You can take that statement literally in that manner. But that isn't what it means nor what has ever been meant by it. What it means is that you can never do an action which is evil in and of itself, even for a good end. So the deliberate killing of an innocent is never justified. However, killing in self-defense can be (because the action is self-defense, not the killing itself. But that is a rather complex argument). In any case, my point was you can never perform reckless trials on humans no matter how great the potential reward. The details of what does and does not constitute "reckless" are of course open for debate. Treating humans as semi-expendable would count. Note that you could conduct the trials on yourself (or, possibly, if the volunteers did so knowing full well the risk.) However, the FDA would never approve such trials unless the danger was extremely great, due to the risk of volunteers being coerced through whatever means (among other things).
I was trying to be pithy, the issues of ethics are a little difficult to discuss on the Internet like this.
Could more people be saved overall by considering testing volunteers semi-expendable in order to hasten medical advance?
The ends never justify the means. Never. Note that if they could, any action, no matter how heinous, could be justified. So they don't. Which is why such experiments ought to never be considered ethical.
Initial investment gets people hooked (sometimes). Once you spend the $60, the $15/month doesn't look bad compared to the idea that all that money was wasted. Or that is the idea, anyways. Creates a more loyal fanbase. If free, people have much less incentive to stay (but lower barrier for entry). It all depends on the type of player you want.
Don't want it too high though: a large part of the reason I never picked up WoW again was that I'd have to buy all the expansions... and not even get any game time in the mix. Not worth it at all.
So true. Well, unless they were made by Obsidian like KOTOR II was. Might not buy that. But I wish they had just made KOTOR III: I don't have time for an MMO right now, and probably won't for a while. The market is flooded with similar games, but it is not flooded with good old-school RPGs (with modern graphics, story, and voice-acting). Meaning that no matter how good it is, I just won't be playing it. For a while anyways.
Better than basing all our theories on one data point, namely our own solar system, which is what we did before. Mostly still do in fact, since it is far better understood than any other system.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
-- George Washington.
The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
-- Patrick Henry
And let's not forget
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-- Thomas Jefferson
So you're wrong. Even Aristotle said 2,500 years ago: the private ownership of weapons is the greatest sign of a free country. Don't have the exact quote ATM, but you get the idea. I'm sorry, but you are 100% absolutely unequivocally wrong: the Founding Fathers wanted people to own guns. I'm pretty sure they would have wanted them to use them by this point.
Whether they also couldn't afford a standing army or not is irrelevant. They wanted the people to be armed, because that is the best and final insurance against tyranny.
[Citation Needed]. Not aware of that happening (I've studied a fair amount of history, and I honestly don't remember that ever being a major enough issue to come up). When did states conduct illegal surveillance, for example? I suppose there was the Civil War, but that wasn't really about abuses by states, but by people. Besides, there are fifty states: which do you prefer, one abusive power you can't get away from in the country and is difficult to change, or fifty which change easily and you can pick or choose between?
No, only that one extreme (and not really the extreme, at that: most of the people in the middle said similar things) was right about the results of government expansion.
To look at your example: if you don't discipline your son enough, he will turn out badly. The government was not disciplined properly, i.e. it didn't follow the rules set down in the Constitution. Same thing if you do too much discipline, which in this example is starving the government of funds (a problem in the early US: the federal government could set taxes, but had no power to actually collect them.) A balance is needed: the trouble is, government expansion is a feedback cycle: the larger it gets, the more people benefit, the more those people want it to keep expanding. That balance is given by the Constitution. If the government needs to expand with the times, you amend it. Which has been done before.
"Bread and circuses" was the way it was so elegantly put before, bread and circuses given by the government. What do we have now? Millions relying on the government for bread. The companies gave the circuses, and now both of them are teaming up under SOPA (and the DMCA before that).
My very point was that soldiers don't kill people for money (or aren't supposed to). Mercenaries do that. Soldiers do it for their country (or many do). And the tax paying would require the companies involvement as well (corporate taxes are pretty large too). Fortunately, people run companies. Also, what pclminion said.
This is why the Founding Fathers wanted a militia: if every capable-bodied male (female too, if you like, I don't care) citizen knew how to use and owned a gun, that couldn't happen. The military could maybe manage it, but the military is comprised of volunteers from the citizenry, so they are extremely unlikely to comply. Note that this is one reason mercenaries and the use thereof is a very very very bad idea. Historically, it is sometimes considered to be a major contributor of the downfall of Rome (for numerous reasons), and I don't see any reason why the US should be different. On the other hand, if everyone stopped paying taxes the US government would also collapse pretty rapidly. Might even be more effective than guns.
US Congress proposes bill that violates Constitution. News at 11.
