The firm's philosophy is simple. If it looks intelligent and it sounds intelligence, then it must be intelligent.
Interesting definition of intelligence. What's more interesting is that it's fundamentally based on a leap of faith. i.e. the belief that human brains function simply as extremely complicated machines doing NAND/NOR operations. Or to put it another way, that they are simply deterministic machines, the same as computers.
While this belief might make for interesting science-fiction, (Transfer my "consciousness" into an android body), the scientific proof for it is about as strong as the scientific evidence for the soul. Not very. Of course that doesn't mean that it isn't true, or that the soul doesn't exist, but tt's disturbing how so few people recognise that.
Apparently even citytel.net up in Prince Rupert which has absolutely ZERO competition prices their residential HSI at $44.95 per month. see here: http://www.citytel.net/internet/rates/indexi.html
really? I certainly hope they don't pay much for those so called "services". Of all the people I know who use Shaw, I'm the only one who uses even part of their services, and that's just their TV guide which, despite it's insistence on setting a cookie that stores my name & location. (Vancouver), still serves up the TV schedule with Ontario's time zone.
So if excite@home goes under, does that mean large chunks of Canada will only have one broadband ISP? (Telus in BC & Alberta as both Shaw & Rogers networks are part of excite@home).
If so, will Telus (or whoever it is in your province) leave broadband at $40CDN a month? Are the rumors that they're required by the government to keep it that low really true?
And even more importantly. Do we get to keep our cable modems?;)
I realise that the degree of complexity is difficult to measure, my point was that it's difficult to say "Now this thing is complex".
Also, of course believing that humans are non-deterministic is a stance that relies on faith. I didn't say otherwise. I simply said that that believing human beings are deterministic relies on faith. That statement does not rely on faith. It is a fact.
I assume you're not flamebait, so I'll explain. We're talking about consciousness in the sentience/soul sense of the word, not in the awake sense of the word. I would have thought that was bleedingly obvious.
Considering that's at the centre of the stem cell/ abortion debate, I'd have thought you could have figured it out.
now that is a good point. either you believe in the concept of the soul or you believe that human "consciousness" is nothing more than the sum of the physical states of the brain/body. that leads to the inescapable conclusion that rights are relative, not absolute. meaning that animals such as chimps have some, and more than a rabbit. (Assuming rights stem from "consciousness".
The only problem I see with that stance is how to escape the conclusion that some humans have more rights than others, due to their consciousness being "superior".
Any thoughts?
Although this is sort of moot for me as I do believe in the concept of the soul, and that human beings are non-deterministic creatures.
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, not in the object being beheld, so it's no good as a definition of "sentience".
More to the point, you seem to be making the unproven assumption that human beings are 100% deterministic, but so complex that they appear non-deterministic. An interesting theory, but one that must be taken on faith alone...
because he sees human beings as being more than a collection of cells. You appear to be operating on the premise that human beings are the sum of their physical parts. I doubt that the person you're replying to holds the same assumption.
Being pro-choice, I wouldn't object if a woman chose to do this herself, but I wouldn't encourage the creation of a market for it.
Why not? If fetuses are not human beings, why not make them a marketable item? If they're not human, why would it be morally wrong for a woman to accept money to get pregnant and have an abortion? WHY NOT?
The problem is that you can't really define consciousness. What is it? Is it your soul? Your brain? Your intelligence? Many people equate consciousness with intelligence. The problem with this is that that means that some people have more consciousness than others. It ceases to be a discrete object, either there or not there. Do those with more of it have more rights?
It's bad enough my tax dollars are not going towards a balls-out effort in stem cell research because of anachronistic beliefs in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy and Souls Imbued Into Tissue At Conception.
Now this is really pathetic. Five posts into the discussion (browsing at +1) and you had to sink to level of making cheap shots at someone's religious convictions. Is that the extent of your intelect? If so, you're pathetic.
The argument around stem cell research is fundamentally based on the question of when life begins. To illustrate, consider this: If there were a type of cell only found in 8 year olds, that held amazing promise is curing terrible diseases, but extracting them killed the child, would we extract them? Clearly not because the price of the cure is too high because 8 year olds are considered human by everybody.
However, not everybody agrees on the question of whether or not fetuses are human. Now, they either are, or they are not. Regardless of what you or I think, one position is correct and the other false.
There is no easy resolution on the horizon, so what do we do? We try to come up with a solution that a large majority can agree on. The President's decision is a good one because it allows stem cell research to some degree, but it can be accepted by pro-lifers, because it does not encourage abortion.
People need to give up the idea that you can get everything you want on a polarized subject.
Now for an offtopic discussion around abortion...
The question of when something becomes human is essentially the same as the fallacy of the beard. For those of you who don't know, the fallacy of the beard is like this. One whisker is not a beard, neither is two. So how may whiskers are needed? 10,000? What about 9,995?
To carry this over to abortion: Conception seems counter-intuitive for the beginning of human life, but birth is equally so. (I mean, what changed between 5 seconds after my birth and 5 seconds before).
