Well, when I wrote about laws, I was referring to laws right now. Therefore it's safe to assume that politicians of today make laws. Of course there might be activist judges, but whatever.
I'm not sure that I agree with you. Even if they live forever, then they might still live under the current laws. This means that every time they pollute, they'll just assume that it is just a little straw on the camel's back. They could still blame other people. The tragedy of the commons wasn't the amount of resources or the number of animals. It was the lack of fences and rules. When people are forced to deal with their own pollution and consumption, then they'll go out and buy their composting toilets and other environmental paraphernalia.
Terrorism would annoy me, or something like that. If I just spent $xx,xxx on immortality, and someone were to blow me up, then that would be a harsh waste of money. I would hate that a lot.
I think that you're right. When people have seniority in a company, they don't have to change or think of others. By passing on, the next generations have a chance at improving thing [or making them worse:^)]. I think that death is probably 1 of life's greatest blessings. It helps to prevent stagnancy.
The second is going to require time, and a lot of it since doing the "experiment" on increasing aging will take close to a century and we will have to do many such experiments to make sure it works.
I agree with you. I recommend that they come up with something and then test it on fruit flies since they multiply so quickly. After that, they can try it on lawyers [a.k.a. politician larvae], since we have so many of them. After that, I recommend that they test it on politicians. After that, maybe they should move up to lab rats, or something. They should try to make sure that they nail it down 100% with the politicians, because we don't have a lot of lab rats, and I don't like it when we experiment on animals.
I wouldn't, because I think that it would be morally wrong. If I had no morals, then I definitely would. In fact, I'd buy myself and motorbike and ride around, like I'm all cool and everything.:^D
At a high school dance, would a stereotypcial nerd have the exact same benefit [or lack thereof, since we are typing about stereotypical nerds] as a nerd watching the dance on his home computer? I think that with a high tech system that provided the same amount of view, both nerds would be just as lonely, because being physically in the crowd means something. The next time you go to an amusement park or shopping mall, watch a group kids walking together. Obviously, there would be cultural differences, but in Canada, I'm sure that it's the same all across the board. Stereotypical cool teenagers will walk about 4 people wide, with the 2 coolest in the middle. The next 2 coolest will be on the outside, and the tag along will follow behind. I believe that the position is a huge status indicator and can actually make the person look dumb if he walks in the wrong position. An interesting thing to note is the facial expressions which give a good indicator of who is in charge. So in summary, I think that positioning is everything.
Here's another cleaner and nicer example. Just yesterday, I went to a family gathering. It was all good. I couldn't help but feel that being there made a difference. My brother came late for legitimate reasons, I assume. When he did arrive, he ended up chatting with people at another part of the party. Just not seeing him physically beside me, and not hearing him near me, indicated that he was busy with other people. That's all fine, but I wonder if the high tech system can give us that information. Also, I noticed that I often looked around the party for about a second at a time, even though I never really lost my main focus. I don't think that the high tech systems of today allow us to quickly check out the room. This leads me to another point.
Imagine seeing the Rubik's Cube for the first time. You might say, "Hey, can I see that?". So, your friend says, "Yeah, okay.", and then holds it in front of you, and then rotates it for you to see all of the sides, and then starts manipulating it for you to see. Frankly speaking, that would annoy me, because although the response was legitimate according to a literal interpretation to my request, it doesn't really give me what I want. I thought long and hard about that, when I first discovered the apparent problem. I think that it's because physically handling it will answer questions that I'm not consciously aware of. What kind of resistance does it have to turning? Is it slimey? Is it heavy? Does holding it a certain way make a difference to the physical perspective? Also, there is timing. When you want to know a certain answer, your friend could be trying to answer another question. Also, handling it yourself could answer most/all of the questions in an instant.
Regarding the full-wall telescreen, I bet that good candidates would be people who don't hug and touch, because of cultural norms. I don't usually hug my family members a whole lot. I haven't hugged my relatives in decades, and I'm only 34. It would be an interesting experiment that I'd be willing to participate in.
I was just about to submit this, but I just came up with more stuff. Perhaps a circular wall screen would make a difference. I remember at an Expo 86 pavillion, there was a movie inside. It was shown above everybody's head, around a circular room. In other words, the screen was a circle, and the people stood in the middle of the circle and watched the action. The main action was mostly on 1 part of the screen, and we'd feel that we really were a part of the film. This film took place at Christmas, and the grandparents arrived in the middle of the film, so we'd see somebody cross over and answer the door. We'd see Christmas lights, and blah blah blah. It was a great experience, because it allowed us to see what we wanted.
