what they were doing made them to be able to do this, but nowhere that I can see does it say that is what they were actually doing.
Most places aren't fitted with such devices. The point that I was getting at is that by modelling a robot after humans you get an appliance that can, with nothing more than a software update or an installation of different software, work in all of the many different environments and use all of the same tools that humans do (or formerly did, as the process becomes increasingly automatic), obtaining an immediate practical application without requiring what can turn out to be a prohibitively costly expense to change the physical infrastructure.