You're right, nothing is guaranteed. And in the end it may turn out that humans simply are not quite intelligent enough to sustain civilization. But I think as a general principle, the better off people are, the less likely they are to organize to tear it down. Sure, there will always be nut jobs, but that's a lot different from an angry and organized movement.
I'm not saying it's a magic bullet. Just that it improves the chances.
I live in place where many streets are not painted, corners are blind, and roads are narrow. Without structure people do whatever they want. It's amazing how just a small handful of cars can snarl traffic when their driving is unstructured. It's "safe," in the sense that nobody's going to die, but it sure makes for crappy traffic flow.
You're certainly right that it might not work out anyway. I'm suggesting that it's the only chance. Since humans as a group have what seems to be just about the minimum amount of intelligence necessary to create civilization, it may turn out in the end that we don't have quite enough to sustain it.
This is one of the few kinds of technologies that you could share with any and everyone
I'd even go so far as to say that cheap energy for all would save the world. I'm not normally a doom and gloom kinda guy, but it seems to me that the path we're headed on right now leads to civilization breaking down.
With cheap and bountiful energy, the US would care a whole lot less about what's happening in places with oil. And in turn those places would care a whole lot less about the US. Many parts of the world could be made to be much more pleasant places to live, and the general cost of getting things done plummets.
Right now there are many, many people in the world who are extraordinarily unhappy with things as they are, and would take down civilization if they could. They lack only the means, not the motive. Eventually, and inevitably, the means will become more and more accessible. Suicide bombers, for instance, are an expensive weapon. They work only once, at most, and are difficult to cultivate. Recently there was a story of Israel wishing to develop a lethal insect-sized robot. While not practical today, sooner or later it will be. And not long after that, cheap enough and available enough to use in place of suicide bombers. At that point the equation changes, and destabilizing society on a larger scale becomes much easier to do.
The only way to save the world is not through force, but rather improving the lives of everyone, everywhere. And nothing would take anywhere near as large a stride towards that end as cheap and plentiful energy for all.
The way to stop terrorism is not by spending a trillion dollars killing people, but rather spending that money on figuring out how to make things better.
So if I sell my computer along with the software I purchased, are you saying I have to delete the installations even though I'm including the original media?
So I guess birds that can whistle tunes, or 'talk' in the case of parrots, are strictly the result of causality?
I was going to point out that a singing bird does not recognize rhythm, and would not adjust his singing to match. But then I realized I have no idea what you meant by "the result of causality," so maybe that's what you were already saying.
Thus, although it would be most courteous to attribute any content copied from the public domain, they are not obligated to do so.
Obligated in what sense? There's no legal obligation - that's not what plagiarism is about. I can go around claiming I wrote "Four score and seven years ago" 'til I'm blue in tha face and nobody's going to throw me in jail or sue me. But it's unethical - it's plagiarism. This an ethical issue, not a legal one.
Give it up. You're just being stubborn. If wikipaedia is using verbatim text without attribution it's plagiarism, plain and simple. that is *exactly* what plagiarism is.
espescially since it reeks of mafioso tactics, since Sony could artificially retrict the supply to create a higher price.
And that would be wrong for what reason? Mafioso? Is this some new form of gang activity? "Boss, let's make a game machine, and then not make it widely available at first!"
Seriously, though, I'm on the "it's not a fucking word!" side.
I'm with you. That was kinda what I was trying to get at with my "disirregardless." If the prefixes lose their meaning then the language is diminished.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I don't do much with affiliate stuff - just a few friends who follow my link when they go to Amazon - so I'm fairly ignorant about the whole thing. When one of them told me he was going to buy a MacBook Pro, and asked me what I thought he should choose, I constructed that link for him, and explained that if he followed it I'd get some small kickback out of it. He did, but I didn't. The only thing he did was not buy it until the next day.
Re:Perl Out, Ruby In - Thank God
on
The Ruby Way
·
· Score: 1
Wulfram 2 -- Free Online 3D game
I've never understood why this sort of game goes out of its way to use unreadable fonts just to acheive a "look."
It is? Since when? I am far more protective of my privacy now than I was in '95.
Privacy's on the way out. You might as well get used to the idea. In your lifetime you will have an ID chip implanted in you, or in some other way be completely identifiable no matter where you are.
I'm not saying this is a good thing. But it will happen.
there is already a very active community weeding out Wikipedia of possible copyright violations. I don't know how this can be considered news.
Plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright violation. If I falsely claim something as my own writing it is plagiarism. The copyright status of the source material is irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying it's a magic bullet. Just that it improves the chances.
I live in place where many streets are not painted, corners are blind, and roads are narrow. Without structure people do whatever they want. It's amazing how just a small handful of cars can snarl traffic when their driving is unstructured. It's "safe," in the sense that nobody's going to die, but it sure makes for crappy traffic flow.
)K then.
You're certainly right that it might not work out anyway. I'm suggesting that it's the only chance. Since humans as a group have what seems to be just about the minimum amount of intelligence necessary to create civilization, it may turn out in the end that we don't have quite enough to sustain it.
Only if you begin by reading the subject line. Otherwise it's just confusing. Do you really read the subject line of the posts before you read them?
I'd even go so far as to say that cheap energy for all would save the world. I'm not normally a doom and gloom kinda guy, but it seems to me that the path we're headed on right now leads to civilization breaking down.
With cheap and bountiful energy, the US would care a whole lot less about what's happening in places with oil. And in turn those places would care a whole lot less about the US. Many parts of the world could be made to be much more pleasant places to live, and the general cost of getting things done plummets.
Right now there are many, many people in the world who are extraordinarily unhappy with things as they are, and would take down civilization if they could. They lack only the means, not the motive. Eventually, and inevitably, the means will become more and more accessible. Suicide bombers, for instance, are an expensive weapon. They work only once, at most, and are difficult to cultivate. Recently there was a story of Israel wishing to develop a lethal insect-sized robot. While not practical today, sooner or later it will be. And not long after that, cheap enough and available enough to use in place of suicide bombers. At that point the equation changes, and destabilizing society on a larger scale becomes much easier to do.
The only way to save the world is not through force, but rather improving the lives of everyone, everywhere. And nothing would take anywhere near as large a stride towards that end as cheap and plentiful energy for all.
The way to stop terrorism is not by spending a trillion dollars killing people, but rather spending that money on figuring out how to make things better.
So if I sell my computer along with the software I purchased, are you saying I have to delete the installations even though I'm including the original media?
He's right, but I wouldn't think you a dumb ass for not getting it right (maybe it was sarcastic.) Anyway, Google for abbreviate decade style.
And with the handy biometrics data, you don't even have to flip through them all to find one.
all they have to do is verify the key. They don't have to do any heavy lifting.
I was going to point out that a singing bird does not recognize rhythm, and would not adjust his singing to match. But then I realized I have no idea what you meant by "the result of causality," so maybe that's what you were already saying.
That's exactly how digital copies of digital entities work.
Obligated in what sense? There's no legal obligation - that's not what plagiarism is about. I can go around claiming I wrote "Four score and seven years ago" 'til I'm blue in tha face and nobody's going to throw me in jail or sue me. But it's unethical - it's plagiarism. This an ethical issue, not a legal one.
Give it up. You're just being stubborn. If wikipaedia is using verbatim text without attribution it's plagiarism, plain and simple. that is *exactly* what plagiarism is.
And that would be wrong for what reason? Mafioso? Is this some new form of gang activity? "Boss, let's make a game machine, and then not make it widely available at first!"
I've been using a Mac since they booted off a floppy disk, and I also like the PC guy more. I hope they have him switch in the new ads.
plagiarism - the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
But the link is in error. Plagiarism is plagiarism, no matter what the source, even if it's public domain.
I'm with you. That was kinda what I was trying to get at with my "disirregardless." If the prefixes lose their meaning then the language is diminished.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I don't do much with affiliate stuff - just a few friends who follow my link when they go to Amazon - so I'm fairly ignorant about the whole thing. When one of them told me he was going to buy a MacBook Pro, and asked me what I thought he should choose, I constructed that link for him, and explained that if he followed it I'd get some small kickback out of it. He did, but I didn't. The only thing he did was not buy it until the next day.
I've never understood why this sort of game goes out of its way to use unreadable fonts just to acheive a "look."
Privacy's on the way out. You might as well get used to the idea. In your lifetime you will have an ID chip implanted in you, or in some other way be completely identifiable no matter where you are.
I'm not saying this is a good thing. But it will happen.
OK, but disirregardless of that, he probably shouldn't have used it.
Plagiarism has nothing to do with copyright violation. If I falsely claim something as my own writing it is plagiarism. The copyright status of the source material is irrelevant.
It can be seen at a glance that 142 out of 12000 is obviously more than 1%, since 142*100 == 14,200.