Libertarians (and truly conservative conservatives, not just the "gays are bad, m'kay" kind) have been warning this was the inevitable end of the gradual expansion of US government that has been happening over the last 60-odd years. And look! It's happening. Already happened actually (in the form of the TSA). Of course, both parties are on the gravy train now. Except Ron Paul and Ron Wyden and a handful of others. And I doubt they can stop it.
The end of any government that continually expands in power (and money) and never grows smaller is tyranny and repression, and it always has been. Thousands of years of history back this up. Only way to stop it in the US is cut it's funding and authority. And I mean cut: as in, halve it over 5 years. More would be ideal. And of course restore the state rights back to the states. Never happen of course. If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go think about where I want to live instead in 5-10 years.
Also, you can't really use the term "weight" for a planetary core. Since the core is at the center of gravity, it has no weight whatsoever. Well, except for towards the Sun, I suppose. Not sure if TFS would be correct or not about the weight in that respect.
You should look up how the captcha system works (or reCAPTCHA, anyways). It is digitally scanned old print (such as old editions of the New York Times). They feed it through several OCR systems, and the ones that it doesn't work on get thrown into the CAPTCHA system for humans to identify. This allows them to a) digitize massive amounts of old print material (using the humans interpretation of words that can't be read by computer) and b) ensure large sources of CAPTCHAs which are unreadable by present OCR systems. Material that can be read by the new OCR system simply won't end up as captchas.
Yes, I am well aware of what Universal thinks (well, on this issue). I don't give a shit. They're wrong. Their definition certainly does not count as "reasonable", especially since their actions clearly weren't.
"exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (lit. "the exception confirms [approves, demonstrates] the rule in cases not excepted"). His usage here seems perfectly valid, so I'm a bit confused by what you mean. Red Hat has to go through special means to profit through releasing GPL'd code. Implying there is a rule that companies cannot do so through normal means. Which is exactly what the phrase was coined to mean.
Also implying that companies that do not want to go through such exceptions should use the BSD (or similar) license.
Exactly. The special access system is designed to fulfill Google's obligations under the DMCA. That makes this a DMCA takedown request under any reasonable definition of the term.
Cars, aircraft, and wireless communications all originated outside the military. Wars are the worst possible reason for government funding of tech improvements.
Correct. But all those things were improved, and highly, by the military (jet engines, for instance). Wars are bad: but military research is not. DARPA doesn't fund wars, they only fund research. The war is a waste of money, time, and lives. The research is most certainly not, and one does not require the other. So, we can have our cake and eat it too.
The Navy is working on the Rail gun. DARPA generally works on things that are way, way out technologically (to get closer to them). Rail guns are already working, just not quite at combat-usefulness yet.. LSHAC is possible, but submarines don't work very well for things that a) really, really don't like being underwater, and b) are really big. Also, helos are really rather easy to shoot down, and have incredibly limited speed and therefore also range, making them more useful for land deployment. Or for ASW on the sea, which is probably their largest use from carriers. SEAL teams can deploy from subs, and those are almost better than helos against terrorists in any case.
And lasers aren't terribly practical when fired from space, due to atmospheric distortion. That was researched 20-30 years ago, so again not something DARPA would be involved in. Also, powering them is an issue, since no one likes nuclear reactors in LEO.
Now, dropping tungsten rods from space: that, they would research.
A judge who understood technology enough to make the right decision.
Now, how do we get more judges like this?
Being a good judge means being able to see through the truth behind the veil, no matter if it's corporate BS or technology.
Unfortunately, people who are able to do that are extremely rare in all walks of life. Not surprisingly, they are also rare among judges.
There is no one whose to blame. Well, no one specifically. High schools and colleges, employers, parents. Pretty much everything has contributed something to turning out people who can't see past bullshit. Or rather, haven't contributed to turning out people who can see through it, which is what is really needed. As one of my high school teachers said: "the purpose of high school is to train students bullshit detectors." But when schools (often incited by parents) try to feed bullshit themselves (in the form of "raising self-esteem", most often), that doesn't happen. And we end up with judges who suck at their jobs. Along with politicians who also suck, elected by voters who... well, who suck at picking out good candidates.
Since most of the people who "identify" as Jedi Knights probably don't recognize it as a real religion either, I would say this is perfectly justified.
I said "help". They don't rely on it for sole guidance, obviously. As you say, that would be quite poor practice. Redundancy is built into most military technology. But they still want it to be as hard to spoof as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
You can take that statement literally in that manner. But that isn't what it means nor what has ever been meant by it. What it means is that you can never do an action which is evil in and of itself, even for a good end. So the deliberate killing of an innocent is never justified. However, killing in self-defense can be (because the action is self-defense, not the killing itself. But that is a rather complex argument). In any case, my point was you can never perform reckless trials on humans no matter how great the potential reward. The details of what does and does not constitute "reckless" are of course open for debate. Treating humans as semi-expendable would count. Note that you could conduct the trials on yourself (or, possibly, if the volunteers did so knowing full well the risk.) However, the FDA would never approve such trials unless the danger was extremely great, due to the risk of volunteers being coerced through whatever means (among other things).
