Well, assuming we can get the people who are blind but once had vision to see again, what would stop us from giving these artificial eyes to the blind at birth?
Hmmm... Well, newborns don't exactly pop out and tell you that they're blind. I'm not sure how easy it is to diagnose all forms of blindness when they're that young -- even healthy newborns can't see very well at first.
But more importantly, who's going to pay for it? In a world where so many people lack even basic medical coverage, I don't think this is a realistic solution. This sounds like it would be a very, very expensive procedure... And whatever the costs and limitations of improving accessibility, at least the benefits can be reaped more or less equally by all (i.e., not just those who are rich).
Then there is the fact that artificial eyes do not give you perfect or even average vision, and possibly never will. Even if you could magically provide working artificial eyes to all of the blind in the world, they will still need accessibility accomodations in order to be able to function with what will always be an inferior substitute for normal human vision.
Finally, even if artificial eyes could someday provide perfect vision, it would take a great deal of time to get there. Meanwhile, how many generations of blind people will be born, live out their lives, and die?
So no, I don't think that diverting attention and/or funds away from accessibility is a good idea.
But as long as we're talking about it, I might turn the tables and suggest that some of the money being used to research artificial eyes would be better spent on prevention of toxoplasmosis and other afflictions that cause many of these people to be born blind in the first place.
Hmmm... I could see similar research being used to develop drugs that would suppress activity in these same areas of the brain, to help people overcome compulsive buying habits.
On second thought, it probably wouldn't take off. How would you market it?
The ISP has the same obligation to suppress spam by its subscriber regardless of whether the target is on or off their service.
In what sense do they have an "obligation"? Morally, perhaps; legally, maybe in some circumstances. But just because they tell their subscribers that they may have their account terminated for spamming certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to follow through with it whenever some loudmouth with a screenshot complains. That was my point. True, they might be obligated for other reasons, but then again they might not.
Re:CMYK, and GIMP UI vs. drop-down menus
on
Film Gimp
·
· Score: 2
what's the *next*-biggest complaint people have about the GIMP?
Actually, you're wrong. It's also their job to enforce their policies. [....] If you are under contract, and they don't help you, accuse them of being in breach of their policies.
Refusing to terminate someone else's account on your say-so is not a "breach of their policies." An abuse policy places limits on how the customer is allowed to use the service. It does not in any way imply that the ISP is somehow obligated to punish every infraction. They are well within their rights to terminate the offender's access, or suspend it, or give a warning -- or do absolutely nothing.
Re:Multiverse Schmultiverse
on
One of Many
·
· Score: 2
He's basically doing what Creationists do - merging biological evolutionary theory with cosmological evolution, something which most scientists are quick to separate. I think he might be onto something...
He is not "merging" these theories, he is simply making an analogy... though I agree, it is a very appealing one. However, I don't see what this has to do with creationism, since creationists tend to reject biological evolutionary theory. I really don't see how claiming that God created the (singular) universe ~6,000 years ago is equivalent to, or even compatible with, the idea of "merging biological evolutionary theory with cosmological evolution."
Because it lacks that certain refinment that makes the Apple Titantium Power Book so nice. Same with the majority of Apple's products. There is a certain attention to detail that shows up in the product from Apple, that you don't find in other vendors products. That is what makes Apple's products special.
(Cue music) Like an old sweater that keeps getting warmer with age, you can count on Tweek's coffee to start your day.
The parent post was a paid advertisement from Apple Computer, Inc.
some think it's actually a star that just wasn't big enough to have it's own mass crush it's innards to the point where nuclear fusion occurs and the star is born.
And that makes it "actually a star" how, exactly?
You pretty much just gave the definition for why it isn't a star.
All-in-all, yes, two games I know and which involve sex and minors. However, not in the way you suggested: I thought, as most of the people who read your comment probably, that you were talking about games in which the player-character is actively engaged in sex with minors, which is by far not the case in these games.
Is that what I suggested, or is that what you inferred? (This is a rhetorical question.) All I said was that these games contained scenes depicting non-consensual sex with minors... I can't see anything misleading or inaccurate in that statement.
Even though "sex with minors" can be a very dirty and cheap trick to attract an audience, I don't think these two games are wrong to use it the way they do.
I never said they were "wrong." Any one of these games, by itself, probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow (although the one about slavery was quite unnecessarily graphic). It is the fact that I encountered three of them in a row (out of three), chosen essentially at random. It is also worth noting that none of the three had any other kind of "adult" content -- i.e., nothing actually between consenting adults -- only non-consensual (bad enough) with minors/children (much worse).
Granted, my sample of three may not be statistically significant (although there aren't *that* many IF games out there, and even fewer which have won awards). Certainly, I don't take it to mean that every single IF game has this kind of content in it; but I'd be willing to bet that these aren't the only three. And as a guy who's just looking for another Planetfall or Zork to play, I don't want to get 2/3 through an otherwise innocuous adventure game only to run into this kind of thing again.
I concur. It seems that there is a lot more talking in theatres than 5 or 10 years ago.
I blame cell phones.
