Something must be wrong with me, because I loved this piece immensely and would really like more. Hearing it again and thus repeating it seems to destroy the beauty of it.
The way you describe it, you exchange the tyranny of the many with the tyranny of the few. Consider this: in this system what if no law against hate crime existed? Lets say 80-90% wants this law passed, what happens when the rest oppose it? We do nothing? Obviously in this situation the "ideal" solution is not twiddling you thumbs waiting for society to progress naturally to an utopia of agreement and harmony.
Of course you could patch this problem by making an escape clause, but then you're just doing exactly that: patchwork on yet another imperfect governing system.
I have no expert knowledge in the field, but what would prevent the body from regenerating its own natural T-cells after the treatment? If the new, modified T-cells are the issue, can't you do the same thing as the first time around, having stored a batch of his old T-cells and kill off all the modified ones before pumping them back in again?
Seriously, this study is old news. I can remember in history class that those who went to the theater in ancient Greece almost always knew the whole story beforehand. The whole idea was not being surprised by the end, but being entertained by excellent storytelling and acting. Of having the story _told_. We all knew (except for a few actively ignorant people) that Anakin Skywalker would become Darth Vader, likewise it was a foregone conclusion that Saruman would team up with Sauron, that Boromir would die an epic death and that Denethor was not all right in the head.
Heck, when I started reading tropes on tvtropes I was a bit scared that I would risk spoiling a story and thus ruining it for me - because that was what I had been taught by society would happen - instead it became a great source for finding epic things to read or watch. The very knowing that some major character would pull off a thanatos gambit to secure world peace, after being a rather large douchebag for two whole seasons, made me that much more excited to actually watch it unfold.
Have you considered that pretty much every basic three letter file extension that makes any sense has already been used at some point in time somewhere? There is no real authority as to who "owns" an extension, only a general consensus.
Oh wonderful. Deployment of troops and prolonged warfare on foreign soil == humanitarian aid. Suddenly the world is beginning to make sense. I can see how that tidbit of logical information makes it all fall into place.
I honestly don't believe the mayor would demand his own head rolling into jail, that would be quite optimistic to see an incompetent official admit he bolloxed it like that.
There is an enormous difference, for many reasons.
The EVE economy is based on items being built by the players, for the players, using materials gathered by the players. PLEX is a sort of trade commodity, it is like diamonds - people want them because they are desirable, not because they are useful (in game at least). It has no effect on gameplay and is basically just a trade good on the market. Trading a PLEX has no other immediate ingame effect other than redistributing ISK among players, which is completely balanced in cost by the players themselves.
"Gold Spaceships" and AUR is completely different from this mechanic. Ships are seeded and directly tied to real money. Sure, you can buy a PLEX with ISK, but that is superficial - you are, in effect, just having somebody else pay real money for your spaceship. Sure you can fund a CNR (a special battleship) using ISK gained from a PLEX, but it is completely optional for that PLEX to be involved - with Gold Spaceships it would become MANDATORY to involve a PLEX. Also, since the ship is seeded, no tangible effort has been made to build or acquire the ship by anybody - not through missioning, grinding, building, whatever - the ship entirely come into being depending on real money.
Basically the entire EVE economy, which is the pride and I daresay center of the soul of EVE, can become entirely unhinged by AUR and Gold Stuff, since it is impossible for an industrial body in EVE to compete with people simply swiping their credit card for special premium superstuff.
More issues can be touched upon. Think for example the Alliance Tournament (a yearly competition with spaceships), what happens to the game if a team wins because they brought Gold Spaceships? Should all invest real money to be able to compete then?
P2W and microtransactions are reasonable depending on the gaming model. EVE is simply not built for it.
While that is true, something has to be said about the security of the child and the responsibility of guardianship. While traffic regulations does not apply on private ground, social service does.
A chair is not a crate, even if both happen to provide a place for sitting. Trying to get crate to cover the meaning of the word "chair" in the name of linguistic ambiguity is doing your language a disservice. I am not speaking against the creative use and evolution of language, merely the ignorant misuse of it. The difference is a hair-thin line.
