In every example you gave, they all had a quantity that you are measuring, such as price or megahertz. It should be abundantly clear that innovation of new products doesn't fit this model, since there is no way to score it. Also you are only able to measure stable activities and innovation isn't stable, but veyr chaotic.
The stance that you do what what most people will benefit from is what allows horrible decisions to made daily. It can be used to justify virtually any position from deporting Arab immigrants in fear of terrorism to forcing the richest 1% of of the world at gunpoint to give away their money (historically, it has been used to justify worse, like nuking Japan). Ethics is not something that you weigh on a scale.
The old scenario is imagine you were being held at gunpoint and your capturer gave you a gun and told you to kill one random person on the street. If you didn't he would kill you and ten others. You might make a policy decision to kill that person in the name of benefiting more people, and under a cost-benefit analysis model that might be a correct decision, but it isn't an ethical decision because our moral code says that we don't murder people.
The only ethical decision here to make is that you either do what artists or distibutor asks of you, or you don't. Decideding that you are going to copy somebody else's creation, even though they have asked you not to, can in no way be called an ethical decision that I can see.
I benifit more from file sharing because if there were no napsters and gnutellas of the world I simply wouldnt have the money to listen to music AT ALL, PERIOD.
Just because you benefit from something doesn't make it ethical. So you don't listen to music. I don't get it.
The Evils or Pornography
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 3, Informative
There have been two commission to study pornography: 1970 and 1986. The 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography concluded that there was insuffient evidence to prove a link between the exposured to sexually explicit material and criminal behavior. This is not even close to what you claim: that the commission found pornography harmless. However, the 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography came to the opposite conclusion, claiming that the available pornography at the time caused different levels of harm.
The reason these two commission disagreed was largly to do with what they were studying. Pornography changed drastically between 1970 and 1986. In 1970 full frontal nudity was a rarity while in 1986 close-ups of anatomy were common and visible penetration could be found in hard-core magazines at adult stores. The 1970 commission was also railed on for failing to research violent pornography. By 1996 this research hole was filled and the findings were that it led to agression against women (in laboratory test conditions) and the acceptance of the rape myth that women secretly want it.
Later in 1986, a Surgeon General's Workshop on Pornography and Public Health met and found that "pronography does stimulate attitudes and behavior that lead to gravely negative consequences for individuals and society."
Since 1986 numerous meta-studies has supported the Surgeon General findings too. A 1994 meta-study titled "A Systematic Review of the Effects of Aggressive and Nonagressive Pornography" included 81 original studies, a 1995 meta-study "A Meta-ananysis Summerizing the Effects of Pornography" included 33 original studies, another 1995 study "Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape Myths" included 24 orignial studies all support that violent and non-violent pornography increase the likelihood of rape, sexual callousness, violence, and violent attitudes towards women. Even stepping outside the US, a study in 1989 by the Canadian government comes to the same conclusion, saying that after viewing pornography men were twice as likely to rape women after viewing pornography.
In 1989 "Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations," by Zillerman and Bryant, found that over a period of time viewing pornography are "at a greater risk of becoming callous" towards women.
In "Pornography's Effects on Adults and Children" Dr. Victor Cline of the University of Utah delineates four phases of pornography addiction: addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out.
Since mainstream pornography has become more hard-core the preponderence of evidence is that it does adversely effect our behavior.
[This has been taken from excepts from an article that I am currently writing for Kuro5hin.org, but it will not be done for a few months, until I have some more time to spend at the library.]
We have a pet starling, he's a very bright bird and I know that many of his personality traits are unique to him as an individual starling, sure he has built in inate stuff, but so do we as well.
But as humans we have culture and morality. Our thought processes are much, much more complex than other animals on the planet. We are not even sure if any other animal is self-conscious, considering our closest relatives still try to attack themselves in in the mirror.
We're not unique in using language though, other species communicate to each other with sound
But we are the only species that uses compositional language.
we're not unique in using tools either, other primates have been known to use them and indeed birds also use tools to get at food.
You cannot seriously compare an otter bashing a shell with a rock to something like the space shuttle. You cannot say that any other species even comes close to our level or tool use. It isn't even really a comparison.
Regardless, if there was a universe creator of some sort I doubt he paid any particular attention to any point in the universe, especially one with as many stars as ours, when was the last time you paid much attention to an individual grain of sand on your last visit to the beach?
This comparison also lacks a proper reference point, too. We do not look at each individual grain of sand because of the effort it would take. Also because a grain of sand isn't our child, our creation. That is like saying that just because a father has a dozen children that he cares about them less.
