...so if you believe in Chi/Qi then it's not a long step to believing in the Force.
(Though I doubt that many Jedi followers actually believe story elements such as Jedi vanishing upon death, Sith imploding, etc. Surely they don't.)
I believe in Chi because I've felt it numerous times and in different ways. You may laugh and scoff at me, but should I take other people's opinions more seriously, or my own observations? I don't pretend to know what it is, but I suspect it's simply another form of energy that science has yet to identify.
That said, I wonder how many people didn't read properly and so ticked Jedi instead of Jewish by mistake?
Well, I have seen quite many sci-fi movies, and they use pretty advanced tech, with space travel and all. And in pretty much all of those movies blaster bolts travel much slower than bullets. I'm sure you could even even dodge them if you were fast enough. Not to mention jedi who are able to ricochet blaster bolts back to the attackers with their light sabers.
Also, when finding treasure in ancient tombs it's common to use big ruby's to focus sun light into laser beams that trigger rocks to move, and it sometimes takes seconds for those light beams to reflect several times across a room, which means that the speed of light really can't be that fast, especially if they're lasers coming from big ruby's. (Unfortunately we can't study any examples, because for some reason those ancient tombs always crumble when they're visited for the first time in centuries or millenia.)
It's a soft definition: The important things in life are the things you can't do without even when you're desparate. That list will differ depending on your circumstances.
It's worth thinking about from time to time to get a better perspective and learn to appreciate what one does have.
Personally I'd prefer slow news days to be be just that. If there's little news to report, then report little news.
I'd rather be educated by few good articles that are worth reading (yes, I often read TFA) along with the interesting discussions that follow, than to spend my time skimming many poor and misleading articles trying to find the gems.
There is an upside to less knowledgeable people discussing, and that's that it becomes a sort of brainstorming, as those in the know tend to think along similar lines (even when they have differing opinions) while those who don't know often come with orthogonal ideas that the knowledgeable can convert into new constructive ideas (though admittedly that's pretty damn rare).
There are micro-organisms that live in stone. They would have survived the mining, and they might not be adverse to living in water, as long as there's enough food for them. And proliferating in water ought to be easier than proliferating in stone.
So perhaps what we're seeing are not new types of microbes.
Perhaps they're ancient life forms that have been released from the depths of the earth. (Queue dramatic music and image of intelligent sludge rising from the lake.)
Seriously though, I think that's pefectly possible.
Some posts are both funny and insightful. Some are modded troll then insightful, implying that they're probably contentious points.
I'd like to see all mod points awarded to a post. The overall scoring for the filters is fine, but I'd still prefer to see (Score: 4 Insightful, 4 Funny) rather than just (Score: 4) or (Score: 4 Funny).
...on condition that it's only ever done after careful thought, planning and testing. (Oh, I guess it won't work then.:/ )
But seriously... in Australia we could do with GM solutions like that to fight back against cane toads, imported bees, fire ants, etc., etc., etc.
The Rabbit Calicivirus has already had a massive impact on rabbits in the wild, though being a virus it's a bit more of a loose cannon than hereditary impotence, and the bunnies are now developing resistance. Personally, I like the idea of hereditary impotence as it can't spread to other spieces, and the only way that it can fail (as far as I can see) is if populations die off before spreading the mutation to other populations.
Of course, these options should only be considered in bounded areas, such continents bounded by water. Thinking that these options will limit themselves is folly. What I mean is... if you have an ant that is native to South America that has invaded North America, and the population seems to span across central America, then this kind of GM option is a bad idea, as the disease/mutation may spread from North America through to South America where it's a natural and important part of the ecology. But applying it to Australia should be fine.
Thank you. I've been busy too and seeing as you made an effort, I wanted to give this a proper read.
I see what you mean, and I agree. It's largely the way I think too.
The point seems to be that you have a different focus...
it wasn't the act of writing music, but the act of performing it that was paid.
I guess this is the sticking point for many people: That's fine for the musicians, but what about the composer?
