You just don't realize that we are laughing at people like you. You, Trump and Damore need to go into the dustbin.
If/. adopted the BSD code of conduct, your comment would be in violation at a minimum of "Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices".
But, but, but... regulation is the antithesis of the Capitaist way that our republican Democracy has weaned its children on since it was formed!!
Regulating what to make is the antithesis of Capitalism. Regulating what to charge is the antithesis of Capitalism. Regulation of abuse of monopoly powers is not.
If there is such a thing as absolute moral law, then it really has to be absolute, meaning God isn't exempt from it.
That's a big "if". How would you go about showing that there is one moral law to which both man and God are accountable? And what does it even mean to hold God accountable to something? God is existence itself. Surely you cannot undo existence. The best you can do is close your eyes and pretend it has gone away.
And the God you refer to is guilty of multiple genocides.
And you're right back to the "in my opinion God is evil" accusation. But you don't have anything behind it other than your notions of good and evil. Your notions of good and evil are, in part, formed by nature's use of the iterated prisoner's dilemma to ensure some cooperation between individuals where extended cooperation is necessary for raising young. This, in turn, drives the notion that God must (in some way) cooperate with man. When He doesn't, He offends our moral sensibilities. The problem with this is that God does not need our cooperation, so it's a mistake to think that He has to follow our rules.
If he exists, then it is mankind's duty to find him and drag him to Le Hague for trial.
Essentially, that makes God a really king size asshole.
Notice what you did. You made a value judgement which requires knowledge of good and evil. Instead of judging God to be good, you've declared Him to be evil. But that is something you logically cannot do, since God is the ultimate arbiter, not you. There is no moral yardstick that is external to God and to which both God and man must conform in order to be "good." He, himself, is that yardstick. But, instead, you've made yourself the yardstick.
God has put you in a bind in which there are only two possibilities: either man is "broken" or there is no God. Since we don't like to think of ourselves as broken (and, heaven forbid, agree with what the Bible says about us) some choose the "no God" path. But, since it's based on faulty reasoning, it's akin to whistling past the graveyard.
And don't forget Jamie Bamber as Simone. I didn't recognize him in his spacesuit. When I saw his name in the credits I went back and looked again. Sure enough, another Apollo. Deep stuff -- one Apollo dies, another lives.
... I have no idea where people came up with the notion they have some inalienable right to not be offended.
Moral relativism run amok. Since each individual decides what is right for themselves, and we have the right to be secure in our own possessions, and our mind is our greatest possession, you don't have the right to upset the world I've constructed in my head. In other words, we've confused feeling good with being good.
Watch tonigh and prepare to believe a machine can think.
Being able to answer a certain class of questions (ok, determining a correct question from an answer) does not demonstrate self-awareness. I'm not sure that extrospection without introspection qualifies as thinking, at least, not in the human sense.
Oh, lookie... Moderators that disagree. Isn't that cute? I love me some abusive moderators. This is slashdot's strength, ladieez and gentlemen; hiding posts the mods disagree with. C'mon, mod me down some more. No, no, a little to the left. There you go. Ah!
There are some people who enjoy going to the same live show multiple times. They relish in what is the same as well as what is different in each performance. A synth is not even close to a live performer. A recording gets mundane to those who go to multiple showings.
There's no reason that a synthesizer has to generate the same performance each time. I'm sure someone will come up with heuristics to give a synthesized performance a "live" feel.
Of course you don't subdue them with impact forces. You use impact to get them down so that you can try to restrain them. And when someone goes on a rampage in short quarters, you use what's at hand. I am not a cop, and I'm relating a real-life incident from an officer that I happen to trust. And the incident was 10-15 years ago, so my memory may be faulty. YMMV.
There's a lot of reasons why you can't point a gun at a cop.... the fundamental difference is that a Camera is not lethal.
I'd write a Law & Order episode where a suspect reached for a camera, the cop thought it was a gun and shot the suspect. It was dark, the area was poorly lit, and the officer is acquitted. Has it already been done? Well, it doesn't matter now that L&O is off the air.
There's nothing particularly difficult about understanding this, and nothing special, or evil about the rich doing it. The vast majority of us peons would do the same given the opportunity. If not for yourself, then for your children. No? Don't you believe in evolution, and survival of the fittest?
You've run afoul of Hume's Guillotine. What "is" (survival of the fittest) does not imply what "ought" to be (the strong preying on the weak).
If I were to be "worked up" it would be because it is not rational to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And when I'm told, "oh, well, even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still means we need to do such and such" then I become immediately suspicious. I don't like handwaving. The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's the line between claiming false data is true and fuzzing to test the robustness of a system?
You just don't realize that we are laughing at people like you. You, Trump and Damore need to go into the dustbin.
If /. adopted the BSD code of conduct, your comment would be in violation at a minimum of "Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices".
This is straight out of Bug Jack Barron, by Norman Spinrad, published in 1969.
Those who might exploit the bug won't wait for the vendor to get its act together.
But, but, but... regulation is the antithesis of the Capitaist way that our republican Democracy has weaned its children on since it was formed!!
