I cannot believe this comment was marked as insightful. Human history is a history of war. Your ability to have anything (Including the right to determine what is done with your own body) has always been dependant on your ability to defend it. Slavery and murder have occurred in one form or another in any group of humans of any significant size throughout history, and warfare is just a natural extension of this. A brief glance out into the natural world around us reveals that the strong dominate the weak throughout the animal kingdom.
This is not to say that we cannot overcome our darker side to a certain extent, even today. Indeed, I think it is the duty of all rational beings to try and do so. But to deny that humanity has a darker side is naive at best.
As somebody who keeps a few chickens as a hobby, I can attest to there being a difference in the taste of eggs. You may not notice it on its own, but put them side by side and the fresh free range organic eggs will win out every time.
And pigs could fly if we spent a sufficient amount on genetic engineering - Just because something may be theoretically possible does not mean it is practical.
Polygamy is linked to a lot of other social problems. In many cases, the way it ends up working in practice is with multiple young girls being married off to older men, with social pressure or threats used to maintain the status quo. The younger guys in such communities then tend to present a problem, and are sometimes evicted from the community or treated harshly older ones see them as a threat. These social issues are the main reason why polygamy is against the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy#Criticism_of_plural_marriage
I see no corresponding set of issues associated with gay marriage
Take the Ferrari for example. I am no expert, but I hear that one will easily set you back $200,000. Most people who drive them do so on public roads, so the fact that you may be able to go over 200 mph is not really relevant, since in most areas you would never get the opportunity to do so. A cheaper car would perform the same task just as well for most people (Even better if you count fuel economy as a factor). So why do people buy Ferraris? The answer is exclusivity. People buy them because not everybody can own a Ferrari. Were there some way to magically replicate a Ferrari, nobody would spent $200,000 on one.
I am not expressing an opinion on the morality of File Sharing - merely observing that availability and the perception of availability has a real effect on market value.
Something has been lost because the value of the original has been reduced. Much of the value of real world items is based on the perception that they have value. My first boss used to say "If you give something away for free, people will esteem it as worthless". Most people who say "I do not pay because it is not worth it", merely say that because they are used to getting it for free.
Why was this modded off topic? With the article about 3d printers, I too personally feel that renting the service makes more sense. Though I do not advocate any particular company, paying $1250 to print the few bits and pieces that would constitute the total usage of the device for most users seems excessive to me.
I would submit that ethics has never trumped economics - Do you think it is a coincidence that slavery ended around the time that mechanisation and industrialisation were taking off? We still a high standard of living without the same level of hard or tedious labour, but now said labour is performed by machines enabling us to have a higher ethical standard. Take away the machines, and I suspect slavery would come right back.
I for one like knowing that there are hospitals close to my home, even though I have never had cause to use one.
It is nice to know that if I am hit by a truck while getting some exercise (I cycle), there are better facilities than a course of leeches in my neighbourhood.
It is also nice to know that if I happen to get skin cancer while getting some sunshine, I may at least have a chance at survival through chemotherapy.
I guess my point is that sometimes bad things happen, and you can't always blame the unfortunate individual whom misfortune has befallen.
Maybe "Hi, there's no paper in the printer, and an orange light on it and it wont print, can you come and have a look at it?" is a subtle way of asking : "Where the hell do you keep the paper, and could you show me how to change it as I have never been shown and am afraid I might break this thing!"
In this case the advice being given was contrary to established medical practice. To illustrate, were you to say "I'm thirsty" and I respond with "Have some water", that would not be a problem. Were I to say "Have some engine oil", then there would be trouble
If you want to say "This object should be free now", then you still have a reference to the object, and it should not be free! (Unless you are talking about a weak reference)
The small caveat in one line of plain English illustrates exactly why memory management in java works the way it does - if you do it manually, many people get it wrong.
No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge.
Would that include the Nazi experiments on the Jews in concentration camps? I know that is an extreme example, but I raise it to underscore that there are some things which we should not do, even for science. (Which to me is the highest of all goals.)