If you get a diagnosis after suggesting that you might have certain conditions, go to at least one more doctor and don't say a thing to them and let them diagnose you.
There are people that have real problems and you detract from their plight, just because you are some geek that needs reassurace that you are special and medically fucked in the head as opposed to just being fucked from your personality.
03117 yowm yome from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.
There are many things that are true but not provable. It is possible to show that Christianity the belief is consistent. With out logics, it is not possible to prove that God is consistent. Omnipotence to us implies contradiction (Godel's Incompleteness and Turing show this). To see that the system is believable, look towards where the Bible draws its authority, from those that came before it and those that carry on its tradition: the Apostles.
The last step does require faith on your part. There is no getting around that at the core, there is a step of faith that must be made by each believer. There is good support for various accounts of Jesus, like the crucifixion, that make this easier, but will never remove it.
If you have to put down other religions for it to work, it ain't the truth.
Nobody is putting anybody down by saying that Christianity is the full truth. As much as any religion deviates from the teachings of Jesus is the amount that they deviate from the truth. No matter what you call the truth, you will always be forced to reject something else.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on the truth. Other religions have parts of the truth or may even have a large amount of the truth. Christianity has the complete truth, though.
I have a few resources about the uniqueness of Christ's virgin birth versus the virgin births of other gods (like Zeus, the Egyptian gods, and other pagan gods). However, the link doesn't really give any information. A few times it says "Product of a virgin birth," but that doesn't really give any information to go on for analysis.
Often it comes down to the mother. A god coming to earth and impregnating some random woman is a far different from the prophecy and lineage of Mary.
Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully God and fully man. At the incarnation He added to His divine nature the nature of man. Thus He has two natures: divine and human. He is both God and man at the same time. He is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb. 1:3, NIV). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union.
The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":
God
He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).
He knows all things (John 21:17).
He gives eternal life (John 10:28).
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).
Man
He worshiped the Father (John 17).
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)
He prayed to the Father (John 17).
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
He died (Rom. 5:8).
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).
One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. The Christian Scientists, on the other hand, focus on the divine nature and ignore the human.
For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined.
The Bible is about Jesus (John 5:39). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37; 8:18). The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26). The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25). The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6; 18:6).
Other verses to consider when examining His deity are, John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:6-8; and 2 Pet. 1:1.
1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Right now, there is a man in heaven on the throne of God. He is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is Jesus.
Influence by little known languages.
on
Ask Larry Wall
·
· Score: 2
I was wondering if you have looked at little known languages for ideas in Perl? It seems that Perl is agressively going after areas that are heavily explorer in other language paradigms. Have you seen or been influenced by any smaller language (aside from the common choices of Scheme, Python, Ruby, Tcl, and the such)?
Seeing Perl6's introduction of more powerful map-like and reduce-like operators in the hypers, I would like to know if you have used and been influenced by the modern APL derivatives: Dr. Iverson's APL successor, J, is more well-known; but Arthur Whitney's K mixes more functional, Lisp-inspired abilities into the language.
That is your opinion, and you are in the minority. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you might be missing something that others have, like taste, a sense of humor, or the ability to watch something just because it is fun?
Telling the string to print itself may sound fine, but then the String object needs to be aware of how the mechanics of printing work. At some deeper level you will have function that takes ar argument that finanlly delivers it to an outbound stream, just as the PrintWriter object does. You can't win either way.
This is a good example of one of the many lose-lose situations you have in OO design.
I find it quite amazing how people will justify their behavior. This is a good example of the selfishness of people: I want everything my way and if it conflicts with my belief then I should have the right to discard it.
The company is providing you with a product, often for free, and they request that for you to use their product you give them a little personal information. It is their product, so they get to make the rules. Your choices are to give what they want and take what you want, or you could just live without it. I don't understand the position of taking what you want and not leaving what they want.
Or you consider this tiny piece of personal information part of the price. Instead of giving them $5, you give them your age, salary, and email address. You don't try to trick the grocery store clerk when you think the bill was too high for what you bought, do you? Why would this be any different? If you don't like the invasion of privacy, then the cost is too high for you and you don't take the product.
I can see where people may say that capital is a required part of making the product and personal information isn't. Since they don't need my email address then I should feel free to not give it to them. However, this personal information often does translate into capital for them (the goal of business is to make money most of the time). Besides, that isn't your decision to make. The company wants your privates and they are giving you the product, so their desire carries more weight. If you were not receiving something back in return, then their desires would not override yours.
