I'd like to point out there are more ways to experience a character than directly seeing them.
Alyx Vance belongs on that list as well. As much as Gordon has done to save and protect her, she's done the same for Gordon and others. Judith Mossman would qualify as well though is a much more minor character.
The entire discussion is just mutual intellectual masturbation for nerds. The article seems to be deliberately trying to confuse two completely separate issues.
Regarding manufacturing or space exploration it really comes down to a metric of reliability which applies to any tool robotic or not. The question is "will this tool reliably perform it's function and is the likelyhood of it breaking or failing sufficiently low for my task?" Caring for children or the elderly is a touchier subject only because the "users" are not professionals equipped for handling the robots, the robots are expected to care for the users.
Mentioning "uncanny valley" has less to do with robots and more to do with "can we airbrush a foam rubber puppet and move it convincingly enough to trick a human into emotionally bonding with it". The article tries to touch on the potential psychological consequences to allowing people to bond with robots but that is less about the robot and more about the puppet. We see the same bonding between children and stuffed toys or adults and Real Dolls, no transistors needed.
All in all, just a fun opportunity for people to regurgitate the wikipedia summaries of popular sci-fi titles.
You are correct if you are referring to rational numbers. A fraction in the most general sense need not be comprised of two integers, for instance SQRT(2) / 2 is a fraction.
I never said not to, but destroy the cancer NOT the patient. In the portion of my post you quoted all I said was that letting "too big to fail" businesses fail doesn't achieve punishing the executives responsible.
I guarantee you that those people running FAILED banks will never work again(except at McDonalds)
The "Fuck-em" philosophy certainly feels good, but the results will rarely match the fantasy. Do you really picture some bank executive walking away sobbing and destitute when the bank crumbles? Even without further employment these people will be wealthy their entire lives. Even with the ability to 'raid their trust funds' or other monetary penalties, do you really believe that the wealthy don't know how to hide their money?
The other thing I think people tend to neglect in these fantasy scenarios is the identity of these employees and customers who absorb the brunt of the punishment. It's easy to keep a straight face when they are just some faceless peon or if one has the machismo to say "I wouldn't like it either, but that would be tough luck for me!". What if it were your grandmother's life savings? What about your child's tuition fund?
I don't like rewarding bad behavior any more than anyone else but the time to get tough is NOT during the disaster, but well before it!
"The experiment was conducted both outdoors under the night sky, and inside a planetarium where researchers could manipulate the starlight and hone in on the specific cues that the dung beetles were using."
Scientist: "We'd like to use the planitarium for some exciting research! We'll need to bring in some beetles and some fresh elephant dun...."
Planitarium Curator: "No."
Scientist: "I can understand, but we'll make sure that..."
Curator: "No."
Scientist: "You didn't let me fin..."
Curator: "Get out.... And don't touch anything!"
And the sad thing is that in all likelyhood raising the threshold will just filter out more of the reasonable petitions in favor of the pop-culture distractions and other bat shit crazy petitions.
My greatest fear would be biological immortality coupled with the inability to take my own life if and when I should so choose. Could you imagine if a person like this was born into some fanatic religious sect? She'd be seen as some sort of diety or messenger from god.
but I think your point will go unnoticed by most of the people you are targeting, which is a shame.
I thought about it for a moment and upon reflection... I'm comfortable with that;)
People who got the joke enjoyed a slight grin.
People who didn't get the joke felt a sense of comfort in being validated.
And the people who got the joke enjoyed a slightly wider grin.
And no, I'm not just targeting politics with that comment. Perhaps we all are drawn to that mentality as we get older. I for one look forward to the day when some young coder calls me out on a genuine flaw in my work. When he or she regains consciousness I hope to shake their hand for showing me that as mature as I think I am, I still have more to learn.
Imagine if you entered a contest to make the best pumpkin pie and for your entry win the prize for best chicken soup. If I point out that I intended to make a pie I risk walking away with a ribbon that says "Participant". I think I'll take my +5 Insightful and go home and eat my... well whatever this is.
As I get older, I gain more experience and hence believe that my opinions carry more weight. Since me and my close knit group of similarly aged friends agree with me it stands to reason that what I have come to believe now is in fact correct and that others who disagree with me are simply immature.
