the immediate benefits of being able to fly because your useless gray matter isn't too heavy, usually outweigh the investment in gray matter that will allow your descendents to fly eventually.
the problem with that is always going to be... sentience.
intelligence is not guaranteed to be the best evolutionary advantage. Any complex life is almost certainly going to progress from single cells to multi-cells... or something similar to cells at least. And any intelligence is almost going to stem from complexity in a subset of those multicells. multicells that will have been specialized for intelligence and very little else. Brains are one of those huge resource investments that we need to constantly feed with sugar or we die.
multicellular life has been around for like, a billion years. and we've only just showed up to the party like, last week.
there could be millions of planets out there that are just filled with dinosaurs, bigger and bigger multicellular organisms that are just smart enough to hunt you down and eat you. Just smart enough to balance out the resource drain with the resource gain from having more mental faculties... and nothing more.
Remember, the masters of this planet are bacteria, ants outweigh us... and plants were here before us and will be here long after we're dead. evolution isn't directed and intelligence isn't guaranteed to be a net positive.
nah, it's always been the an argument about probability.
given the pace of technological advancement in our reality, and the trends in our reality. eventually our civilization will create simulated realities of some kind, just because we can. If we assume that our development/situation is non-unique, and assume the capability of any reality to sustain more than one simulated reality, we can conclude that the likelihood we're in the original reality, as opposed to one of the nested simulated realities is vanishingly small.
he donated 1000 dollars to prop 8. and wouldn't apologize for having a personal belief. wikipedia summary is pretty accurate.
"Andrew Sullivan said of Eich's departure that "there is not a scintilla of evidence that he has ever discriminated against a single gay person at Mozilla"[27] and the episode "should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society."'
he wasn't sued, but he was forced out.... if you're not free to donate 1k how about 500? how about 50? how small is the contribution you're allowed to make before others aren't allowed to hold your employment hostage for contributing to a political cause, or idea, or party?
i literally hope ok cupid burns to the ground and its management dies screaming.
yeah, with the eich thing. everyone was well within their rights. but i'm not sure if they should be.
in these cases I like to flip the script and remove contextual details. get a bit further from it.
from my point of view, if he'd been pressured into resigning over donating and not recanting For same sex marriage, I would have a problem.
from my point of view, without contextual detail, it looks a lot like someone is being forced out of their job by an organized group of people that don't share his opinion about a topic that would have and has no bearing on his work performance.
the question I ask myself is, do i want to live in a country where the political views, where diversity of opinion and thought is dissuaded?
unless it's a political contribution to a campaign he believes in. the brendan eich case is much more ominous than this gawker fiasco.
brendan eich's situation makes me nervous for the state of discourse and political speech in this country.
i think there were actually people that, to paraphrase, called for him to recant his political views and religiously held conviction, or they would keep pressuring for his resignation.
he gave 1500 dollars to a cause he believed in, and still believes in. and a lynch mob came and got him fired from his job.
I don't want SMALL SCALE political contributions to be "cause" for termination, do you? what's next?
he's not a little-guy, but he was ousted for doing and thinking what a lot of little-guys do and think.
get money out of politics? sure, but not fucking 1500 dollar contribution money. how do we keep small donors donating to causes they believe in? i guess we can go anonymous, that might work.
yeah, his comment was dithering to the extreme and you only agreed with his premise.
more people are alive today than would be if there were no FDA.
full stop.
i think only an idiot would imagine the number of lives saved by the FDA were in any way comparable to the number of deaths caused by delays in their process.
you don't think having this found out will alienate people that hear about it? I don't use facebook, and i'm fairly middle of the ground politically speaking... but this looks shady to me. If I were more conservative user i'd boycott facebook on principle.
There's a reason most corporations don't fuck with politics in this way, because you lose regardless of your position.
it feels like facebook was trying to use its reach to sway the political opinion of americans without anyone knowing. It's insidious, and they're at their liberty to do so obviously... but in an open manner.
why were people up in arms about reddit shadow-bans? because what you think is an open platform, is secretly being subverted in an attempt to secretly influence your views.
curate the shit out of the facebook feed... but tell people you're doing it.