I contest that definition. Both because it lessens the language by muddling and overloading a term with definitions better covered by other terms and because I cannot find it defined as such in any other dictionary but Merriam-Webster.
Evolution is, today, at its heart a scientific term that means something very closely defined. A gradual, rarely sudden, change over time, brought upon by evolutionary pressure and happenstance -- how well a change survives collision with the environment of its host.
Usually this change, by its nature, is beneficial in the sense that it must, by necessity, be advantageous to survive the environment. However this is not a hard rule. Beneficial traits can easily evolve away for no real reason other than the evolutionary pressure being lessened. If suddenly the pressure returns it can spell doom for the species, but sadly that is how evolution work -- it is entirely blind and unintelligent. Likewise evolution need not go from a simple state to a complex state. Indeed, this has nothing to do with the definition at all. If there is evolutionary pressure for more complex states than that is what will happen eventually, if not then it won't.
The definition of evolution that your cite from Merriam-Webster is born out of a need for simplistic minds to have a certain ordering on evolution, a step-ladder if you will of evolutionary states, so that petty humans can raise themselves on a pedestal and claim evolutionary superiority. This ordering is false. The only way you can really define any ordering on evolution is by time; and until you build a time machine and go back in time the term "devolution" has no meaning. You can talk about regression from a state to one previously held and that would make sense, but it is still evolution./rant
I guess you're against a calendar also, since it provides dangerous future location information to a potentially malicious third-party should they get access to it!
Really, the feature IS sane. Like I stated encryption and better handling of sensitive data is always nice, but the whole thing isn't what it has been made into. The implementation was amateurish to be sure, but not nearly the glaring security hole people are decrying it as. We're talking about the most logical thing in networking; caching results you don't expect to change soon to save both bandwidth and time.
A perfectly sane feature has now been curtailed effectively by public outcry against perceived violation of privacy. While I agree that it is a good thing the stuff now gets encrypted locally (yay, more encryption of sensitive information!) the grand result is nearly nothing. The way this thing worked was by having a cache of locations stored locally and for those who worry about invasion of privacy this turn of events doesn't change anything - if Big Brother wants to know where you are and where you've been, he need do nothing more than to store where you connect from on his side - something he has always been able to do.
No-one is a fair judge and the question is an extremely hard one. I do have a perfect solution: dictatorship and no concept of economy beyond actual, tangible resources. Sadly this requires perfect humans, especially in the dictatorship role and is essentially a non-solution with how human nature works. We're not perfect little machines.
I believe there is inherent flaws with how society works and the very concept of profit is essentially "money from nothing" with no tangible ties to actual resources, but unless we all suddenly decide to work together perfectly and in harmony with the needs of all taken into perfect measurement I got no real solution, only a feeling of wrongness. I know this is being intellectually dishonest, but I have not the power of will to devote my life to revolution - I prefer to finish my computer science graduation and living my imperfect life in an imperfect world.
I'm talking about the philosophical concept, not the USA implementation. I stated that quite clearly previously in the thread. The philosophical concept has an established meaning, thank you, which goes back to roman times, maybe further and has evolved and been elaborated on. It does not cover lies, it covers truth and opinions. It is universally regarded in human rights theory as the right to seek information and ideas, the right to receive information and ideas and the right to impart information and ideas. It has nothing to do with threats or willful untruths.
If you want to argue semantics or a specific implementation I'm all for that, but don't just assume I'm automatically talking about America or its constitution just because I say freedom of speech.
Aha, semantics. You're taking the term and interpreting it literally, disregarding its established meaning as a subset of freedom of expression in favor of your opinion. You're allowed to that and I'm allowed to not wanting to participate:)
Slashdot Mirror
No True Scotsman fallacy.
NEXT!
Something must be wrong with me, because I loved this piece immensely and would really like more. Hearing it again and thus repeating it seems to destroy the beauty of it.