This is one of those topics of an almost religious fanatacism but I tend to agree. I want my braces to match in the same column and have an easier time looking at code with vertical spaces between blocks of related operations. Functions should still be short enough that they fit on a modern screen (with rare exceptions).
The whole concept of self-documenting code irks me too. Too often programmers use it as an excuse for not writing comments at all. Of course the code should be written clearly enough to the point where you don't need the comments to understand how the code will execute, but I don't think you should count on that as showing what and why that block of related operations is doing what it does. Comments can certainly be overused and underused and while commenting every single line is absurd in most cases, not commenting under the umbrella of "self-documenting" code can be detrimental as well.
The moment we come to the conclusion that willpower isn't enough... it isn't.
Besides, I didn't argue that willpower is _always_ enough, I only argued that the perspective conveyed by the slogan is self defeating. I'm trying to argue that we stop framing the debate such that a person has a set amount of willpower and when it is exhausted they are defeated. Willpower can be improved like anything else and I argue that we look at willpower as a quality that with sufficient improvement will overcome the challenge.
You can treat obesity by looking for ways to give people the strength to improve themselves or you can make a machine to pump their stomach. One treats the problem at the root, the other treats the symptom. One leaves the person with the strength to confront personal challenges, the other leaves them with a bag of puke. I realize that the choice between the two is a matter of opinion, and so rather than impose my will any further I'll allow the reader to choose for themselves.
And what you describe is the tougher problem to face in the short term, but with the most potential gain in the long term. When I think of the challenges my grandparents faced in their lives I'm always overwelmed at the sheer amount of willpower they displayed in overcoming their obstacles. The human capacity for willpower is astounding and yes, sometimes ones willpower comes up short but that breaking point is a far higher mark than I think people even give themselves credit for. Sometimes we need help from others in order to do so, but I strongly believe that it is within everyones power to make an improvement in their lives.
The slogan "willpower is not enough" needs to go. Willpower is not enough to safely stop a speeding train or divert a tornado. Willpower _is_ enough to put down a fork. Whether a person presently has enough willpower to do so is another question but of the many challenges in life that fundamentally cannot be met by willpower alone, dieting is not one of them.
If we must make a machine or a pill to solve the problem of obesity then make a pill to increase willpower (or perhaps a magic ring? jk). Even without pills or magic, willpower can be improved upon. I argue that we rephrase the discussion: Willpower is enough to solve this problem, how can we each obtain the willpower to overcome it?
Originally people in my office were allowed to use their own personal laptops and PCs till the day came when they banned all personally owned computer equipment from the office. I can only speculate, but I think it had to do with some instances of serious corporate policy violations that would have been discovered sooner or even prevented had they occured on machines under company control. It never went quite as far as personally owned smart phones but given that there have been a few key indicents that involved personal smart phones additional prohibitions could certainly be in the future.
Should they have wrenched her arm out of her shoulder joint in order to get the other cuff on?
If it were up to me? I'd have all the officers trained in WWF style submission moves. This shifts the public debate from excessive force to critique of wrestling technique.
Where was god sitting when he created everything, including himself?
Where was the primeval atom sitting when it created everything, including itself?
I have asked both types of people, and they both give me the same hand-wavey answer.
The correct answer is that we don't know. It's ok not to know. Without evidence all we can do is hypothesize. We have no theory without reproducible and objective observations and models that account for those observations.
When humans attempt to fill gaps in understanding with non-falsifiable speculation and heresay it impedes a more careful and rigorous investigation into that subject. Theists and non-theists alike are guilty of this. All forms of human thought are fallible and therefore a useful property of any approach meant to heighten our understanding of the world is to treat no idea as immutable or sacred. People of faith as well as scientists have been guilty of attempting to hold their beliefs and ideas above all reproach or scrutiny. It is reasonable to defend your ideas or assertions... to the extent the evidence supports.
Slashdot Mirror
Chell in Portal (though you almost never see her)
I'd like to point out there are more ways to experience a character than directly seeing them.
Alyx Vance belongs on that list as well. As much as Gordon has done to save and protect her, she's done the same for Gordon and others. Judith Mossman would qualify as well though is a much more minor character.