I was trying to be pithy, the issues of ethics are a little difficult to discuss on the Internet like this.
Could more people be saved overall by considering testing volunteers semi-expendable in order to hasten medical advance?
The ends never justify the means. Never. Note that if they could, any action, no matter how heinous, could be justified. So they don't. Which is why such experiments ought to never be considered ethical.
Initial investment gets people hooked (sometimes). Once you spend the $60, the $15/month doesn't look bad compared to the idea that all that money was wasted. Or that is the idea, anyways. Creates a more loyal fanbase. If free, people have much less incentive to stay (but lower barrier for entry). It all depends on the type of player you want.
Don't want it too high though: a large part of the reason I never picked up WoW again was that I'd have to buy all the expansions... and not even get any game time in the mix. Not worth it at all.
So true. Well, unless they were made by Obsidian like KOTOR II was. Might not buy that. But I wish they had just made KOTOR III: I don't have time for an MMO right now, and probably won't for a while. The market is flooded with similar games, but it is not flooded with good old-school RPGs (with modern graphics, story, and voice-acting). Meaning that no matter how good it is, I just won't be playing it. For a while anyways.
Better than basing all our theories on one data point, namely our own solar system, which is what we did before. Mostly still do in fact, since it is far better understood than any other system.
The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
-- George Washington.
The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.
-- Patrick Henry
And let's not forget
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-- Thomas Jefferson
So you're wrong. Even Aristotle said 2,500 years ago: the private ownership of weapons is the greatest sign of a free country. Don't have the exact quote ATM, but you get the idea. I'm sorry, but you are 100% absolutely unequivocally wrong: the Founding Fathers wanted people to own guns. I'm pretty sure they would have wanted them to use them by this point.
Whether they also couldn't afford a standing army or not is irrelevant. They wanted the people to be armed, because that is the best and final insurance against tyranny.
[Citation Needed]. Not aware of that happening (I've studied a fair amount of history, and I honestly don't remember that ever being a major enough issue to come up). When did states conduct illegal surveillance, for example? I suppose there was the Civil War, but that wasn't really about abuses by states, but by people. Besides, there are fifty states: which do you prefer, one abusive power you can't get away from in the country and is difficult to change, or fifty which change easily and you can pick or choose between?
No, only that one extreme (and not really the extreme, at that: most of the people in the middle said similar things) was right about the results of government expansion.
To look at your example: if you don't discipline your son enough, he will turn out badly. The government was not disciplined properly, i.e. it didn't follow the rules set down in the Constitution. Same thing if you do too much discipline, which in this example is starving the government of funds (a problem in the early US: the federal government could set taxes, but had no power to actually collect them.) A balance is needed: the trouble is, government expansion is a feedback cycle: the larger it gets, the more people benefit, the more those people want it to keep expanding. That balance is given by the Constitution. If the government needs to expand with the times, you amend it. Which has been done before.
"Bread and circuses" was the way it was so elegantly put before, bread and circuses given by the government. What do we have now? Millions relying on the government for bread. The companies gave the circuses, and now both of them are teaming up under SOPA (and the DMCA before that).
My very point was that soldiers don't kill people for money (or aren't supposed to). Mercenaries do that. Soldiers do it for their country (or many do). And the tax paying would require the companies involvement as well (corporate taxes are pretty large too). Fortunately, people run companies. Also, what pclminion said.
This is why the Founding Fathers wanted a militia: if every capable-bodied male (female too, if you like, I don't care) citizen knew how to use and owned a gun, that couldn't happen. The military could maybe manage it, but the military is comprised of volunteers from the citizenry, so they are extremely unlikely to comply. Note that this is one reason mercenaries and the use thereof is a very very very bad idea. Historically, it is sometimes considered to be a major contributor of the downfall of Rome (for numerous reasons), and I don't see any reason why the US should be different. On the other hand, if everyone stopped paying taxes the US government would also collapse pretty rapidly. Might even be more effective than guns.
US Congress proposes bill that violates Constitution. News at 11.
Libertarians (and truly conservative conservatives, not just the "gays are bad, m'kay" kind) have been warning this was the inevitable end of the gradual expansion of US government that has been happening over the last 60-odd years. And look! It's happening. Already happened actually (in the form of the TSA). Of course, both parties are on the gravy train now. Except Ron Paul and Ron Wyden and a handful of others. And I doubt they can stop it.