That being said, physical contact is a huge part of interactions. I'm just trying to isolate how much benefit comes from being there, without touching phsically.
It's interesting that you mention the Mayflower. Even though it is off-topic, I went and looked up the travel times of the Mayflower. It was 2 months per trip. So I scrolled down to read about the travel time of the Mayflower 2, which made it across in 55 days in 1957. It seems that even with the same technology, we have improved travel times. I suspecet that this is because we have gained a lot of experience in ocean travel. It should have been obvious to the guy that you are replying to, and to us readers, that travel times have improved greatly.
5 days to travel across the water sounds about right. I wouldn't be surprised that if it became urgent, then they could reduce that to 3.5 days without losing much efficiency.
Regarding cross-country train travel, I made it across Canada, Halifax to Vancouver, in 5 nights, and 6 days. There was time to visit in Montreal, but I only stopped because of transfers and scheduling. Each consecutive night was spent on a train. I guess the point that I'm trying to get across is that even at a leisurely pace, train travel still isn't 1 month for transcontinental travel.
Hmm, I think that I know what you mean. In some situations, it may actually use up more time, but may allow us to complete the work sooner. The idea is that if we add up all the travel time, and meeting time, then we might take, 2 days. On the other hand, if we take 5 minutes for 24 days to complete the task, it would amount to 120 minutes, which is equal to 2 hours. 24 business days is just over 1 calendar month.
Imagine telling your customers that you'll take 1 calendar month to get back to them, while your competitor tells the same customers, that the competitors will get back to the customers in 2 days.
I think that you hit the nail on the head.
I think that that principle is what makes the internet so useful. It may take more time in certain situations, but it lets us get tasks out of the way earlier.
You know, I just had a thought. I don't think that we are obsessed with productivity. It's that our employers require it of us. I suspect that we'd be out on the streets if we tried to take too much time off.
I'd like to hear other people's feed back about that.
I agree with you about physical presence. It would be weird to try to enjoy a Christmas meal together via video confrencing. Can you nail down exactly what it is, though? I'm hesitant to say that it's body language, because most of the body language can be seen when it is in view of the camera. Maybe it might be called, "macro body language": something that occurs in a wider scope of what the camera can capture.
I guess that I'm trying to visualize how a person would go about trying to test this to see exactly what the advantages are of a real physical presence.
Thanks for the explanation regarding humidity and clear days. It makes sense. I never thought that the air could hold so much water that it would affect our view.
Regarding views of the ocean, etc. I think that I know what you mean. In the Metro Vancouver Regional District, there are many places which would benefit from building appartments and other tall buildings. Unfortunately nobody is allowed to build them, because there are contracts and/or rules that prevent new buildings from blocking the view of the mountains. You can build something on the mountains, like homes for rich people, but you can't build apartments down in the valley.
What is the speaker talking about when he says, "All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.". Is he referring to patient-doctor confidentiality?
I didn't read the specs, but based on what you said, the blade misses the water, by 100 ft. 250 ft - 150 ft = 100 ft. I admit that my math is rusty, so there may be obvious mistakes. The idea is that for our discussion, the blade length is basically equal to the radius, and the pole is just another radius of another circle.
To put it another way mathematically, based on your numbers, the blade length is 100 ft above the water at its lowest point, and 400 ft at its highest.
Why is it bad for the tourists? I don't think that I've ever seen a wind turbine with my own eyes. What's wrong with it?
Also, the web site and the submission didn't mention why it would only be visible in winter. I thought that it would be visible in summer and not the winter, if anything. Does anybody understand why?
Slashdot Mirror
Purchasing it for digestion? Yes. I know that most people probably don't have problems with it. I don't mind purchasing it for blood transfusions.
Well, when I wrote about laws, I was referring to laws right now. Therefore it's safe to assume that politicians of today make laws. Of course there might be activist judges, but whatever.
What difference does it make to this discussion?