The entire discussion is just mutual intellectual masturbation for nerds. The article seems to be deliberately trying to confuse two completely separate issues.
Regarding manufacturing or space exploration it really comes down to a metric of reliability which applies to any tool robotic or not. The question is "will this tool reliably perform it's function and is the likelyhood of it breaking or failing sufficiently low for my task?" Caring for children or the elderly is a touchier subject only because the "users" are not professionals equipped for handling the robots, the robots are expected to care for the users.
Mentioning "uncanny valley" has less to do with robots and more to do with "can we airbrush a foam rubber puppet and move it convincingly enough to trick a human into emotionally bonding with it". The article tries to touch on the potential psychological consequences to allowing people to bond with robots but that is less about the robot and more about the puppet. We see the same bonding between children and stuffed toys or adults and Real Dolls, no transistors needed.
All in all, just a fun opportunity for people to regurgitate the wikipedia summaries of popular sci-fi titles.
It's not a choice, it's a chimera!
You are correct if you are referring to rational numbers. A fraction in the most general sense need not be comprised of two integers, for instance SQRT(2) / 2 is a fraction.
I never said not to, but destroy the cancer NOT the patient. In the portion of my post you quoted all I said was that letting "too big to fail" businesses fail doesn't achieve punishing the executives responsible.
I guarantee you that those people running FAILED banks will never work again(except at McDonalds)
The "Fuck-em" philosophy certainly feels good, but the results will rarely match the fantasy. Do you really picture some bank executive walking away sobbing and destitute when the bank crumbles? Even without further employment these people will be wealthy their entire lives. Even with the ability to 'raid their trust funds' or other monetary penalties, do you really believe that the wealthy don't know how to hide their money?
The other thing I think people tend to neglect in these fantasy scenarios is the identity of these employees and customers who absorb the brunt of the punishment. It's easy to keep a straight face when they are just some faceless peon or if one has the machismo to say "I wouldn't like it either, but that would be tough luck for me!". What if it were your grandmother's life savings? What about your child's tuition fund?
I don't like rewarding bad behavior any more than anyone else but the time to get tough is NOT during the disaster, but well before it!
And just as the cremulator starts running the spirit of Mr. Dickson will appear, gazing upon it briefly before looking up with a smile.
Don't breath this!
"The experiment was conducted both outdoors under the night sky, and inside a planetarium where researchers could manipulate the starlight and hone in on the specific cues that the dung beetles were using."
... And don't touch anything!"
Scientist: "We'd like to use the planitarium for some exciting research! We'll need to bring in some beetles and some fresh elephant dun...."
Planitarium Curator: "No."
Scientist: "I can understand, but we'll make sure that..."
Curator: "No."
Scientist: "You didn't let me fin..."
Curator: "Get out.
And the sad thing is that in all likelyhood raising the threshold will just filter out more of the reasonable petitions in favor of the pop-culture distractions and other bat shit crazy petitions.
My greatest fear would be biological immortality coupled with the inability to take my own life if and when I should so choose. Could you imagine if a person like this was born into some fanatic religious sect? She'd be seen as some sort of diety or messenger from god.
but I think your point will go unnoticed by most of the people you are targeting, which is a shame.
I thought about it for a moment and upon reflection... I'm comfortable with that ;)
People who got the joke enjoyed a slight grin.
People who didn't get the joke felt a sense of comfort in being validated.
And the people who got the joke enjoyed a slightly wider grin.
And no, I'm not just targeting politics with that comment. Perhaps we all are drawn to that mentality as we get older. I for one look forward to the day when some young coder calls me out on a genuine flaw in my work. When he or she regains consciousness I hope to shake their hand for showing me that as mature as I think I am, I still have more to learn.
Imagine if you entered a contest to make the best pumpkin pie and for your entry win the prize for best chicken soup. If I point out that I intended to make a pie I risk walking away with a ribbon that says "Participant". I think I'll take my +5 Insightful and go home and eat my... well whatever this is.
As I get older, I gain more experience and hence believe that my opinions carry more weight. Since me and my close knit group of similarly aged friends agree with me it stands to reason that what I have come to believe now is in fact correct and that others who disagree with me are simply immature.