Slashdot Mirror
I cannot believe this comment was marked as insightful. Human history is a history of war. Your ability to have anything (Including the right to determine what is done with your own body) has always been dependant on your ability to defend it. Slavery and murder have occurred in one form or another in any group of humans of any significant size throughout history, and warfare is just a natural extension of this. A brief glance out into the natural world around us reveals that the strong dominate the weak throughout the animal kingdom. This is not to say that we cannot overcome our darker side to a certain extent, even today. Indeed, I think it is the duty of all rational beings to try and do so. But to deny that humanity has a darker side is naive at best.
Wouldn't their extra terrestrial origin be evident in their DNA?
As somebody who keeps a few chickens as a hobby, I can attest to there being a difference in the taste of eggs. You may not notice it on its own, but put them side by side and the fresh free range organic eggs will win out every time.
and a good security review process
In most cases, unit testing will do very little to prevent exploitable code - only educating the coder can help with this.
And pigs could fly if we spent a sufficient amount on genetic engineering - Just because something may be theoretically possible does not mean it is practical.
I don't think you can "fix it" even if you know it's there - just limit the damage.
Polygamy is linked to a lot of other social problems. In many cases, the way it ends up working in practice is with multiple young girls being married off to older men, with social pressure or threats used to maintain the status quo. The younger guys in such communities then tend to present a problem, and are sometimes evicted from the community or treated harshly older ones see them as a threat. These social issues are the main reason why polygamy is against the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy#Criticism_of_plural_marriage I see no corresponding set of issues associated with gay marriage
Take the Ferrari for example. I am no expert, but I hear that one will easily set you back $200,000. Most people who drive them do so on public roads, so the fact that you may be able to go over 200 mph is not really relevant, since in most areas you would never get the opportunity to do so. A cheaper car would perform the same task just as well for most people (Even better if you count fuel economy as a factor). So why do people buy Ferraris? The answer is exclusivity. People buy them because not everybody can own a Ferrari. Were there some way to magically replicate a Ferrari, nobody would spent $200,000 on one. I am not expressing an opinion on the morality of File Sharing - merely observing that availability and the perception of availability has a real effect on market value.
Something has been lost because the value of the original has been reduced. Much of the value of real world items is based on the perception that they have value. My first boss used to say "If you give something away for free, people will esteem it as worthless". Most people who say "I do not pay because it is not worth it", merely say that because they are used to getting it for free.
Why was this modded off topic? With the article about 3d printers, I too personally feel that renting the service makes more sense. Though I do not advocate any particular company, paying $1250 to print the few bits and pieces that would constitute the total usage of the device for most users seems excessive to me.
I would submit that ethics has never trumped economics - Do you think it is a coincidence that slavery ended around the time that mechanisation and industrialisation were taking off? We still a high standard of living without the same level of hard or tedious labour, but now said labour is performed by machines enabling us to have a higher ethical standard. Take away the machines, and I suspect slavery would come right back.
I for one like knowing that there are hospitals close to my home, even though I have never had cause to use one. It is nice to know that if I am hit by a truck while getting some exercise (I cycle), there are better facilities than a course of leeches in my neighbourhood. It is also nice to know that if I happen to get skin cancer while getting some sunshine, I may at least have a chance at survival through chemotherapy. I guess my point is that sometimes bad things happen, and you can't always blame the unfortunate individual whom misfortune has befallen.
"You don't see women being objectified in legal conventions in as overt a manner as this." FTFY
Trying to do many things at once often results in all of the tasks being performed badly. Maybe try cycling to work, and sit while you code.
Mosquito's are one species I for one could do without.
Maybe "Hi, there's no paper in the printer, and an orange light on it and it wont print, can you come and have a look at it?" is a subtle way of asking : "Where the hell do you keep the paper, and could you show me how to change it as I have never been shown and am afraid I might break this thing!"
In this case the advice being given was contrary to established medical practice. To illustrate, were you to say "I'm thirsty" and I respond with "Have some water", that would not be a problem. Were I to say "Have some engine oil", then there would be trouble
If you want to say "This object should be free now", then you still have a reference to the object, and it should not be free! (Unless you are talking about a weak reference) The small caveat in one line of plain English illustrates exactly why memory management in java works the way it does - if you do it manually, many people get it wrong.
No matter how you put it, prohibiting any kind of research is immoral, because it deprives society of knowledge.
Would that include the Nazi experiments on the Jews in concentration camps? I know that is an extreme example, but I raise it to underscore that there are some things which we should not do, even for science. (Which to me is the highest of all goals.)