Now the idea of a donation-based model actually does work.
So it seems. Also the idea of contracting someone to do some work happens all the time, especially in IT (another variant of noble patrons system, I suppose).
I believe that proactive co-operation (ie. symbiosis) can often be more productive than competition, and is far underutilised due to fear of competition and lack of trust. I suppose that if we did away with copyright and patents, then the only way around industrial espionage would be to invite the competition into active co-operation.
DRM on ebooks gives Amazon a great tool for locking ebook customers into the Kindle platform. If you buy a book that you can only read on the Kindle, you're naturally going to be reluctant to move to other ebook platforms that can't read those locked Kindle ebooks
Yeah, and that's DRM working as it was designed to. And it seems to be quite successful too.
the Big Six's insistence on DRM has proven to be a hideous mistake. Rather than reducing piracy[*], it has locked customers in Amazon's walled garden, which in turn increases Amazon's leverage over publishers.
Ah, so the Big Six have effectively handed over control of their DRM tool to Amazon, which of course is now leveraging that tool. What else did the Big Six expect Amazon to do?
And unlike pirated copies (which don't automatically represent lost sales) Amazon is a direct revenue threat because Amazon are have no qualms about squeezing their suppliers
Ooh, now there's irony. All that effort, all that money, all that time spent to stop "pirates"... and now they'd be better off without it at all.
I don't think this is so much a case of hindsight, but more of a case of <facepalm> given what so many people have been saying for so long against DRM. Being afraid of trying new things tends to lead to slow suffocating death, while calculated and carefully thought out risks and experimentation (in this case into other business models) can lead to greater success.
If the big six began selling ebooks without DRM, readers would at least be able to buy from other retailers and read their ebooks on whatever platform they wanted, thus eroding Amazon's monopoly position. But it's not clear that the folks in the boardrooms are agile enough to recognize the tar pit they've fallen into...
Too bad. On the other hand, it may give other smaller businesses a chance to make it big.
...and you can't force the drive to actually flush the cache to storage immediately. For the sake of efficiency, drive API's will lie about data having been being persisted.
I don't agree with alot in TFA. I see laughter as an instinct related to conquering a threat. This makes sense in several ways...
- Sounds/looks similar
You have the "Haa Haa Haa" sound combined with showing teeth, the slight arching of the back with each sound, etc.
Even a little smirk says "Heh, easy win. Barely worth my time."
- By laughing, you show that you're not afraid of the challenge set before you.
That challenge could range anywhere from a real threat to a small mind-test (ie. a joke).
- By laughing in the face of danger, you show to yourself and those around you, that you're in control.
This raises morale for both you and those around you. This is the reason why humour is so very important in dire situations. If people can laugh at a threat, then the situation doesn't seem quite as bad, and people are more able to continue their struggle against the threat.
- By laughing at jokes you show that you're clever enough to get the joke.
If the joke is too hard, then it's not funny ('cos you didn't manage to conquer it) but you might pretend to laugh just to not look stupid in front of other people. If the joke is too easy, then you won't laugh because that joke is beneath you, and trying to make you laugh at that is (almost?) an insult.
- Being able to laugh at oneself proves that one is strong enough to take criticism.
Someone who get's offended "has a problem", a weakness. But if you can laugh at yourself, then you're in control anyway.
- If you find a joke to be morally wrong then that shows that you're "not on the same page" as the joke teller.
When that happens usually one of two things happen:
1. the joke teller tries to convince you that it really was funny, and will feel insecure if you still disagree, or
2. learns that that sort of humour was overstepping accepted bounds.
This is used to help members in a group understand what's acceptable within that group. A joke is a tool for testing those bounds in a relatively safe way.
Consequences of laughter thus are:
- stress relief, whether from chasing off physical threats ("Hah! And then the little shit ran off."), simulated threats (practical jokes) or even imaginary threats (spoken jokes).
- bonding with the group, because it shows members are "of the same mind".
