But age has everything to do with experience. Sure, there are some kids that are much more worldly than others, but there aren't many kids that are as across the board worldly as their parents (no matter what the kids would like to think that all of their MTV, MySpace time, and first person shooters have taught them).
Indeed. Heck, I'm 26 now, and looking back at 21, it's surprising how much I've grown in just the last five years, despite how "worldly" I thought I was back then. Unfortunately, our society places far more emphasis on intellect than it does on experience (as is evidenced, I think, by our treatment of the elder members of our society), and so it's not surprising that young people have difficulty understanding why they aren't considered eligible for certain rights and responsibilities.
I think the argument is that, if this player is going to be $1000 at launch, and it's launch date is pushed out even closer to the PS3 launch, early adopters might just forgo the stand alone player and buy a PS3 instead. This pushes new sales of BR players out, further delaying the establishment of the format, while damaging Sony's bottom line, since, unlike the standalone player, the PS3 is almost certainly going to be a loss-leader. Further, this will stick Sony with lame-duck product, which I can't imagine is a good thing.
Indeed. And I would argue with the idea that asymmetric ciphers are inherently "stronger". In the end, the strength is in the algorithm used combined with the key size chosen. The two models exist because they fill different roles, not because one is inherently better than the other.
Like those cat parasite things; Toxoplasma. Supposedly makes some people feel good, more outgoing and warmhearted. But a parasite is still a parasite...
Err, no... it's a Symbiote, as both organisms benefit from the relationship.
Which is, I would argue, an excellent analogy to the relationship between me and Google.
Or, alternatively, if what was under discussion *was* a free market. Which it's not. At best it's an oligopoly. Which renders the rest of your point moot.
Riiight... and when your upstream ISP, which is ultimately a large telecom, decides to re-prioritize Google's traffic, or block VOIP because it cuts into their business, what will you do?
WTF, Super Mario 2 was a great game! Did it follow in the same footsteps as 1 and 3? No (unsurprisingly, since it wasn't originally a Mario franchise game). But it was still a hell of a lot of fun, IMHO, and had a great soundtrack to boot. Not to mention a healthy dose of surrealism.
Setting up an emulator and finding the ROMS is too much trouble for some people,
And don't discount the difference in playing a game on a real TV with a proper gamepad. Emulators on a PC are great and all, but they really don't reproduce the console gaming experience in full. Yes, you could run tv-out from your PC, but suddenly you're getting into way-too-much-trouble territory.
On the other hand, in an embryo the lack of brain activity doesn't indicate that it won't start.
Who cares? It hasn't started yet, and until it does, the cells cannot be conscious, much like one who is brain dead, and is thus similarly exempt from the right to life.
The brain begins to develop, according to Wikipedia, at 5-8 weeks after conception; others have argued that the brain starts to exist before a woman likely knows she's pregnant. In that case, the existence of a brain would tend to argue against abortion
"others have argued". Others, like the others who argued that Terri Shiavo could regain consciousness? I bring that up, not as flamebait, but to point out that there are those who would twist the facts in order to support their position. So, I would prefer to trust the scientists and their 5-8 week number, since they would have nothing to gain from lying.
Regardless, testing for brain activity in vitro would make it possible to determine, with certainty, whether brain activity existed, allowing for a firm line to be drawn on a case-by-case basis.
I really don't understand the difficulty here. When do we determine life *ends*? When the brain no longer functions, correct? So why not use the exact same metric to determine when life begins?
They will -never- be laughing at our quantum physics and chemistry. At least not in the experimentally proven parts. (assuming the experiments were done and evaluated properly)
Tell that to Ptolemy. His geocentric model of the solar system had fairly good predictive power for the time, but was incredibly complicated. A cynic might point out how this seems suspiciously similar to the current situation with String- and M-theory.:)
It would also be possible to produce horrible effect without ever commiting any identifiable evil act. (We are just following the local laws.)
I think it important to point out, here, that the law has absolutely nothing to do with morality, and thus should not be used as a gauge of what's "evil". Of course, the law is typically a reflection of the morals of the citizenry, but it often also reflects the will of the powerful (and in the West, that usually also means the rich).
Bah, for planetary observations, light pollution has little effect (especially for something as large and bright as Jupiter). OTOH, if you're going large aperture because you want to view low magnitude deep sky objects, then you're absolutely right, a dark sky is necessary to truly enjoy the instrument (though, a nebula filter can work wonders in an urban environment).
Or, put another way: our games are so crappy that they have no replay value, so instead, we'll add "unlockable content", so that you're forced through various hoops in order to get at additional material, thus artificially extending the life of the game. Great. Or not.
There's a huge difference, here, though. Google's technical and financial barriers for deploying new apps are far lower than Microsofts, since they simply need to deploy the app on their servers and release the URL. Moreover, once the app is deployed, they can continue to revise and refine it, which significantly decreases the technical risks inherent in a new product launch. And if an app fails to be profitable, they can just pull it off their servers and move on. Easy peasy.