The end of any government that continually expands in power (and money) and never grows smaller is tyranny and repression, and it always has been. Thousands of years of history back this up. Only way to stop it in the US is cut it's funding and authority. And I mean cut: as in, halve it over 5 years. More would be ideal. And of course restore the state rights back to the states. Never happen of course. If you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go think about where I want to live instead in 5-10 years.
...central core made of iron, rock, and ice. .... The temperature there is approximately 16,000 kelvin—hotter than the surface of our sun....
Okay, maybe ice means something else on Jupiter. Can someone explain how Jupiter's core can have ice that doesn't melt?
Pressure.
Yeah, but it does wonders for it's weight.
Also, you can't really use the term "weight" for a planetary core. Since the core is at the center of gravity, it has no weight whatsoever. Well, except for towards the Sun, I suppose. Not sure if TFS would be correct or not about the weight in that respect.
You should look up how the captcha system works (or reCAPTCHA, anyways). It is digitally scanned old print (such as old editions of the New York Times). They feed it through several OCR systems, and the ones that it doesn't work on get thrown into the CAPTCHA system for humans to identify. This allows them to a) digitize massive amounts of old print material (using the humans interpretation of words that can't be read by computer) and b) ensure large sources of CAPTCHAs which are unreadable by present OCR systems. Material that can be read by the new OCR system simply won't end up as captchas.
Yes, I am well aware of what Universal thinks (well, on this issue). I don't give a shit. They're wrong. Their definition certainly does not count as "reasonable", especially since their actions clearly weren't.
"exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (lit. "the exception confirms [approves, demonstrates] the rule in cases not excepted"). His usage here seems perfectly valid, so I'm a bit confused by what you mean. Red Hat has to go through special means to profit through releasing GPL'd code. Implying there is a rule that companies cannot do so through normal means. Which is exactly what the phrase was coined to mean.
Also implying that companies that do not want to go through such exceptions should use the BSD (or similar) license.
Exactly. The special access system is designed to fulfill Google's obligations under the DMCA. That makes this a DMCA takedown request under any reasonable definition of the term.
Cars, aircraft, and wireless communications all originated outside the military. Wars are the worst possible reason for government funding of tech improvements.
Correct. But all those things were improved, and highly, by the military (jet engines, for instance). Wars are bad: but military research is not. DARPA doesn't fund wars, they only fund research. The war is a waste of money, time, and lives. The research is most certainly not, and one does not require the other. So, we can have our cake and eat it too.
The Navy is working on the Rail gun. DARPA generally works on things that are way, way out technologically (to get closer to them). Rail guns are already working, just not quite at combat-usefulness yet.. LSHAC is possible, but submarines don't work very well for things that a) really, really don't like being underwater, and b) are really big. Also, helos are really rather easy to shoot down, and have incredibly limited speed and therefore also range, making them more useful for land deployment. Or for ASW on the sea, which is probably their largest use from carriers. SEAL teams can deploy from subs, and those are almost better than helos against terrorists in any case.
And lasers aren't terribly practical when fired from space, due to atmospheric distortion. That was researched 20-30 years ago, so again not something DARPA would be involved in. Also, powering them is an issue, since no one likes nuclear reactors in LEO.
Now, dropping tungsten rods from space: that, they would research.
Yeah, who wants flying cars, high-speed aircraft, or rapidly deployed distributed wireless communications anyways?
A judge who understood technology enough to make the right decision.
Now, how do we get more judges like this?
Being a good judge means being able to see through the truth behind the veil, no matter if it's corporate BS or technology.
Unfortunately, people who are able to do that are extremely rare in all walks of life. Not surprisingly, they are also rare among judges.
There is no one whose to blame. Well, no one specifically. High schools and colleges, employers, parents. Pretty much everything has contributed something to turning out people who can't see past bullshit. Or rather, haven't contributed to turning out people who can see through it, which is what is really needed. As one of my high school teachers said: "the purpose of high school is to train students bullshit detectors." But when schools (often incited by parents) try to feed bullshit themselves (in the form of "raising self-esteem", most often), that doesn't happen. And we end up with judges who suck at their jobs. Along with politicians who also suck, elected by voters who... well, who suck at picking out good candidates.
Since when did cosmetics, and most especially the advertisements thereof, have anything to do with reality? They are like real life photoshop.
Since most of the people who "identify" as Jedi Knights probably don't recognize it as a real religion either, I would say this is perfectly justified.
are kids really THAT much stupider than when we were kids?
I don't think so, but the parents are that much dumber. Or less attentive (same thing, really.)
I said "help". They don't rely on it for sole guidance, obviously. As you say, that would be quite poor practice. Redundancy is built into most military technology. But they still want it to be as hard to spoof as possible.