So what makes something funny? Well, it needs to be:
- a challenge that can be overcome, whether it's a surprise or a constant challenge (such as gaming, which is "fun")
- something within acceptable norms (though often pushing at the edge of those norms, as that makes it more challenging)
- jokes need the right timing to allow listeners just enough brain time to conquer the challenge. Too long... insult ("Boring. Come on. I'm not that slow."). Too short... frustrating ("Hey, I'm not winning here. Give me a descent chance.").
About gaming... So how does this fit in with laughter? Well, I think the driving forces are very similar. We want challenges that we can beat, and the best games are the hard fought victories. If we play socially, then all points above seem to apply. If we play alone, then all the points above, except the social ones, apply.
The reason different cultures fine different jokes funny is because of different social norms.
Perhaps the 103 word joke gives enough time to parse the situation so that one is ready for the punch line.
Hurley: Well, anytime you find yourself making an error, it’s a downer initially. The initial emotional response to any discovery of error in your understanding of the world has got to be “uh oh.” But in humor, the brain doesn’t just discover a false inference, it almost simultaneously recovers and corrects itself. It gets the joke. The pleasure of the punch line is enhanced by that split second of negativity just before the resolution.
Well, my interpretation is that after the “uh oh” moment, one sees, then understands, thus conquers. And
Geez, I found being unemployed much more stressful than having a job. At least with a job I know I'm earning my living, deserving my priveledged place in society. I think your attitude is more balanced, but I get very stressed when unemployed.
Luckily that hasn't been a problem for me for years now. (Hope I didn't just jinx it.)
I actually haven't formed an opinion on this yet, so please help me by explaining point 4 (which sounds attractive to me, because frankly, copyright can be a pain)... if someone creates an idea in this age where copying an idea takes very little effort (unlike in the past (point 11) when forgers still had to actually make physical copies and if they did a good job then they were paid for being good craftsmen), how should the original creator of today avoid missing out profiting from said creation?
If you charge/discharge once per day, then it'll last for ~1000 years. From a practical standpoint, that's everlasting. It'll probably age to bits before the cycles run out, and it will probably be superceeded before it ages to bits.
Yeah, strictly speaking "everlasting" means "lasts forever". But nothing lasts forever, so it's an acceptable approximation.
Political correctness has only one positive: People who can't think for themselves but are able to follow rules, have a baseline for good behaviour.
Aside from that, political correctness is a hindrance to free speech.
I guess what I'm saying is this:
- Free speech should always be allowed, regardless of opinion. Case closed.
- Disrespectful behaviour is bad behaviour, and bad behaviour should not be tolerated (and should never be legitimised for any reason, including free speech).
Combine the two, and you get the following...
as long as you are respectful, you should have the right to voice your honest opinion
Come to think of it, limiting our use of the internet is disrespectful to us, users. That disrespect is bad behaviour, which is why many of us are objecting. On the internet we should all be allowed to speak freely (but should do so with a degree of respect for others).
There are two kinds of rules: rules that allow you to do things, and rules that prevent you from doing things. Rules that allow you to do things, limit you. Rules that prevent you from doing things, give you freedom (of choice).
You make a very important point. (But it's too complicated for me to simply agree all up without thinking about it very carefully 1st.)
Freedom of speech should be within the bounds of respect for others (as with any kind or right/priviledge).
So in addition to your examples, freedom of speech shouldn't allow you to be offensively racist, derogotory against disabled people, disdainfully homophobic, etc.
That said, as long as you are respectful, you should have the right to voice your honest opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't you know? There are five elements.
...so if you believe in Chi/Qi then it's not a long step to believing in the Force.
(Though I doubt that many Jedi followers actually believe story elements such as Jedi vanishing upon death, Sith imploding, etc. Surely they don't.)
I believe in Chi because I've felt it numerous times and in different ways. You may laugh and scoff at me, but should I take other people's opinions more seriously, or my own observations? I don't pretend to know what it is, but I suspect it's simply another form of energy that science has yet to identify.
That said, I wonder how many people didn't read properly and so ticked Jedi instead of Jewish by mistake?
