The "original"? WHAT? Do you have any idea how many times this has been done? Rube Goldberg made the original. Some swiss artists did it, that's probably what you're talking about. Or are you referring to Pee-Wee's big adventure?
Your kids can't see people kissing but they can see people shooting each other? Seeing violence can have a severe impact on the impulses felt when people are angry. Violence can cause a lot of harm to "childhood innocence". But I don't think seeing sexual acts is really a bad thing. Our whole society is really screwed up in that everyone thinks that interpersonal relationships are something to be afraid of and something to be hidden. You're the reason kids are growing up with so many fears and inhibitions. Besides, the matrix is NOT a kids film, there is no way that it should ever be considered so.
Well, they're both silly and unrealistic. Robots do not "come alive" unless they are characters from 80's movies who are struck by lightning. By the definitions of "robot" and "alive" this will never happen. You could discuss what the difference is in the rights held by something that is alive, or the rights held by something that is simulating life. But the phrase "what if robots came alive" is like asking "What if the impossible became possible".
When you're dealing with calculation of locations on a flat plane, you will most always have triangles, you will have a lot of other shapes too. I personally only think that you "triangulate" when you have three recievers. triangulation with two recievers is using another dimension, time, to create three recievers.
How about taxation of CDR's. a lot of people will use them to copy copywritten music, but should everyone who buys a blank CD be forced to pay a few cents to the RIAA? Not to mention sony, the corporation that produces the cd burners and cds, then complains that people can use them to copy the music created by artists under sony's label.
What about the ethics of a hypothetical individual who has an idea for software that could save lives, perhaps a medical program. But this individual is employed by a company that claims ownership to any ideas/inventions/patents/etc of this person during their employment. Is this person obligated to start work on the idea for someone else, or should they take the time to develop the idea on their own. The same could apply to people in the military. Do you wait four years to start saving lives? or do you let the military take all the profit.
Speaking of the military, what are the ethics for creating machines that kill. Military weapons and all that. Computers have become an integral part of warfare.
Ethically, if software has a bug/flaw in it, is the developer ethically supposed to fix it. What if this software is depended on by other people in very sensitive ways. Is the developer allowed to only fix this flaw in a newer version that the developer charges for. Can you legally charge someone to fix the flaws in their software? Why does this whole paragraph remind me of microsoft over and over.
Oh, and drop the "if robots came alive" thing. That's like teaching a philosophy class and asking "What if garfield came out of the newspaper and he was real".
Well, that's not much of a "triangle" is it. I guess if you wanted to you could use a single receiver and simple move it to three different points, then you could build your "triangle".
Of course, you don't really need the triangle, you could just head toward the direction from which the signal was strongest.
Robert K. Bowfinger: We're finished! It's over between us! Daisy: But why? Robert K. Bowfinger: You slept with Jiff. Daisy: So? Robert K. Bowfinger: You know, I never thought about it that way. Daisy: So I'll see you tonight? Robert K. Bowfinger: What time?
Yeah, sometimes. Everything that goes in and out of the country is inspected by customs. If you travel internationally they check your bags in an airport. If you mail something it is often sent through customs and they will often open packages to check them.
not just the victim. But an image that includes the act of murder. Such images are not legal in all contexts. You can't go around in public showing such images. because an image depicts a crime it is very often then legally not the original owner's property anymore, as it can be seized by police, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The "original"? WHAT? Do you have any idea how many times this has been done? Rube Goldberg made the original. Some swiss artists did it, that's probably what you're talking about. Or are you referring to Pee-Wee's big adventure?
On the other hand, I'm not to excited at the idea of "sexuality" when it comes to keanu.
Everything? Including the crap?
I plan to wait a few days, the hard part will be not hearing about the movie.
"Ohh, did you see the new matrix movie? they have this one scene wher---"
"SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!"
Yes, maybe using winzip is a waste of time, but complaining about using winzip is an equal or greater waste of time, likewise, I'm just bored.