... you don't represent the entire left wing. there is certainly elements of the left in the US that bitch more about what Israel does daily, than what should be done in Syria.
when putatively up to 2000 civilians died in Operation Protective Edge, all you heard about was israeli atrocity. Meanwhile I think the death-toll in syria at the same time had risen to 200000 dead. something like 8000 dead children alone.:) if a muslim kills a muslim nobody cares apparently. i forget the joke I read at the time, it was rather morbid... it went something like, 'maybe we should get some jews to kill us too, maybe then we'll get some attention.'
i find that line of reasoning suspect. There's a point in the lifecycle of all laws, where there aren't laws to cover things. What was the international law covering chemical weapons in 1815?
i'd say, listing it at all is incitement to use it
if i made an app, that forget about taking a picture, could take a snapshot of my current speed down to the... lets say foot per second? and made it so I could send it to my friends as an unbiased record of sorts... I think i'd get in trouble the first time some dumb teen died.
and i know that some dumb teen would die...
essentially, is listing the speed anything other than a trophy in and of itself. what exactly is the point of listing the speed on a photo? isn't the entire point of listing the speed to encourage behavior that is riskier than taking pictures without a speed rating?
It seems kinda pointless as information unless it's something to brag about you know.
i think part of the problem is not only are you encouraging going fast, you're also encouraging snapchat being the sole focus of the user's attention for good fractions of seconds.
ask yourself this. you went into this sight unseen. I tell you about an app that displays speed ratings on photos taken. I tell you that texting and driving is incredibly dangerous. I tell you that a certain subset of people are incredibly fond of taking pictures of themselves while doing shocking and/or dangerous things.
as a reasonable person, would you come to the conclusion that there will be some people that will use that app to take pictures of themselves while driving at high speed, for the explicit purpose of getting a shocking and dangerous photo?
we want corporations to at least pay lip service to thinking about the consequences of their actions.
promoting dangerous behavior isn't something we like our companies to do.
Slashdot Mirror
the moon is drifting away from us at like, 4 cm a year.
solar wind does wierd things too.
the immediate benefits of being able to fly because your useless gray matter isn't too heavy, usually outweigh the investment in gray matter that will allow your descendents to fly eventually.
we've found dinosaur fossils. dinosaur footprints.
the question really is, how quickly did mankind create something more resilient to the ravages of time than their own bodily remains?
we're also closer in time to the T-Rex than the T-Rex is to the stegosaurus. it's not like dinosaurs didn't have a shit ton of time to get stuff done.
geosynchonous is only on the human timescale. they've still got boosters to adjust their path even now.
the problem with that is always going to be... sentience.
intelligence is not guaranteed to be the best evolutionary advantage. Any complex life is almost certainly going to progress from single cells to multi-cells... or something similar to cells at least. And any intelligence is almost going to stem from complexity in a subset of those multicells. multicells that will have been specialized for intelligence and very little else. Brains are one of those huge resource investments that we need to constantly feed with sugar or we die.
multicellular life has been around for like, a billion years. and we've only just showed up to the party like, last week.
there could be millions of planets out there that are just filled with dinosaurs, bigger and bigger multicellular organisms that are just smart enough to hunt you down and eat you. Just smart enough to balance out the resource drain with the resource gain from having more mental faculties... and nothing more.
Remember, the masters of this planet are bacteria, ants outweigh us... and plants were here before us and will be here long after we're dead. evolution isn't directed and intelligence isn't guaranteed to be a net positive.
no, it's really not
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry...
from 2004, but essentially should be still good,
looking at per mile driven vs flown, or looking at per hour driven vs flown. general aviation is still a couple times more fatal than driving.
https://xkcd.com/505/
as long as the simulation isn't rocks right?
nah, it's always been the an argument about probability.
given the pace of technological advancement in our reality, and the trends in our reality. eventually our civilization will create simulated realities of some kind, just because we can. If we assume that our development/situation is non-unique, and assume the capability of any reality to sustain more than one simulated reality, we can conclude that the likelihood we're in the original reality, as opposed to one of the nested simulated realities is vanishingly small.
no, it's speak your mind, and when america changes its mind and no longer agrees with you... watch out. you'll be out of a job.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
it's so capricious isn't it
he donated 1000 dollars to prop 8. and wouldn't apologize for having a personal belief.
wikipedia summary is pretty accurate.