Contrast this with Microsoft (or any traditional software firm), who needs to go through a far more extensive development and test cycle, and has to worry about deployment and support costs, marketing, etc, etc, which means far more resources are dedicated to a new product launch.
I gotta say, the best part of that site is this map. If there was ever proof that many Americans know little to nothing about Canada, it's the diagram of the province of Saskatchewan labeled "Saskatchewan, Ontario". LOL.
This is the view from the selfish human perspective. Earth creatures slower or dumber than humans are free to do with what the humans please. Who cares what remains of them after a generation or two.
Hint: this has been the case since we started killing other animals for food and started growing our own crops. GM foods change this not one bit.
Neon fish loose in the wild?
Which will die off rapidly because they aren't fit to survive in the wild, being more noticable to predators.
Crafted strains of corn contaminating traditionally (painstakingly) *bred* varieties?
ROFL. "traditionally bred varieties". Do you have any idea the contradiction you've introduced? "Bred" varieties *are* genetically modified, in that we used selective breeding to choose the genes we wanted expressed. The only difference, now, is that we have the technology to specifically manipulate DNA, rather than relying on the crude method of selective breeding.
Reproduction is a crucial part of the genetic information exchange equation.
And we've been messing with it for centuries, your example of the mule being an excellent case in point (thanks for making it for me, BTW).
And then you bring up non-sequitors about nazis and birth defects. Good to see you're up to arguing rationally, as opposed to responding with weak emotional pleas.
My biggest problem with genetic engineering is that the first thing, the very first thing we did with it on a large scale was put it in our food.
No, we used it to make insulin. Back in 1978 Genentech produced human insulin by splicing insulin genes into E.Coli bacteria. They began mass marketing in 1982. This technology is hardly new.
You're absolutely right. Playing word games like labeling things "toxic" when they in fact aren't is extremely disingenious, and helps no one. It's vitally important to be *precise* when discussing these things. Throwing about words like "toxic" when it does not apply does nothing but muddy the waters. But, hey, maybe that's the idea?
Slashdot Mirror
But age has everything to do with experience. Sure, there are some kids that are much more worldly than others, but there aren't many kids that are as across the board worldly as their parents (no matter what the kids would like to think that all of their MTV, MySpace time, and first person shooters have taught them).
Indeed. Heck, I'm 26 now, and looking back at 21, it's surprising how much I've grown in just the last five years, despite how "worldly" I thought I was back then. Unfortunately, our society places far more emphasis on intellect than it does on experience (as is evidenced, I think, by our treatment of the elder members of our society), and so it's not surprising that young people have difficulty understanding why they aren't considered eligible for certain rights and responsibilities.
I think the argument is that, if this player is going to be $1000 at launch, and it's launch date is pushed out even closer to the PS3 launch, early adopters might just forgo the stand alone player and buy a PS3 instead. This pushes new sales of BR players out, further delaying the establishment of the format, while damaging Sony's bottom line, since, unlike the standalone player, the PS3 is almost certainly going to be a loss-leader. Further, this will stick Sony with lame-duck product, which I can't imagine is a good thing.
Indeed. And I would argue with the idea that asymmetric ciphers are inherently "stronger". In the end, the strength is in the algorithm used combined with the key size chosen. The two models exist because they fill different roles, not because one is inherently better than the other.
Blasphemy! You must bow down before the great god GDP!
Like those cat parasite things; Toxoplasma. Supposedly makes some people feel good, more outgoing and warmhearted. But a parasite is still a parasite...
Err, no... it's a Symbiote, as both organisms benefit from the relationship.
Which is, I would argue, an excellent analogy to the relationship between me and Google.
If he were truely for a free market
Or, alternatively, if what was under discussion *was* a free market. Which it's not. At best it's an oligopoly. Which renders the rest of your point moot.
Riiight... and when your upstream ISP, which is ultimately a large telecom, decides to re-prioritize Google's traffic, or block VOIP because it cuts into their business, what will you do?
WTF, Super Mario 2 was a great game! Did it follow in the same footsteps as 1 and 3? No (unsurprisingly, since it wasn't originally a Mario franchise game). But it was still a hell of a lot of fun, IMHO, and had a great soundtrack to boot. Not to mention a healthy dose of surrealism.
Setting up an emulator and finding the ROMS is too much trouble for some people,
And don't discount the difference in playing a game on a real TV with a proper gamepad. Emulators on a PC are great and all, but they really don't reproduce the console gaming experience in full. Yes, you could run tv-out from your PC, but suddenly you're getting into way-too-much-trouble territory.
On the other hand, in an embryo the lack of brain activity doesn't indicate that it won't start.
Who cares? It hasn't started yet, and until it does, the cells cannot be conscious, much like one who is brain dead, and is thus similarly exempt from the right to life.