Regulating what to make is the antithesis of Capitalism. Regulating what to charge is the antithesis of Capitalism. Regulation of abuse of monopoly powers is not.
If there is such a thing as absolute moral law, then it really has to be absolute, meaning God isn't exempt from it.
That's a big "if". How would you go about showing that there is one moral law to which both man and God are accountable? And what does it even mean to hold God accountable to something? God is existence itself. Surely you cannot undo existence. The best you can do is close your eyes and pretend it has gone away.
And the God you refer to is guilty of multiple genocides.
And you're right back to the "in my opinion God is evil" accusation. But you don't have anything behind it other than your notions of good and evil. Your notions of good and evil are, in part, formed by nature's use of the iterated prisoner's dilemma to ensure some cooperation between individuals where extended cooperation is necessary for raising young. This, in turn, drives the notion that God must (in some way) cooperate with man. When He doesn't, He offends our moral sensibilities. The problem with this is that God does not need our cooperation, so it's a mistake to think that He has to follow our rules.
If he exists, then it is mankind's duty to find him and drag him to Le Hague for trial.
And then what?
Essentially, that makes God a really king size asshole.
Notice what you did. You made a value judgement which requires knowledge of good and evil. Instead of judging God to be good, you've declared Him to be evil.
But that is something you logically cannot do, since God is the ultimate arbiter, not you. There is no moral yardstick that is external to God and to which both God and man must conform in order to be "good." He, himself, is that yardstick. But, instead, you've made yourself the yardstick.
God has put you in a bind in which there are only two possibilities: either man is "broken" or there is no God. Since we don't like to think of ourselves as broken (and, heaven forbid, agree with what the Bible says about us) some choose the "no God" path. But, since it's based on faulty reasoning, it's akin to whistling past the graveyard.
And don't forget Jamie Bamber as Simone. I didn't recognize him in his spacesuit. When I saw his name in the credits I went back and looked again. Sure enough, another Apollo. Deep stuff -- one Apollo dies, another lives.
Lubos Motl claims that the MWI interpretation of QM is completely false to fact in this post: Simple proof QM implies many worlds don't exist.
by Barry B. Longyear
... I have no idea where people came up with the notion they have some inalienable right to not be offended.
Moral relativism run amok. Since each individual decides what is right for themselves, and we have the right to be secure in our own possessions, and our mind is our greatest possession, you don't have the right to upset the world I've constructed in my head. In other words, we've confused feeling good with being good.
Lot's of techie folks have DVRs. In fact, I just used my iPhone to instruct my DVR to record these Jeopardy episodes.
Watch tonigh and prepare to believe a machine can think.
Being able to answer a certain class of questions (ok, determining a correct question from an answer) does not demonstrate self-awareness. I'm not sure that extrospection without introspection qualifies as thinking, at least, not in the human sense.
Oh, lookie... Moderators that disagree. Isn't that cute? I love me some abusive moderators. This is slashdot's strength, ladieez and gentlemen; hiding posts the mods disagree with. C'mon, mod me down some more. No, no, a little to the left. There you go. Ah!
And thus, the "modded TSA" tag was born...
The feeling is mutual. The politicians want to get rid of you.
Nothing like biting the hand that feeds you.
What's worse is that we keep voting for these idiots.
Maybe that's why it doesn't work as well...
There are some people who enjoy going to the same live show multiple times. They relish in what is the same as well as what is different in each performance. A synth is not even close to a live performer. A recording gets mundane to those who go to multiple showings.
There's no reason that a synthesizer has to generate the same performance each time. I'm sure someone will come up with heuristics to give a synthesized performance a "live" feel.
Of course you don't subdue them with impact forces. You use impact to get them down so that you can try to restrain them. And when someone goes on a rampage in short quarters, you use what's at hand. I am not a cop, and I'm relating a real-life incident from an officer that I happen to trust. And the incident was 10-15 years ago, so my memory may be faulty. YMMV.
There's a lot of reasons why you can't point a gun at a cop. ... the fundamental difference is that a Camera is not lethal.
I'd write a Law & Order episode where a suspect reached for a camera, the cop thought it was a gun and shot the suspect. It was dark, the area was poorly lit, and the officer is acquitted. Has it already been done? Well, it doesn't matter now that L&O is off the air.
Ever tried to subdue someone on PCP? Six police with batons sometimes can't slow them down.
Right. That's why cops have video recorders in their cars. That's why cops have flashlights with video recording capability.
Sauce, goose, gander.
Why couldn't the particle stay the same, but the whole universe oscillates around it?
Did Spock come from the future to tell you that you discovered this?
There's nothing particularly difficult about understanding this, and nothing special, or evil about the rich doing it. The vast majority of us peons would do the same given the opportunity. If not for yourself, then for your children. No? Don't you believe in evolution, and survival of the fittest?
You've run afoul of Hume's Guillotine. What "is" (survival of the fittest) does not imply what "ought" to be (the strong preying on the weak).
It should be (expt 2 -14).
If I were to be "worked up" it would be because it is not rational to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. And when I'm told, "oh, well, even if the conclusion of AGW is wrong it still means we need to do such and such" then I become immediately suspicious. I don't like handwaving. The data should stand, or fall, on it's own merits.