I don't think cellphones are to blame for talking in theaters. I blame home video. People are so used to getting away with talking during a movie (at home), they think nothing of doing the same thing when they're out in public. Home video breeds bad habits.
Of course, now that I have two kids under 4, I'm starting to appreciate the (rare) theater experience again. Even with all the talking and electronic beeping, it's still much less distracting than the baby waking up.
Actually, these were all award-winning games. One was Anchorhead. Another was a kind of time-travel thing about slavery, but I don't remember the name. The third one was about a teenaged girl hitchhiking and having to fight off a man who tried to rape her.
I don't think it's gone. I would guess that the warnings are simply painted with a broad brush for the sake of simplicity; e.g. "anything containing peanuts" or "anything over X degrees" must carry a warning. In 90% of cases, the warnings are helpful, because the danger might not be obvious (e.g., something cooked in peanut oil). When you see the warnings on a cup of coffee or a jar of peanut butter, it's not because people are stupid, or lack common sense. It's simply because it costs nothing to add the warning, and if they decided to leave it off of some products, they would find themselves in the business of defining the line between when a danger is obvious enough for common sense, and when it's not. This would be a complete waste of time, as there is nothing to be gained by drawing that line, but plenty to lose if they drew it in the wrong place. So they just apply the warning across the board to save themselves the trouble.
Now, for the conspiratorial version: Corporations are trying to drum up popular support for tort law reform. They put these warnings on their products deliberately, because the warnings create the impression that they are being plagued by lawsuits from people who lack common sense. (This is a popular meme, because it also leads to a feeling of superiority in the person who believes it.) Tort law reform suddenly seems like a great idea to your average Joe. Average Joe votes....
There's something in (good) IF you don't find in modern, 3D-graphics games: substance, content, plot, atmosphere, characters, adult themes (not that kind of adult - though such games exist, too).
A year or two ago, I downloaded a few of the "best" ones to give them a try and see what IF is all about today. And no kidding, the first three games I played all contained scenes involving non-consensual sex with minors.
I don't know what this says (if anything) about the IF authoring community, but I haven't played any IF since.
I recall reading about a study that said that hands-free systems did
not reduce the number of gaffes people made while driving and talking
on the phone.
I believe this has something to do with the way
that people normally place pauses in their
conversation whenever they see that something else is
happening that demands the listener's attention.
A passenger in a car, for example, will stop in
mid-sentence if an emergency situation arises.
But someone on the phone with them will not be
aware of the situation, so they will keep right
on talking. This splits the driver's
attention at a critical moment.
You'll pardon me if I live my life in a rational way and worry more
about my developing my children's independence and trust than filling
their mind with worthless thoughts that the entire world is crawling
with people just waiting to grab them.
Hear, hear. I don't think that many of these
paranoid parents have any idea of how low the real
statistical risk is.
On the other hand, as the proportion of paranoid
parents increases, the risk to children of the
remaining laissez-faire parents probably increases
-- when the kidnappers come around, they're the
only ones left to choose from. In that sense,
it is legitimately more dangerous to let your
kids run free today than it used to be, but only
because there are so few running free. This
probably leads to a snowball effect similar to the
one that's filling our highways with SUVs (it is
truly more dangerous to drive a smaller car today,
but only because there are too many of these
ridiculous behemoths out there endangering you --
so you feel pressured to join them for your own
safety).
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... Well, newborns don't exactly pop out and tell you that they're blind. I'm not sure how easy it is to diagnose all forms of blindness when they're that young -- even healthy newborns can't see very well at first.
But more importantly, who's going to pay for it? In a world where so many people lack even basic medical coverage, I don't think this is a realistic solution. This sounds like it would be a very, very expensive procedure... And whatever the costs and limitations of improving accessibility, at least the benefits can be reaped more or less equally by all (i.e., not just those who are rich).
Then there is the fact that artificial eyes do not give you perfect or even average vision, and possibly never will. Even if you could magically provide working artificial eyes to all of the blind in the world, they will still need accessibility accomodations in order to be able to function with what will always be an inferior substitute for normal human vision.
Finally, even if artificial eyes could someday provide perfect vision, it would take a great deal of time to get there. Meanwhile, how many generations of blind people will be born, live out their lives, and die?
So no, I don't think that diverting attention and/or funds away from accessibility is a good idea.
But as long as we're talking about it, I might turn the tables and suggest that some of the money being used to research artificial eyes would be better spent on prevention of toxoplasmosis and other afflictions that cause many of these people to be born blind in the first place.
On second thought, it probably wouldn't take off. How would you market it?
How do you know that's not already the case with these two articles?
In what sense do they have an "obligation"? Morally, perhaps; legally, maybe in some circumstances. But just because they tell their subscribers that they may have their account terminated for spamming certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to follow through with it whenever some loudmouth with a screenshot complains. That was my point. True, they might be obligated for other reasons, but then again they might not.
The Gimp's sleepin'.
Refusing to terminate someone else's account on your say-so is not a "breach of their policies." An abuse policy places limits on how the customer is allowed to use the service. It does not in any way imply that the ISP is somehow obligated to punish every infraction. They are well within their rights to terminate the offender's access, or suspend it, or give a warning -- or do absolutely nothing.