Well, you see, us technology people actually like this movie, so...
Someone call 911, tell them an unknown nerd somewhere just had a seizure.
Your kids can't see people kissing but they can see people shooting each other? Seeing violence can have a severe impact on the impulses felt when people are angry. Violence can cause a lot of harm to "childhood innocence". But I don't think seeing sexual acts is really a bad thing. Our whole society is really screwed up in that everyone thinks that interpersonal relationships are something to be afraid of and something to be hidden. You're the reason kids are growing up with so many fears and inhibitions. Besides, the matrix is NOT a kids film, there is no way that it should ever be considered so.
Well, they're both silly and unrealistic. Robots do not "come alive" unless they are characters from 80's movies who are struck by lightning. By the definitions of "robot" and "alive" this will never happen. You could discuss what the difference is in the rights held by something that is alive, or the rights held by something that is simulating life. But the phrase "what if robots came alive" is like asking "What if the impossible became possible".
When you're dealing with calculation of locations on a flat plane, you will most always have triangles, you will have a lot of other shapes too. I personally only think that you "triangulate" when you have three recievers. triangulation with two recievers is using another dimension, time, to create three recievers.
How about taxation of CDR's. a lot of people will use them to copy copywritten music, but should everyone who buys a blank CD be forced to pay a few cents to the RIAA? Not to mention sony, the corporation that produces the cd burners and cds, then complains that people can use them to copy the music created by artists under sony's label.
What about the ethics of a hypothetical individual who has an idea for software that could save lives, perhaps a medical program. But this individual is employed by a company that claims ownership to any ideas/inventions/patents/etc of this person during their employment. Is this person obligated to start work on the idea for someone else, or should they take the time to develop the idea on their own. The same could apply to people in the military. Do you wait four years to start saving lives? or do you let the military take all the profit.
Speaking of the military, what are the ethics for creating machines that kill. Military weapons and all that. Computers have become an integral part of warfare.
Ethically, if software has a bug/flaw in it, is the developer ethically supposed to fix it. What if this software is depended on by other people in very sensitive ways. Is the developer allowed to only fix this flaw in a newer version that the developer charges for. Can you legally charge someone to fix the flaws in their software? Why does this whole paragraph remind me of microsoft over and over.
Oh, and drop the "if robots came alive" thing. That's like teaching a philosophy class and asking "What if garfield came out of the newspaper and he was real".
Well, that's not much of a "triangle" is it. I guess if you wanted to you could use a single receiver and simple move it to three different points, then you could build your "triangle".
Of course, you don't really need the triangle, you could just head toward the direction from which the signal was strongest.
"Head's up display"
like the images on the screen during a computer game. Or the kind used by the military in jets and helicopters.
"error, no signal"
Robert K. Bowfinger: We're finished! It's over between us!
Daisy: But why?
Robert K. Bowfinger: You slept with Jiff.
Daisy: So?
Robert K. Bowfinger: You know, I never thought about it that way.
Daisy: So I'll see you tonight?
Robert K. Bowfinger: What time?
try "nineteen eighty four"
Yeah, sometimes. Everything that goes in and out of the country is inspected by customs. If you travel internationally they check your bags in an airport. If you mail something it is often sent through customs and they will often open packages to check them.
not just the victim. But an image that includes the act of murder. Such images are not legal in all contexts. You can't go around in public showing such images. because an image depicts a crime it is very often then legally not the original owner's property anymore, as it can be seized by police, etc.
Well, I thought it was funny.
yes, if the packages are being shipped in and out of the country they do.
If someone was murdered in your house, it would be illegal to bottle and distribute the blood.
"will the government open it when it first arrives in the us?"
Yeah, it's called 'customs'.
How do you know they don't already do that? How do you think they catch most of the people they do.
Maybe the roots are hidden and the government is doing their best to eliminate both.
No, it's not the same as viewing how to murder, it's more like viewing pictures of people who are being murdered.