Well, I have seen quite many sci-fi movies, and they use pretty advanced tech, with space travel and all. And in pretty much all of those movies blaster bolts travel much slower than bullets. I'm sure you could even even dodge them if you were fast enough. Not to mention jedi who are able to ricochet blaster bolts back to the attackers with their light sabers.
Also, when finding treasure in ancient tombs it's common to use big ruby's to focus sun light into laser beams that trigger rocks to move, and it sometimes takes seconds for those light beams to reflect several times across a room, which means that the speed of light really can't be that fast, especially if they're lasers coming from big ruby's. (Unfortunately we can't study any examples, because for some reason those ancient tombs always crumble when they're visited for the first time in centuries or millenia.)
It's a soft definition: The important things in life are the things you can't do without even when you're desparate. That list will differ depending on your circumstances.
It's worth thinking about from time to time to get a better perspective and learn to appreciate what one does have.
Personally I'd prefer slow news days to be be just that. If there's little news to report, then report little news.
I'd rather be educated by few good articles that are worth reading (yes, I often read TFA) along with the interesting discussions that follow, than to spend my time skimming many poor and misleading articles trying to find the gems.
Then we'd have very little discussionat all. ;)
There is an upside to less knowledgeable people discussing, and that's that it becomes a sort of brainstorming, as those in the know tend to think along similar lines (even when they have differing opinions) while those who don't know often come with orthogonal ideas that the knowledgeable can convert into new constructive ideas (though admittedly that's pretty damn rare).
... just don't make them "Thin or Rectangular". Give them other shapes, such as spherical, or banana shaped or... apple shaped!!!
Of course, they might be a little tricker to use... though I'm sure it's nothing that a little maketing can't overcome.
Waddayathink? =)
There are micro-organisms that live in stone. They would have survived the mining, and they might not be adverse to living in water, as long as there's enough food for them. And proliferating in water ought to be easier than proliferating in stone.
So perhaps what we're seeing are not new types of microbes.
Perhaps they're ancient life forms that have been released from the depths of the earth. (Queue dramatic music and image of intelligent sludge rising from the lake.)
Seriously though, I think that's pefectly possible.
Quick search...
http://nanopatentsandinnovations.blogspot.com/2010/09/yummy-basalt-tasty-granite-how-microbes.html
http://www.enotes.com/science/q-and-a/there-stone-eating-bacteria-286363
Some posts are both funny and insightful. Some are modded troll then insightful, implying that they're probably contentious points.
I'd like to see all mod points awarded to a post. The overall scoring for the filters is fine, but I'd still prefer to see (Score: 4 Insightful, 4 Funny) rather than just (Score: 4) or (Score: 4 Funny).
...on condition that it's only ever done after careful thought, planning and testing. (Oh, I guess it won't work then. :/ )
But seriously... in Australia we could do with GM solutions like that to fight back against cane toads, imported bees, fire ants, etc., etc., etc.
The Rabbit Calicivirus has already had a massive impact on rabbits in the wild, though being a virus it's a bit more of a loose cannon than hereditary impotence, and the bunnies are now developing resistance.
Personally, I like the idea of hereditary impotence as it can't spread to other spieces, and the only way that it can fail (as far as I can see) is if populations die off before spreading the mutation to other populations.
Of course, these options should only be considered in bounded areas, such continents bounded by water. Thinking that these options will limit themselves is folly. What I mean is... if you have an ant that is native to South America that has invaded North America, and the population seems to span across central America, then this kind of GM option is a bad idea, as the disease/mutation may spread from North America through to South America where it's a natural and important part of the ecology. But applying it to Australia should be fine.
Thank you. I've been busy too and seeing as you made an effort, I wanted to give this a proper read.
I see what you mean, and I agree. It's largely the way I think too.
The point seems to be that you have a different focus...
it wasn't the act of writing music, but the act of performing it that was paid.
I guess this is the sticking point for many people: That's fine for the musicians, but what about the composer?