"Andrew Sullivan said of Eich's departure that "there is not a scintilla of evidence that he has ever discriminated against a single gay person at Mozilla"[27] and the episode "should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society."'
he wasn't sued, but he was forced out. ... if you're not free to donate 1k how about 500? how about 50? how small is the contribution you're allowed to make before others aren't allowed to hold your employment hostage for contributing to a political cause, or idea, or party?
i literally hope ok cupid burns to the ground and its management dies screaming.
that's the 3.5
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
yeah, with the eich thing. everyone was well within their rights. but i'm not sure if they should be.
in these cases I like to flip the script and remove contextual details. get a bit further from it.
from my point of view, if he'd been pressured into resigning over donating and not recanting For same sex marriage, I would have a problem.
from my point of view, without contextual detail, it looks a lot like someone is being forced out of their job by an organized group of people that don't share his opinion about a topic that would have and has no bearing on his work performance.
the question I ask myself is, do i want to live in a country where the political views, where diversity of opinion and thought is dissuaded?
conformity of thought is not a virtue.
he's not even a homophobe, just a religious nut. ... but he did invent javascript...
unless it's a political contribution to a campaign he believes in. the brendan eich case is much more ominous than this gawker fiasco.
brendan eich's situation makes me nervous for the state of discourse and political speech in this country.
i think there were actually people that, to paraphrase, called for him to recant his political views and religiously held conviction, or they would keep pressuring for his resignation.
he gave 1500 dollars to a cause he believed in, and still believes in. and a lynch mob came and got him fired from his job.
I don't want SMALL SCALE political contributions to be "cause" for termination, do you? what's next?
he's not a little-guy, but he was ousted for doing and thinking what a lot of little-guys do and think.
get money out of politics? sure, but not fucking 1500 dollar contribution money. how do we keep small donors donating to causes they believe in? i guess we can go anonymous, that might work.
the budget was balanced in spite of clinton, not because of him. one note.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
yeah, his comment was dithering to the extreme and you only agreed with his premise.
more people are alive today than would be if there were no FDA.
full stop.
i think only an idiot would imagine the number of lives saved by the FDA were in any way comparable to the number of deaths caused by delays in their process.
you don't think having this found out will alienate people that hear about it? I don't use facebook, and i'm fairly middle of the ground politically speaking... but this looks shady to me. If I were more conservative user i'd boycott facebook on principle.
There's a reason most corporations don't fuck with politics in this way, because you lose regardless of your position.
unless you make chicken-crack of course.
i don't know if it's a problem.
but it doesn't feel aboveboard.
it feels like facebook was trying to use its reach to sway the political opinion of americans without anyone knowing. It's insidious, and they're at their liberty to do so obviously... but in an open manner.
why were people up in arms about reddit shadow-bans? because what you think is an open platform, is secretly being subverted in an attempt to secretly influence your views.
curate the shit out of the facebook feed... but tell people you're doing it.
it's the hiding that's the problem.
the president is not a king.
... you don't represent the entire left wing. there is certainly elements of the left in the US that bitch more about what Israel does daily, than what should be done in Syria.
when putatively up to 2000 civilians died in Operation Protective Edge, all you heard about was israeli atrocity. Meanwhile I think the death-toll in syria at the same time had risen to 200000 dead. :) if a muslim kills a muslim nobody cares apparently.
something like 8000 dead children alone.
i forget the joke I read at the time, it was rather morbid... it went something like, 'maybe we should get some jews to kill us too, maybe then we'll get some attention.'
i find that line of reasoning suspect. There's a point in the lifecycle of all laws, where there aren't laws to cover things. What was the international law covering chemical weapons in 1815?
i'd say, listing it at all is incitement to use it
if i made an app, that forget about taking a picture, could take a snapshot of my current speed down to the ... lets say foot per second? and made it so I could send it to my friends as an unbiased record of sorts... I think i'd get in trouble the first time some dumb teen died.
and i know that some dumb teen would die...
essentially, is listing the speed anything other than a trophy in and of itself. what exactly is the point of listing the speed on a photo?
isn't the entire point of listing the speed to encourage behavior that is riskier than taking pictures without a speed rating?
It seems kinda pointless as information unless it's something to brag about you know.
i think part of the problem is not only are you encouraging going fast, you're also encouraging snapchat being the sole focus of the user's attention for good fractions of seconds.
ask yourself this. you went into this sight unseen. I tell you about an app that displays speed ratings on photos taken. I tell you that texting and driving is incredibly dangerous. I tell you that a certain subset of people are incredibly fond of taking pictures of themselves while doing shocking and/or dangerous things.
as a reasonable person, would you come to the conclusion that there will be some people that will use that app to take pictures of themselves while driving at high speed, for the explicit purpose of getting a shocking and dangerous photo?
we want corporations to at least pay lip service to thinking about the consequences of their actions.
promoting dangerous behavior isn't something we like our companies to do.