It is only a "little" lie doesn't change the fundamental aspect that lying is a priori wrong.
when people become intelligent enough to use it and Arthur finishes K4. Watch Kuro5hin within the next month for an Introduction to K to appear (I will also submit it here, but I doubt it will get posted).
I would rather not hear about your crackpot beliefs, so please never mention them again. I don't want to hear about your ignorant views on software or your wrong views on copying music. I used to just ignore the pirates and free software jibberish, but now it is becoming too much. Just stop now.
That book is not an introductory text. It is a second of third year text and even then it can be difficult for many to understand. Sipser can probably be taught in the second of third year with more effectiveness.
Are you some old time APLer? How did you stumble up on K. Between you, me, and my ex-roommate I think we are the only ones on Slashdot to have ever mentioned the language.
Please don't use your +1 bonus for rants. Especially, off topic rants.
Nobody here is upset at the system crackers?
on
California Hax0red
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I see all these comments and jokes about the administrators of the systems, the software used, the wages of those who's data was comprimised. However, I do not see any comments condeming the actions of the thiefs.
These crooks are the people that give you a bad name. They are the criminals here. They are not to be ignored. If somebody breaks into your house, you go after the robber; you don't sit there and think that you should have encased your house in steel and had better locks.
and it has been around for years (the second oldest programming language still in use?). There is a modern day version called K that will crush C based systems when full SIMD support is implemented (is already does a good job of thrashing most languages). Collection based languages used to be much bigger that they are today for some reason. Current programming paradigms go into one direction (OO) while we keep having to deal with data in the other direction (bulk operations).
Slashdot Mirror
In every example you gave, they all had a quantity that you are measuring, such as price or megahertz. It should be abundantly clear that innovation of new products doesn't fit this model, since there is no way to score it. Also you are only able to measure stable activities and innovation isn't stable, but veyr chaotic.
The old scenario is imagine you were being held at gunpoint and your capturer gave you a gun and told you to kill one random person on the street. If you didn't he would kill you and ten others. You might make a policy decision to kill that person in the name of benefiting more people, and under a cost-benefit analysis model that might be a correct decision, but it isn't an ethical decision because our moral code says that we don't murder people.
The only ethical decision here to make is that you either do what artists or distibutor asks of you, or you don't. Decideding that you are going to copy somebody else's creation, even though they have asked you not to, can in no way be called an ethical decision that I can see.
Just because you benefit from something doesn't make it ethical. So you don't listen to music. I don't get it.My quick intro: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/11/14/22741/791
A wiki entry written by David Ness: http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?KayLanguage
The reason these two commission disagreed was largly to do with what they were studying. Pornography changed drastically between 1970 and 1986. In 1970 full frontal nudity was a rarity while in 1986 close-ups of anatomy were common and visible penetration could be found in hard-core magazines at adult stores. The 1970 commission was also railed on for failing to research violent pornography. By 1996 this research hole was filled and the findings were that it led to agression against women (in laboratory test conditions) and the acceptance of the rape myth that women secretly want it.
Later in 1986, a Surgeon General's Workshop on Pornography and Public Health met and found that "pronography does stimulate attitudes and behavior that lead to gravely negative consequences for individuals and society."
Since 1986 numerous meta-studies has supported the Surgeon General findings too. A 1994 meta-study titled "A Systematic Review of the Effects of Aggressive and Nonagressive Pornography" included 81 original studies, a 1995 meta-study "A Meta-ananysis Summerizing the Effects of Pornography" included 33 original studies, another 1995 study "Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape Myths" included 24 orignial studies all support that violent and non-violent pornography increase the likelihood of rape, sexual callousness, violence, and violent attitudes towards women. Even stepping outside the US, a study in 1989 by the Canadian government comes to the same conclusion, saying that after viewing pornography men were twice as likely to rape women after viewing pornography.
In 1989 "Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations," by Zillerman and Bryant, found that over a period of time viewing pornography are "at a greater risk of becoming callous" towards women.
In "Pornography's Effects on Adults and Children" Dr. Victor Cline of the University of Utah delineates four phases of pornography addiction: addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out.
Since mainstream pornography has become more hard-core the preponderence of evidence is that it does adversely effect our behavior.
[This has been taken from excepts from an article that I am currently writing for Kuro5hin.org, but it will not be done for a few months, until I have some more time to spend at the library.]
If you get a diagnosis after suggesting that you might have certain conditions, go to at least one more doctor and don't say a thing to them and let them diagnose you.