Now the idea of a donation-based model actually does work.
So it seems. Also the idea of contracting someone to do some work happens all the time, especially in IT (another variant of noble patrons system, I suppose).
I believe that proactive co-operation (ie. symbiosis) can often be more productive than competition, and is far underutilised due to fear of competition and lack of trust. I suppose that if we did away with copyright and patents, then the only way around industrial espionage would be to invite the competition into active co-operation.
That would lead to a whole new world of business.
DRM on ebooks gives Amazon a great tool for locking ebook customers into the Kindle platform. If you buy a book that you can only read on the Kindle, you're naturally going to be reluctant to move to other ebook platforms that can't read those locked Kindle ebooks
Yeah, and that's DRM working as it was designed to. And it seems to be quite successful too.
the Big Six's insistence on DRM has proven to be a hideous mistake. Rather than reducing piracy[*], it has locked customers in Amazon's walled garden, which in turn increases Amazon's leverage over publishers.
Ah, so the Big Six have effectively handed over control of their DRM tool to Amazon, which of course is now leveraging that tool. What else did the Big Six expect Amazon to do?
And unlike pirated copies (which don't automatically represent lost sales) Amazon is a direct revenue threat because Amazon are have no qualms about squeezing their suppliers
Ooh, now there's irony. All that effort, all that money, all that time spent to stop "pirates"... and now they'd be better off without it at all.
I don't think this is so much a case of hindsight, but more of a case of <facepalm> given what so many people have been saying for so long against DRM. Being afraid of trying new things tends to lead to slow suffocating death, while calculated and carefully thought out risks and experimentation (in this case into other business models) can lead to greater success.
If the big six began selling ebooks without DRM, readers would at least be able to buy from other retailers and read their ebooks on whatever platform they wanted, thus eroding Amazon's monopoly position. But it's not clear that the folks in the boardrooms are agile enough to recognize the tar pit they've fallen into ...
Too bad. On the other hand, it may give other smaller businesses a chance to make it big.
...and you can't force the drive to actually flush the cache to storage immediately. For the sake of efficiency, drive API's will lie about data having been being persisted.
...sex in the garden then, with spy drones flying about the neighbourhood.
Germanic, so close. x)
I don't agree with alot in TFA. I see laughter as an instinct related to conquering a threat. This makes sense in several ways...
- Sounds/looks similar
You have the "Haa Haa Haa" sound combined with showing teeth, the slight arching of the back with each sound, etc.
Even a little smirk says "Heh, easy win. Barely worth my time."
- By laughing, you show that you're not afraid of the challenge set before you.
That challenge could range anywhere from a real threat to a small mind-test (ie. a joke).
- By laughing in the face of danger, you show to yourself and those around you, that you're in control.
This raises morale for both you and those around you. This is the reason why humour is so very important in dire situations. If people can laugh at a threat, then the situation doesn't seem quite as bad, and people are more able to continue their struggle against the threat.
- By laughing at jokes you show that you're clever enough to get the joke.
If the joke is too hard, then it's not funny ('cos you didn't manage to conquer it) but you might pretend to laugh just to not look stupid in front of other people. If the joke is too easy, then you won't laugh because that joke is beneath you, and trying to make you laugh at that is (almost?) an insult.
- Being able to laugh at oneself proves that one is strong enough to take criticism.
Someone who get's offended "has a problem", a weakness. But if you can laugh at yourself, then you're in control anyway.
- If you find a joke to be morally wrong then that shows that you're "not on the same page" as the joke teller.
When that happens usually one of two things happen:
1. the joke teller tries to convince you that it really was funny, and will feel insecure if you still disagree, or
2. learns that that sort of humour was overstepping accepted bounds.
This is used to help members in a group understand what's acceptable within that group. A joke is a tool for testing those bounds in a relatively safe way.
Consequences of laughter thus are:
- stress relief, whether from chasing off physical threats ("Hah! And then the little shit ran off."), simulated threats (practical jokes) or even imaginary threats (spoken jokes).