This is one of those topics of an almost religious fanatacism but I tend to agree. I want my braces to match in the same column and have an easier time looking at code with vertical spaces between blocks of related operations. Functions should still be short enough that they fit on a modern screen (with rare exceptions).
The whole concept of self-documenting code irks me too. Too often programmers use it as an excuse for not writing comments at all. Of course the code should be written clearly enough to the point where you don't need the comments to understand how the code will execute, but I don't think you should count on that as showing what and why that block of related operations is doing what it does. Comments can certainly be overused and underused and while commenting every single line is absurd in most cases, not commenting under the umbrella of "self-documenting" code can be detrimental as well.
Replying to cancel my erroneous negative moderation.
The moment we come to the conclusion that willpower isn't enough... it isn't.
Besides, I didn't argue that willpower is _always_ enough, I only argued that the perspective conveyed by the slogan is self defeating. I'm trying to argue that we stop framing the debate such that a person has a set amount of willpower and when it is exhausted they are defeated. Willpower can be improved like anything else and I argue that we look at willpower as a quality that with sufficient improvement will overcome the challenge.
You can treat obesity by looking for ways to give people the strength to improve themselves or you can make a machine to pump their stomach. One treats the problem at the root, the other treats the symptom. One leaves the person with the strength to confront personal challenges, the other leaves them with a bag of puke. I realize that the choice between the two is a matter of opinion, and so rather than impose my will any further I'll allow the reader to choose for themselves.
And what you describe is the tougher problem to face in the short term, but with the most potential gain in the long term. When I think of the challenges my grandparents faced in their lives I'm always overwelmed at the sheer amount of willpower they displayed in overcoming their obstacles. The human capacity for willpower is astounding and yes, sometimes ones willpower comes up short but that breaking point is a far higher mark than I think people even give themselves credit for. Sometimes we need help from others in order to do so, but I strongly believe that it is within everyones power to make an improvement in their lives.
The slogan "willpower is not enough" needs to go. Willpower is not enough to safely stop a speeding train or divert a tornado. Willpower _is_ enough to put down a fork. Whether a person presently has enough willpower to do so is another question but of the many challenges in life that fundamentally cannot be met by willpower alone, dieting is not one of them.
If we must make a machine or a pill to solve the problem of obesity then make a pill to increase willpower (or perhaps a magic ring? jk). Even without pills or magic, willpower can be improved upon. I argue that we rephrase the discussion: Willpower is enough to solve this problem, how can we each obtain the willpower to overcome it?
These guys aren't going to whack themselves.
Why not? It's a great way to relieve tension.
Originally people in my office were allowed to use their own personal laptops and PCs till the day came when they banned all personally owned computer equipment from the office. I can only speculate, but I think it had to do with some instances of serious corporate policy violations that would have been discovered sooner or even prevented had they occured on machines under company control. It never went quite as far as personally owned smart phones but given that there have been a few key indicents that involved personal smart phones additional prohibitions could certainly be in the future.
You are referring to pantheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism and no, not all religions adopt this belief, Catholocism amongst them. You are engaging in a "no true Scotsman" argument where your critics are wrong because they don't accept your "one true definition". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
And therefore, the Higgs Boson is made of wood and hence A WITCH!!!
Should they have wrenched her arm out of her shoulder joint in order to get the other cuff on?
If it were up to me? I'd have all the officers trained in WWF style submission moves. This shifts the public debate from excessive force to critique of wrestling technique.
I'm sure they opened the door of the police cruiser for her. Is that not chivalrous enough?
Where was god sitting when he created everything, including himself?
Where was the primeval atom sitting when it created everything, including itself?
I have asked both types of people, and they both give me the same hand-wavey answer.
The correct answer is that we don't know. It's ok not to know. Without evidence all we can do is hypothesize. We have no theory without reproducible and objective observations and models that account for those observations.
When humans attempt to fill gaps in understanding with non-falsifiable speculation and heresay it impedes a more careful and rigorous investigation into that subject. Theists and non-theists alike are guilty of this. All forms of human thought are fallible and therefore a useful property of any approach meant to heighten our understanding of the world is to treat no idea as immutable or sacred. People of faith as well as scientists have been guilty of attempting to hold their beliefs and ideas above all reproach or scrutiny. It is reasonable to defend your ideas or assertions... to the extent the evidence supports.