There are people that have real problems and you detract from their plight, just because you are some geek that needs reassurace that you are special and medically fucked in the head as opposed to just being fucked from your personality.
Christianity does not have a monopoly on the truth. Other religions have parts of the truth or may even have a large amount of the truth. Christianity has the complete truth, though.
I have a few resources about the uniqueness of Christ's virgin birth versus the virgin births of other gods (like Zeus, the Egyptian gods, and other pagan gods). However, the link doesn't really give any information. A few times it says "Product of a virgin birth," but that doesn't really give any information to go on for analysis. Often it comes down to the mother. A god coming to earth and impregnating some random woman is a far different from the prophecy and lineage of Mary.
Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully God and fully man. At the incarnation He added to His divine nature the nature of man. Thus He has two natures: divine and human. He is both God and man at the same time. He is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb. 1:3, NIV). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union.
The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":
One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. The Christian Scientists, on the other hand, focus on the divine nature and ignore the human.For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined.
The Bible is about Jesus (John 5:39). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37; 8:18). The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26). The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25). The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6; 18:6).
Other verses to consider when examining His deity are, John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:6-8; and 2 Pet. 1:1.
1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Right now, there is a man in heaven on the throne of God. He is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is Jesus.
Seeing Perl6's introduction of more powerful map-like and reduce-like operators in the hypers, I would like to know if you have used and been influenced by the modern APL derivatives: Dr. Iverson's APL successor, J, is more well-known; but Arthur Whitney's K mixes more functional, Lisp-inspired abilities into the language.
Oops. That was supposed to be a reply to a comment that replied to you.
That is your opinion, and you are in the minority. Did you ever stop to think that maybe you might be missing something that others have, like taste, a sense of humor, or the ability to watch something just because it is fun?
Telling the string to print itself may sound fine, but then the String object needs to be aware of how the mechanics of printing work. At some deeper level you will have function that takes ar argument that finanlly delivers it to an outbound stream, just as the PrintWriter object does. You can't win either way.
This is a good example of one of the many lose-lose situations you have in OO design.
The company is providing you with a product, often for free, and they request that for you to use their product you give them a little personal information. It is their product, so they get to make the rules. Your choices are to give what they want and take what you want, or you could just live without it. I don't understand the position of taking what you want and not leaving what they want.
Or you consider this tiny piece of personal information part of the price. Instead of giving them $5, you give them your age, salary, and email address. You don't try to trick the grocery store clerk when you think the bill was too high for what you bought, do you? Why would this be any different? If you don't like the invasion of privacy, then the cost is too high for you and you don't take the product.
I can see where people may say that capital is a required part of making the product and personal information isn't. Since they don't need my email address then I should feel free to not give it to them. However, this personal information often does translate into capital for them (the goal of business is to make money most of the time). Besides, that isn't your decision to make. The company wants your privates and they are giving you the product, so their desire carries more weight. If you were not receiving something back in return, then their desires would not override yours.
It is only a "little" lie doesn't change the fundamental aspect that lying is a priori wrong.
ResearchIndex is the best resources on the web when looking for anything pertaining to computer science technical reports. Learn it. Use it. Love it.
when people become intelligent enough to use it and Arthur finishes K4. Watch Kuro5hin within the next month for an Introduction to K to appear (I will also submit it here, but I doubt it will get posted).
I would rather not hear about your crackpot beliefs, so please never mention them again. I don't want to hear about your ignorant views on software or your wrong views on copying music. I used to just ignore the pirates and free software jibberish, but now it is becoming too much. Just stop now.
That book is not an introductory text. It is a second of third year text and even then it can be difficult for many to understand. Sipser can probably be taught in the second of third year with more effectiveness.
Are you some old time APLer? How did you stumble up on K. Between you, me, and my ex-roommate I think we are the only ones on Slashdot to have ever mentioned the language.
Please don't use your +1 bonus for rants. Especially, off topic rants.
I see all these comments and jokes about the administrators of the systems, the software used, the wages of those who's data was comprimised. However, I do not see any comments condeming the actions of the thiefs.
These crooks are the people that give you a bad name. They are the criminals here. They are not to be ignored. If somebody breaks into your house, you go after the robber; you don't sit there and think that you should have encased your house in steel and had better locks.
Please, place the blame where it belong.
and it has been around for years (the second oldest programming language still in use?). There is a modern day version called K that will crush C based systems when full SIMD support is implemented (is already does a good job of thrashing most languages). Collection based languages used to be much bigger that they are today for some reason. Current programming paradigms go into one direction (OO) while we keep having to deal with data in the other direction (bulk operations).