I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. The government of China is not friendly to the west, or to citizens of China who disagree with it's policies. (The last is a HUGE understatement).
I would have thought it was obvious though, considering that most if not all of the complaints about China that I have read on/. apply to the government of China. But perhaps explicit is the name of the game here.
As for communism being THE NUMBER ONE materialistic ideology, I suppose you could make a case for that, but here's a counterpoint. Communism, (at least in principle) is linked with socialism and socialism is primarily concerned with helping all members of society. Not with simply getting ahead yourself. (Remember, the USSR was the way ahead of Europe and NA in giving women the vote). Capitalism is concerned only with the personal aquisition of capital. Other people are irrelevant.
But regardless, my point was not to defend communism. My major point is that the west should not be complicit in the reprehensible actions of the Chinese government, by trading with them as though nothing was wrong. This won't destabalize China, but at least we won't be helping a murderous regime.
I mean, just because you can't stop someone from beating people up doesn't mean you should sell him a baseball bat.
I would have thought it was obvious. By taking your statement and inserting applying a different group I am attempting to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to say that China "Simply has a different standard of morality".
Fact is that whether we publicly accept it or not, we all believe in some objective standard of morality that everyone should be held. That objective standard contains things like "molesting children is bad", "forcing sexual intercourse on a woman is bad", "killing people for fun is bad" and of course "killing or imprisoning people who don't agree with you is bad". (In case it's not obvious, the last one applies to China).
Now it is beyond our power to force China to change. But we can still declare that what China does is wrong and that we will not support it. And unless we want to be complicit in China's behaviour, we have to.
When will the western world figure out that China is not a friendly country.
It is a country that does not subscribe to any of the west's positive ideals. (Tolerance of difference, dissent, freedom of thought, religion, expression). In fact it appears that China has shrugged off communism merely to embrace the west's worst ideal. Materialism.
It's been said before, but we should keep saying it until something changes: Why does China have "most favoured nation" trading status with the United States? The west (ie. the US) should give that status only to its friends, and it should only make friends with countries that believe in and implement democratic and tolerant ideals. It should remain cordial with countries that don't, but it shouldn't climb into bed with them.
I'll take your word for it that Canada Post has a profit, but that doesn't change the fact that their service stinks. The US Postal Service is undeniably superior. (Actually the Brit postal service is better as well). I want the post to deliver mail quickly and deliver it as frequently as possible. It doesn't do that.
As for the CBC... well that definately isn't turning a profit.
As for your nasty name-calling, grow up! You merely make yourself look bad when you name-call. How would I look if I said... "nothing like a loonie leftist with an agenda. Go Hang out with your buddie, the right honourable Lord Jean Poutine, master of all he surveys..."
Business cultures are of course very different, but why say its worse ? (there's a negative tone in such statements and the one quoted above).
Which one produces a superior product? That's the superior business culture. The fact of the matter is that some economic systems are downright inferior. This is business, not race-relations.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting definition of intelligence. What's more interesting is that it's fundamentally based on a leap of faith. i.e. the belief that human brains function simply as extremely complicated machines doing NAND/NOR operations. Or to put it another way, that they are simply deterministic machines, the same as computers.
While this belief might make for interesting science-fiction, (Transfer my "consciousness" into an android body), the scientific proof for it is about as strong as the scientific evidence for the soul. Not very. Of course that doesn't mean that it isn't true, or that the soul doesn't exist, but tt's disturbing how so few people recognise that.
Apparently even citytel.net up in Prince Rupert which has absolutely ZERO competition prices their residential HSI at $44.95 per month. see here: http://www.citytel.net/internet/rates/indexi.html
really? I certainly hope they don't pay much for those so called "services". Of all the people I know who use Shaw, I'm the only one who uses even part of their services, and that's just their TV guide which, despite it's insistence on setting a cookie that stores my name & location. (Vancouver), still serves up the TV schedule with Ontario's time zone.
that would be a warehouse. or did you mean a werhouse. a person who transforms into a house during the full moon?
So if excite@home goes under, does that mean large chunks of Canada will only have one broadband ISP? (Telus in BC & Alberta as both Shaw & Rogers networks are part of excite@home).
;)
If so, will Telus (or whoever it is in your province) leave broadband at $40CDN a month? Are the rumors that they're required by the government to keep it that low really true?
And even more importantly. Do we get to keep our cable modems?
yeah, and then we'd be really off-topic. Too bad.
The fact is that the only belief system that doesn't depend on faith is agnosticism. Atheism is a religious conviction.
Also, of course believing that humans are non-deterministic is a stance that relies on faith. I didn't say otherwise. I simply said that that believing human beings are deterministic relies on faith. That statement does not rely on faith. It is a fact.
Considering that's at the centre of the stem cell/ abortion debate, I'd have thought you could have figured it out.
The only problem I see with that stance is how to escape the conclusion that some humans have more rights than others, due to their consciousness being "superior".