- bonding with the group, because it shows members are "of the same mind".
So what makes something funny? Well, it needs to be:
- a challenge that can be overcome, whether it's a surprise or a constant challenge (such as gaming, which is "fun")
- something within acceptable norms (though often pushing at the edge of those norms, as that makes it more challenging)
- jokes need the right timing to allow listeners just enough brain time to conquer the challenge. Too long... insult ("Boring. Come on. I'm not that slow."). Too short... frustrating ("Hey, I'm not winning here. Give me a descent chance.").
About gaming... So how does this fit in with laughter? Well, I think the driving forces are very similar. We want challenges that we can beat, and the best games are the hard fought victories. If we play socially, then all points above seem to apply. If we play alone, then all the points above, except the social ones, apply.
The reason different cultures fine different jokes funny is because of different social norms.
Perhaps the 103 word joke gives enough time to parse the situation so that one is ready for the punch line.
Hurley: Well, anytime you find yourself making an error, it’s a downer initially. The initial emotional response to any discovery of error in your understanding of the world has got to be “uh oh.” But in humor, the brain doesn’t just discover a false inference, it almost simultaneously recovers and corrects itself. It gets the joke. The pleasure of the punch line is enhanced by that split second of negativity just before the resolution.
Well, my interpretation is that after the “uh oh” moment, one sees, then understands, thus conquers. And
Geez, I found being unemployed much more stressful than having a job. At least with a job I know I'm earning my living, deserving my priveledged place in society. I think your attitude is more balanced, but I get very stressed when unemployed.
Luckily that hasn't been a problem for me for years now. (Hope I didn't just jinx it.)
Freedom is not doing whatever you like, freedom is the absence of oppression.
If everyone understood that, and understood respect (for self and for others) then our world would be much less dysfunctional.
(In short: Yes, I agree with you.)
I actually haven't formed an opinion on this yet, so please help me by explaining point 4 (which sounds attractive to me, because frankly, copyright can be a pain)... if someone creates an idea in this age where copying an idea takes very little effort (unlike in the past (point 11) when forgers still had to actually make physical copies and if they did a good job then they were paid for being good craftsmen), how should the original creator of today avoid missing out profiting from said creation?
If you charge/discharge once per day, then it'll last for ~1000 years. From a practical standpoint, that's everlasting. It'll probably age to bits before the cycles run out, and it will probably be superceeded before it ages to bits.
Yeah, strictly speaking "everlasting" means "lasts forever". But nothing lasts forever, so it's an acceptable approximation.
Agreed.
Political correctness has only one positive: People who can't think for themselves but are able to follow rules, have a baseline for good behaviour.
Aside from that, political correctness is a hindrance to free speech.
I guess what I'm saying is this:
- Free speech should always be allowed, regardless of opinion. Case closed.
- Disrespectful behaviour is bad behaviour, and bad behaviour should not be tolerated (and should never be legitimised for any reason, including free speech).
Combine the two, and you get the following...
as long as you are respectful, you should have the right to voice your honest opinion
Come to think of it, limiting our use of the internet is disrespectful to us, users. That disrespect is bad behaviour, which is why many of us are objecting. On the internet we should all be allowed to speak freely (but should do so with a degree of respect for others).
(Anyway, that's just my opinion.)
Pity you didn't bold the "offensive" words. I can't identify most of them.
But... idiot and moron are medical terms for very low IQ. (Or at least they were.)
There are two kinds of rules: rules that allow you to do things, and rules that prevent you from doing things. Rules that allow you to do things, limit you. Rules that prevent you from doing things, give you freedom (of choice).
You make a very important point. (But it's too complicated for me to simply agree all up without thinking about it very carefully 1st.)
Freedom of speech should be within the bounds of respect for others (as with any kind or right/priviledge).
So in addition to your examples, freedom of speech shouldn't allow you to be offensively racist, derogotory against disabled people, disdainfully homophobic, etc.
That said, as long as you are respectful, you should have the right to voice your honest opinion.