The way you describe it, you exchange the tyranny of the many with the tyranny of the few. Consider this: in this system what if no law against hate crime existed? Lets say 80-90% wants this law passed, what happens when the rest oppose it? We do nothing? Obviously in this situation the "ideal" solution is not twiddling you thumbs waiting for society to progress naturally to an utopia of agreement and harmony.
Of course you could patch this problem by making an escape clause, but then you're just doing exactly that: patchwork on yet another imperfect governing system.
I love the smell of irony in a grammar Nazis post.
I have no expert knowledge in the field, but what would prevent the body from regenerating its own natural T-cells after the treatment? If the new, modified T-cells are the issue, can't you do the same thing as the first time around, having stored a batch of his old T-cells and kill off all the modified ones before pumping them back in again?
Lelouch vi Britannia of Code Geass fame.
Seriously, this study is old news. I can remember in history class that those who went to the theater in ancient Greece almost always knew the whole story beforehand. The whole idea was not being surprised by the end, but being entertained by excellent storytelling and acting. Of having the story _told_.
We all knew (except for a few actively ignorant people) that Anakin Skywalker would become Darth Vader, likewise it was a foregone conclusion that Saruman would team up with Sauron, that Boromir would die an epic death and that Denethor was not all right in the head.
Heck, when I started reading tropes on tvtropes I was a bit scared that I would risk spoiling a story and thus ruining it for me - because that was what I had been taught by society would happen - instead it became a great source for finding epic things to read or watch. The very knowing that some major character would pull off a thanatos gambit to secure world peace, after being a rather large douchebag for two whole seasons, made me that much more excited to actually watch it unfold.
Seconded. If nothing else get the humble bundle for VVVVVV. Excellent game, really screws with your mind.
Unfortunately I already, again, own 4 out of 5 of those games in the humble bundle. Was the same situation last time.
streaming.
Have you considered that pretty much every basic three letter file extension that makes any sense has already been used at some point in time somewhere? There is no real authority as to who "owns" an extension, only a general consensus.
Oh wonderful. Deployment of troops and prolonged warfare on foreign soil == humanitarian aid. Suddenly the world is beginning to make sense. I can see how that tidbit of logical information makes it all fall into place.
I honestly don't believe the mayor would demand his own head rolling into jail, that would be quite optimistic to see an incompetent official admit he bolloxed it like that.
There is an enormous difference, for many reasons.
The EVE economy is based on items being built by the players, for the players, using materials gathered by the players. PLEX is a sort of trade commodity, it is like diamonds - people want them because they are desirable, not because they are useful (in game at least). It has no effect on gameplay and is basically just a trade good on the market. Trading a PLEX has no other immediate ingame effect other than redistributing ISK among players, which is completely balanced in cost by the players themselves.
"Gold Spaceships" and AUR is completely different from this mechanic. Ships are seeded and directly tied to real money. Sure, you can buy a PLEX with ISK, but that is superficial - you are, in effect, just having somebody else pay real money for your spaceship. Sure you can fund a CNR (a special battleship) using ISK gained from a PLEX, but it is completely optional for that PLEX to be involved - with Gold Spaceships it would become MANDATORY to involve a PLEX. Also, since the ship is seeded, no tangible effort has been made to build or acquire the ship by anybody - not through missioning, grinding, building, whatever - the ship entirely come into being depending on real money.
Basically the entire EVE economy, which is the pride and I daresay center of the soul of EVE, can become entirely unhinged by AUR and Gold Stuff, since it is impossible for an industrial body in EVE to compete with people simply swiping their credit card for special premium superstuff.
More issues can be touched upon. Think for example the Alliance Tournament (a yearly competition with spaceships), what happens to the game if a team wins because they brought Gold Spaceships? Should all invest real money to be able to compete then?
P2W and microtransactions are reasonable depending on the gaming model. EVE is simply not built for it.
While that is true, something has to be said about the security of the child and the responsibility of guardianship. While traffic regulations does not apply on private ground, social service does.
A chair is not a crate, even if both happen to provide a place for sitting. Trying to get crate to cover the meaning of the word "chair" in the name of linguistic ambiguity is doing your language a disservice.
I am not speaking against the creative use and evolution of language, merely the ignorant misuse of it. The difference is a hair-thin line.