The brain begins to develop, according to Wikipedia, at 5-8 weeks after conception; others have argued that the brain starts to exist before a woman likely knows she's pregnant. In that case, the existence of a brain would tend to argue against abortion
"others have argued". Others, like the others who argued that Terri Shiavo could regain consciousness? I bring that up, not as flamebait, but to point out that there are those who would twist the facts in order to support their position. So, I would prefer to trust the scientists and their 5-8 week number, since they would have nothing to gain from lying.
Regardless, testing for brain activity in vitro would make it possible to determine, with certainty, whether brain activity existed, allowing for a firm line to be drawn on a case-by-case basis.
What we dont know is that, if a high level consciuosness can exist in a body that does not have a central nervous system.
Well, given the fact that human consciousness ends when the brain dies, I think we can safely assume that it can't begin without *some* kind of CNS.
So when, in your opinion, does life begin?
I really don't understand the difficulty here. When do we determine life *ends*? When the brain no longer functions, correct? So why not use the exact same metric to determine when life begins?
They will -never- be laughing at our quantum physics and chemistry. At least not in the experimentally proven parts. (assuming the experiments were done and evaluated properly)
:)
Tell that to Ptolemy. His geocentric model of the solar system had fairly good predictive power for the time, but was incredibly complicated. A cynic might point out how this seems suspiciously similar to the current situation with String- and M-theory.
It would also be possible to produce horrible effect without ever commiting any identifiable evil act. (We are just following the local laws.)
I think it important to point out, here, that the law has absolutely nothing to do with morality, and thus should not be used as a gauge of what's "evil". Of course, the law is typically a reflection of the morals of the citizenry, but it often also reflects the will of the powerful (and in the West, that usually also means the rich).
Whoops, make that *high* magnitude.
Bah, for planetary observations, light pollution has little effect (especially for something as large and bright as Jupiter). OTOH, if you're going large aperture because you want to view low magnitude deep sky objects, then you're absolutely right, a dark sky is necessary to truly enjoy the instrument (though, a nebula filter can work wonders in an urban environment).
Or, put another way: our games are so crappy that they have no replay value, so instead, we'll add "unlockable content", so that you're forced through various hoops in order to get at additional material, thus artificially extending the life of the game. Great. Or not.
Dune 2 is the grandfather of RTS as we know it today and still a very nice game.
Ahh, not quite. Herzog Zwei predates Dune 2 by three years. Also a very enjoyable game.
There's a huge difference, here, though. Google's technical and financial barriers for deploying new apps are far lower than Microsofts, since they simply need to deploy the app on their servers and release the URL. Moreover, once the app is deployed, they can continue to revise and refine it, which significantly decreases the technical risks inherent in a new product launch. And if an app fails to be profitable, they can just pull it off their servers and move on. Easy peasy.
Contrast this with Microsoft (or any traditional software firm), who needs to go through a far more extensive development and test cycle, and has to worry about deployment and support costs, marketing, etc, etc, which means far more resources are dedicated to a new product launch.
Fair enough about how obvious it is that people are losing their privacy.
No, they aren't losing their privacy. They're voluntarily giving it up. Thus, I fail to grasp these "privacy issues" of which you speak.
Dang, that's even more embarassing, both for me and the website... :)
I gotta say, the best part of that site is this map. If there was ever proof that many Americans know little to nothing about Canada, it's the diagram of the province of Saskatchewan labeled "Saskatchewan, Ontario". LOL.
This is the view from the selfish human perspective. Earth creatures slower or dumber than humans are free to do with what the humans please. Who cares what remains of them after a generation or two.
Hint: this has been the case since we started killing other animals for food and started growing our own crops. GM foods change this not one bit.
Neon fish loose in the wild?
Which will die off rapidly because they aren't fit to survive in the wild, being more noticable to predators.
Crafted strains of corn contaminating traditionally (painstakingly) *bred* varieties?
ROFL. "traditionally bred varieties". Do you have any idea the contradiction you've introduced? "Bred" varieties *are* genetically modified, in that we used selective breeding to choose the genes we wanted expressed. The only difference, now, is that we have the technology to specifically manipulate DNA, rather than relying on the crude method of selective breeding.
Reproduction is a crucial part of the genetic information exchange equation.
And we've been messing with it for centuries, your example of the mule being an excellent case in point (thanks for making it for me, BTW).
And then you bring up non-sequitors about nazis and birth defects. Good to see you're up to arguing rationally, as opposed to responding with weak emotional pleas.
My biggest problem with genetic engineering is that the first thing, the very first thing we did with it on a large scale was put it in our food.
No, we used it to make insulin. Back in 1978 Genentech produced human insulin by splicing insulin genes into E.Coli bacteria. They began mass marketing in 1982. This technology is hardly new.
You're absolutely right. Playing word games like labeling things "toxic" when they in fact aren't is extremely disingenious, and helps no one. It's vitally important to be *precise* when discussing these things. Throwing about words like "toxic" when it does not apply does nothing but muddy the waters. But, hey, maybe that's the idea?