Any thoughts?
Although this is sort of moot for me as I do believe in the concept of the soul, and that human beings are non-deterministic creatures.
Complexity is in the eye of the beholder, not in the object being beheld, so it's no good as a definition of "sentience".
More to the point, you seem to be making the unproven assumption that human beings are 100% deterministic, but so complex that they appear non-deterministic. An interesting theory, but one that must be taken on faith alone...
genetic variation. Stem cells have DNA of course. I understand that there is some advantage to having greater variety in the DNA or your stem cells.
Why not? If fetuses are not human beings, why not make them a marketable item? If they're not human, why would it be morally wrong for a woman to accept money to get pregnant and have an abortion? WHY NOT?
Off topic, but the best opionion I've ever seen on abortion is at http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95sep/abortion/a bortion.htm
Now this is really pathetic. Five posts into the discussion (browsing at +1) and you had to sink to level of making cheap shots at someone's religious convictions. Is that the extent of your intelect? If so, you're pathetic.
The argument around stem cell research is fundamentally based on the question of when life begins. To illustrate, consider this: If there were a type of cell only found in 8 year olds, that held amazing promise is curing terrible diseases, but extracting them killed the child, would we extract them? Clearly not because the price of the cure is too high because 8 year olds are considered human by everybody.
However, not everybody agrees on the question of whether or not fetuses are human. Now, they either are, or they are not. Regardless of what you or I think, one position is correct and the other false.
There is no easy resolution on the horizon, so what do we do? We try to come up with a solution that a large majority can agree on. The President's decision is a good one because it allows stem cell research to some degree, but it can be accepted by pro-lifers, because it does not encourage abortion.
People need to give up the idea that you can get everything you want on a polarized subject.
Now for an offtopic discussion around abortion...
The question of when something becomes human is essentially the same as the fallacy of the beard. For those of you who don't know, the fallacy of the beard is like this. One whisker is not a beard, neither is two. So how may whiskers are needed? 10,000? What about 9,995?
To carry this over to abortion: Conception seems counter-intuitive for the beginning of human life, but birth is equally so. (I mean, what changed between 5 seconds after my birth and 5 seconds before).
that'd more accurately be "Rumble in Vancouver". That's where the movie was filmed.
I would have thought it was obvious though, considering that most if not all of the complaints about China that I have read on /. apply to the government of China. But perhaps explicit is the name of the game here.
As for communism being THE NUMBER ONE materialistic ideology, I suppose you could make a case for that, but here's a counterpoint. Communism, (at least in principle) is linked with socialism and socialism is primarily concerned with helping all members of society. Not with simply getting ahead yourself. (Remember, the USSR was the way ahead of Europe and NA in giving women the vote). Capitalism is concerned only with the personal aquisition of capital. Other people are irrelevant.
But regardless, my point was not to defend communism. My major point is that the west should not be complicit in the reprehensible actions of the Chinese government, by trading with them as though nothing was wrong. This won't destabalize China, but at least we won't be helping a murderous regime.
I mean, just because you can't stop someone from beating people up doesn't mean you should sell him a baseball bat.
Fact is that whether we publicly accept it or not, we all believe in some objective standard of morality that everyone should be held. That objective standard contains things like "molesting children is bad", "forcing sexual intercourse on a woman is bad", "killing people for fun is bad" and of course "killing or imprisoning people who don't agree with you is bad". (In case it's not obvious, the last one applies to China).
Now it is beyond our power to force China to change. But we can still declare that what China does is wrong and that we will not support it. And unless we want to be complicit in China's behaviour, we have to.
rapists aren't bad... they just have a different sense of morality...
It is a country that does not subscribe to any of the west's positive ideals. (Tolerance of difference, dissent, freedom of thought, religion, expression). In fact it appears that China has shrugged off communism merely to embrace the west's worst ideal. Materialism.
It's been said before, but we should keep saying it until something changes: Why does China have "most favoured nation" trading status with the United States? The west (ie. the US) should give that status only to its friends, and it should only make friends with countries that believe in and implement democratic and tolerant ideals. It should remain cordial with countries that don't, but it shouldn't climb into bed with them.
I'll take your word for it that Canada Post has a profit, but that doesn't change the fact that their service stinks. The US Postal Service is undeniably superior. (Actually the Brit postal service is better as well). I want the post to deliver mail quickly and deliver it as frequently as possible. It doesn't do that.
As for the CBC... well that definately isn't turning a profit.
As for your nasty name-calling, grow up! You merely make yourself look bad when you name-call. How would I look if I said... "nothing like a loonie leftist with an agenda. Go Hang out with your buddie, the right honourable Lord Jean Poutine, master of all he surveys..."
Which one produces a superior product? That's the superior business culture. The fact of the matter is that some economic systems are downright inferior. This is business, not race-relations.
or where the total tax load is 25% higher...
You know, I'd laugh if this wasn't the sad truth...