He is not "merging" these theories, he is simply making an analogy... though I agree, it is a very appealing one. However, I don't see what this has to do with creationism, since creationists tend to reject biological evolutionary theory. I really don't see how claiming that God created the (singular) universe ~6,000 years ago is equivalent to, or even compatible with, the idea of "merging biological evolutionary theory with cosmological evolution."
(Cue music) Like an old sweater that keeps getting warmer with age, you can count on Tweek's coffee to start your day.
The parent post was a paid advertisement from Apple Computer, Inc.
(Oh, relax, I'm just kidding.)
And that makes it "actually a star" how, exactly?
You pretty much just gave the definition for why it isn't a star.
In other news, Galileo was wrong -- heavy objects DO fall faster than light objects.
That rings a bell... Could be.
Is that what I suggested, or is that what you inferred? (This is a rhetorical question.) All I said was that these games contained scenes depicting non-consensual sex with minors... I can't see anything misleading or inaccurate in that statement.
I never said they were "wrong." Any one of these games, by itself, probably wouldn't have raised an eyebrow (although the one about slavery was quite unnecessarily graphic). It is the fact that I encountered three of them in a row (out of three), chosen essentially at random. It is also worth noting that none of the three had any other kind of "adult" content -- i.e., nothing actually between consenting adults -- only non-consensual (bad enough) with minors/children (much worse).
Granted, my sample of three may not be statistically significant (although there aren't *that* many IF games out there, and even fewer which have won awards). Certainly, I don't take it to mean that every single IF game has this kind of content in it; but I'd be willing to bet that these aren't the only three. And as a guy who's just looking for another Planetfall or Zork to play, I don't want to get 2/3 through an otherwise innocuous adventure game only to run into this kind of thing again.
Let me guess... Your end of the conversation: "Can you hear me now?"
I don't think cellphones are to blame for talking in theaters. I blame home video. People are so used to getting away with talking during a movie (at home), they think nothing of doing the same thing when they're out in public. Home video breeds bad habits.
Of course, now that I have two kids under 4, I'm starting to appreciate the (rare) theater experience again. Even with all the talking and electronic beeping, it's still much less distracting than the baby waking up.
If only slashdotters could recognize that the same argument applies to p2p and the RIAA's profits...
Reminds me of A Good Idea That You Might Go to Prison For.
Actually, these were all award-winning games. One was Anchorhead. Another was a kind of time-travel thing about slavery, but I don't remember the name. The third one was about a teenaged girl hitchhiking and having to fight off a man who tried to rape her.
I don't think it's gone. I would guess that the warnings are simply painted with a broad brush for the sake of simplicity; e.g. "anything containing peanuts" or "anything over X degrees" must carry a warning. In 90% of cases, the warnings are helpful, because the danger might not be obvious (e.g., something cooked in peanut oil). When you see the warnings on a cup of coffee or a jar of peanut butter, it's not because people are stupid, or lack common sense. It's simply because it costs nothing to add the warning, and if they decided to leave it off of some products, they would find themselves in the business of defining the line between when a danger is obvious enough for common sense, and when it's not. This would be a complete waste of time, as there is nothing to be gained by drawing that line, but plenty to lose if they drew it in the wrong place. So they just apply the warning across the board to save themselves the trouble.
Now, for the conspiratorial version: Corporations are trying to drum up popular support for tort law reform. They put these warnings on their products deliberately, because the warnings create the impression that they are being plagued by lawsuits from people who lack common sense. (This is a popular meme, because it also leads to a feeling of superiority in the person who believes it.) Tort law reform suddenly seems like a great idea to your average Joe. Average Joe votes....
A year or two ago, I downloaded a few of the "best" ones to give them a try and see what IF is all about today. And no kidding, the first three games I played all contained scenes involving non-consensual sex with minors.
I don't know what this says (if anything) about the IF authoring community, but I haven't played any IF since.
Clearly, you didn't read the article. Cringely is suggesting not only breaking the law, but TURNING YOURSELF IN.
Don't expect to make much money.
Not just theoretically... I used to play stereo recordings on a mono record player.
I believe this has something to do with the way that people normally place pauses in their conversation whenever they see that something else is happening that demands the listener's attention. A passenger in a car, for example, will stop in mid-sentence if an emergency situation arises. But someone on the phone with them will not be aware of the situation, so they will keep right on talking. This splits the driver's attention at a critical moment.
That would be a dead giveaway. Meteorites aren't usually hot when they reach the ground. Sometimes, they're so cold that they're covered in frost.
Hear, hear. I don't think that many of these paranoid parents have any idea of how low the real statistical risk is.
On the other hand, as the proportion of paranoid parents increases, the risk to children of the remaining laissez-faire parents probably increases -- when the kidnappers come around, they're the only ones left to choose from. In that sense, it is legitimately more dangerous to let your kids run free today than it used to be, but only because there are so few running free. This probably leads to a snowball effect similar to the one that's filling our highways with SUVs (it is truly more dangerous to drive a smaller car today, but only because there are too many of these ridiculous behemoths out there endangering you -- so you feel pressured to join them for your own safety).