I'm not sure that I agree with you. Even if they live forever, then they might still live under the current laws. This means that every time they pollute, they'll just assume that it is just a little straw on the camel's back. They could still blame other people. The tragedy of the commons wasn't the amount of resources or the number of animals. It was the lack of fences and rules. When people are forced to deal with their own pollution and consumption, then they'll go out and buy their composting toilets and other environmental paraphernalia.
Terrorism would annoy me, or something like that. If I just spent $xx,xxx on immortality, and someone were to blow me up, then that would be a harsh waste of money. I would hate that a lot.
I think that you're right. When people have seniority in a company, they don't have to change or think of others. By passing on, the next generations have a chance at improving thing [or making them worse :^)]. I think that death is probably 1 of life's greatest blessings. It helps to prevent stagnancy.
I agree with you. I recommend that they come up with something and then test it on fruit flies since they multiply so quickly. After that, they can try it on lawyers [a.k.a. politician larvae], since we have so many of them. After that, I recommend that they test it on politicians. After that, maybe they should move up to lab rats, or something. They should try to make sure that they nail it down 100% with the politicians, because we don't have a lot of lab rats, and I don't like it when we experiment on animals.
That's a good question.
I wouldn't, because I think that it would be morally wrong. If I had no morals, then I definitely would. In fact, I'd buy myself and motorbike and ride around, like I'm all cool and everything. :^D
That's exactly right. Unhealthy eating, lack of exercise, and smoking could kill us. I'm sure that cancer, and brain problems could too.
$7900 is a bad deal for most people, but for some people, that's a hug savings, because they can't wait.
What do you mean by legislating morality? Aren't you effectively doing that when you allow them to sue or when you enforce ethical treatment?
I appreciate you explaining it to us. I never would have guessed in a million years that that is what he would have meant.
Here are more thoughts about the topic.
At a high school dance, would a stereotypcial nerd have the exact same benefit [or lack thereof, since we are typing about stereotypical nerds] as a nerd watching the dance on his home computer? I think that with a high tech system that provided the same amount of view, both nerds would be just as lonely, because being physically in the crowd means something. The next time you go to an amusement park or shopping mall, watch a group kids walking together. Obviously, there would be cultural differences, but in Canada, I'm sure that it's the same all across the board. Stereotypical cool teenagers will walk about 4 people wide, with the 2 coolest in the middle. The next 2 coolest will be on the outside, and the tag along will follow behind. I believe that the position is a huge status indicator and can actually make the person look dumb if he walks in the wrong position. An interesting thing to note is the facial expressions which give a good indicator of who is in charge. So in summary, I think that positioning is everything.
Here's another cleaner and nicer example. Just yesterday, I went to a family gathering. It was all good. I couldn't help but feel that being there made a difference. My brother came late for legitimate reasons, I assume. When he did arrive, he ended up chatting with people at another part of the party. Just not seeing him physically beside me, and not hearing him near me, indicated that he was busy with other people. That's all fine, but I wonder if the high tech system can give us that information. Also, I noticed that I often looked around the party for about a second at a time, even though I never really lost my main focus. I don't think that the high tech systems of today allow us to quickly check out the room. This leads me to another point.
Imagine seeing the Rubik's Cube for the first time. You might say, "Hey, can I see that?". So, your friend says, "Yeah, okay.", and then holds it in front of you, and then rotates it for you to see all of the sides, and then starts manipulating it for you to see. Frankly speaking, that would annoy me, because although the response was legitimate according to a literal interpretation to my request, it doesn't really give me what I want. I thought long and hard about that, when I first discovered the apparent problem. I think that it's because physically handling it will answer questions that I'm not consciously aware of. What kind of resistance does it have to turning? Is it slimey? Is it heavy? Does holding it a certain way make a difference to the physical perspective? Also, there is timing. When you want to know a certain answer, your friend could be trying to answer another question. Also, handling it yourself could answer most/all of the questions in an instant.
Regarding the full-wall telescreen, I bet that good candidates would be people who don't hug and touch, because of cultural norms. I don't usually hug my family members a whole lot. I haven't hugged my relatives in decades, and I'm only 34. It would be an interesting experiment that I'd be willing to participate in.
I was just about to submit this, but I just came up with more stuff. Perhaps a circular wall screen would make a difference. I remember at an Expo 86 pavillion, there was a movie inside. It was shown above everybody's head, around a circular room. In other words, the screen was a circle, and the people stood in the middle of the circle and watched the action. The main action was mostly on 1 part of the screen, and we'd feel that we really were a part of the film. This film took place at Christmas, and the grandparents arrived in the middle of the film, so we'd see somebody cross over and answer the door. We'd see Christmas lights, and blah blah blah. It was a great experience, because it allowed us to see what we wanted.