Actually that will work equally well on a "Linux PC". Indeed, you need not even have an operating system installed. PC and BIOS != operating system.
I contest that definition. Both because it lessens the language by muddling and overloading a term with definitions better covered by other terms and because I cannot find it defined as such in any other dictionary but Merriam-Webster.
Evolution is, today, at its heart a scientific term that means something very closely defined. A gradual, rarely sudden, change over time, brought upon by evolutionary pressure and happenstance -- how well a change survives collision with the environment of its host.
Usually this change, by its nature, is beneficial in the sense that it must, by necessity, be advantageous to survive the environment. However this is not a hard rule. Beneficial traits can easily evolve away for no real reason other than the evolutionary pressure being lessened. If suddenly the pressure returns it can spell doom for the species, but sadly that is how evolution work -- it is entirely blind and unintelligent.
Likewise evolution need not go from a simple state to a complex state. Indeed, this has nothing to do with the definition at all. If there is evolutionary pressure for more complex states than that is what will happen eventually, if not then it won't.
The definition of evolution that your cite from Merriam-Webster is born out of a need for simplistic minds to have a certain ordering on evolution, a step-ladder if you will of evolutionary states, so that petty humans can raise themselves on a pedestal and claim evolutionary superiority. This ordering is false. The only way you can really define any ordering on evolution is by time; and until you build a time machine and go back in time the term "devolution" has no meaning. You can talk about regression from a state to one previously held and that would make sense, but it is still evolution. /rant
While ultimately futile it does force the trolls to be creative, which would be an improvement.
I guess you're against a calendar also, since it provides dangerous future location information to a potentially malicious third-party should they get access to it!
Really, the feature IS sane. Like I stated encryption and better handling of sensitive data is always nice, but the whole thing isn't what it has been made into.
The implementation was amateurish to be sure, but not nearly the glaring security hole people are decrying it as. We're talking about the most logical thing in networking; caching results you don't expect to change soon to save both bandwidth and time.
A perfectly sane feature has now been curtailed effectively by public outcry against perceived violation of privacy. While I agree that it is a good thing the stuff now gets encrypted locally (yay, more encryption of sensitive information!) the grand result is nearly nothing. The way this thing worked was by having a cache of locations stored locally and for those who worry about invasion of privacy this turn of events doesn't change anything - if Big Brother wants to know where you are and where you've been, he need do nothing more than to store where you connect from on his side - something he has always been able to do.
The comment that spawned a multitude of replies. Not because of the content, but because of grammar. Welcome to /., enjoy your stay.
Welcome to media in general. We're soaking in it.
No-one is a fair judge and the question is an extremely hard one. I do have a perfect solution: dictatorship and no concept of economy beyond actual, tangible resources. Sadly this requires perfect humans, especially in the dictatorship role and is essentially a non-solution with how human nature works. We're not perfect little machines.
I believe there is inherent flaws with how society works and the very concept of profit is essentially "money from nothing" with no tangible ties to actual resources, but unless we all suddenly decide to work together perfectly and in harmony with the needs of all taken into perfect measurement I got no real solution, only a feeling of wrongness. I know this is being intellectually dishonest, but I have not the power of will to devote my life to revolution - I prefer to finish my computer science graduation and living my imperfect life in an imperfect world.
I'm talking about the philosophical concept, not the USA implementation. I stated that quite clearly previously in the thread. The philosophical concept has an established meaning, thank you, which goes back to roman times, maybe further and has evolved and been elaborated on. It does not cover lies, it covers truth and opinions. It is universally regarded in human rights theory as the right to seek information and ideas, the right to receive information and ideas and the right to impart information and ideas. It has nothing to do with threats or willful untruths.
If you want to argue semantics or a specific implementation I'm all for that, but don't just assume I'm automatically talking about America or its constitution just because I say freedom of speech.
Aha, semantics. You're taking the term and interpreting it literally, disregarding its established meaning as a subset of freedom of expression in favor of your opinion. You're allowed to that and I'm allowed to not wanting to participate :)