That being said, physical contact is a huge part of interactions. I'm just trying to isolate how much benefit comes from being there, without touching phsically.
It's interesting that you mention the Mayflower. Even though it is off-topic, I went and looked up the travel times of the Mayflower. It was 2 months per trip. So I scrolled down to read about the travel time of the Mayflower 2, which made it across in 55 days in 1957. It seems that even with the same technology, we have improved travel times. I suspecet that this is because we have gained a lot of experience in ocean travel. It should have been obvious to the guy that you are replying to, and to us readers, that travel times have improved greatly.
5 days to travel across the water sounds about right. I wouldn't be surprised that if it became urgent, then they could reduce that to 3.5 days without losing much efficiency.
Regarding cross-country train travel, I made it across Canada, Halifax to Vancouver, in 5 nights, and 6 days. There was time to visit in Montreal, but I only stopped because of transfers and scheduling. Each consecutive night was spent on a train. I guess the point that I'm trying to get across is that even at a leisurely pace, train travel still isn't 1 month for transcontinental travel.
Hmm, I think that I know what you mean. In some situations, it may actually use up more time, but may allow us to complete the work sooner. The idea is that if we add up all the travel time, and meeting time, then we might take, 2 days. On the other hand, if we take 5 minutes for 24 days to complete the task, it would amount to 120 minutes, which is equal to 2 hours. 24 business days is just over 1 calendar month.
Imagine telling your customers that you'll take 1 calendar month to get back to them, while your competitor tells the same customers, that the competitors will get back to the customers in 2 days.
I think that you hit the nail on the head.
I think that that principle is what makes the internet so useful. It may take more time in certain situations, but it lets us get tasks out of the way earlier.
You know, I just had a thought. I don't think that we are obsessed with productivity. It's that our employers require it of us. I suspect that we'd be out on the streets if we tried to take too much time off.
I'd like to hear other people's feed back about that.
I'd like to make an off-topic comment. It won't validate or support your argument.
You can go away for weekend retreats. Leave on a Friday, come back Sunday morning, and have the rest of the day for resting and preparing for Monday.
I agree with you about physical presence. It would be weird to try to enjoy a Christmas meal together via video confrencing. Can you nail down exactly what it is, though? I'm hesitant to say that it's body language, because most of the body language can be seen when it is in view of the camera. Maybe it might be called, "macro body language": something that occurs in a wider scope of what the camera can capture.
I guess that I'm trying to visualize how a person would go about trying to test this to see exactly what the advantages are of a real physical presence.
Thanks for the explanation regarding humidity and clear days. It makes sense. I never thought that the air could hold so much water that it would affect our view.
Regarding views of the ocean, etc. I think that I know what you mean. In the Metro Vancouver Regional District, there are many places which would benefit from building appartments and other tall buildings. Unfortunately nobody is allowed to build them, because there are contracts and/or rules that prevent new buildings from blocking the view of the mountains. You can build something on the mountains, like homes for rich people, but you can't build apartments down in the valley.
What is the speaker talking about when he says, "All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.". Is he referring to patient-doctor confidentiality?
...or 2, but I doubt that my girlfriends would appreciate it.
Yes, that is true. Google is able to label/tag their image database, because it feels good to play those Google games.
*sigh* It looks like I should have refreshed the page, before replying. :^)
I didn't read the specs, but based on what you said, the blade misses the water, by 100 ft. 250 ft - 150 ft = 100 ft. I admit that my math is rusty, so there may be obvious mistakes. The idea is that for our discussion, the blade length is basically equal to the radius, and the pole is just another radius of another circle.
To put it another way mathematically, based on your numbers, the blade length is 100 ft above the water at its lowest point, and 400 ft at its highest.
Clear? :^)
Why is it bad for the tourists? I don't think that I've ever seen a wind turbine with my own eyes. What's wrong with it?
Also, the web site and the submission didn't mention why it would only be visible in winter. I thought that it would be visible in summer and not the winter, if anything. Does anybody understand why?
I think that the servers are experiencing problems due to lack of design.