The only thing worse than the climate change deniers are the people like you who are absolutely convinced that the doomsday is coming. At least the deniers are skeptical.
Except that many things are addictive without a genetic predisposition
Really ? Heroin is addictive because it attached to certain receptors in the brain. These receptors are made by proteins, encoded by DNA. If you change the right gene, heroin won't be able to attach, or will attach in a different way, and maybe just make you nauseous and dizzy instead.
So even if all of the people with some sort of addiction never bred again, there would still be addictions
There would be much less.
Most addictions do not have a genetic trait as much as we want to be able to say it's not our fault.
Most do, and acknowledging that has nothing to do with who's fault it is. For instance, I get motion sickness from playing 3D games, that's why I never do it, and that's why I don't get addicted to them. I doubt that my motion sickness was learned.
Damn those parents teaching the kids how to get addicted to porn and video games. Seriously, it's genetic, and even if it was learned, genetics can still influence what you learn.
The desire to play video games or look at porn as an alternative to genuine social interaction has *always* been there
Always ? Pong wasn't available until 1972, and that's not exactly a game you could get addicted too. Porn was available, but not easily, and certainly not in video format. So instead of always, let's make that "has been there for 1 generation, maybe 2".
One's parents don't have to use heroin for their offspring to develop an addiction to it.
No, but your parents still need to pass the genes that help you enjoy heroin and get addicted to it. Some of the people with those genes would try heroin, and if they got addicted and didn't have children they wouldn't pass those genes on. Over the long run, the population would genetically drift towards having less heroin-addictive genes.
The subtopic of the GP post was about nature breeding it out. It doesn't matter if the article mentions hereditary traits, it's still a correct observation. Some men are much more interested in games and porn than others.
Most women are initially attracted to 'the "cowboy" type or the "biker" type or the "go chiefs" type'. Though I'm not sure if it's an inherent thing, or learned. But they almost never want you to actually be that way long term.
They are facing a wicked dilemma. She wants the cowboy/biker type with a unfaithful streak, because she want his genes for her sons and grandsons. On the other hand, she wants him to be nice and faithful to help raise their kids. So, the intended solution is to hook up with a rebel, and try to change him.
I don't think there are many guys out there, video game addicts or otherwise, who would prefer masturbation to porn over sex with someone they like, trust, and feel comfortable with.
I do both. Real sex is nice, but it also takes time to do it properly, and you both need to be in the mood for that. Masturbation is quick and easy, and only requires one person to be in the mood.
Every time your computer connected to any network, anywhere in the world, the damned CPU offered a unique identifier, unless you knew to turn that identifier off.
Yet somehow humans manage to do well without all of that perfect access and recall to huge quantities of information.
Humans also have access and recall to huge quantities of information. It may not be perfect, but in the case of professional poker players, it's close enough.
Your arguments are nothing but "I am right, you are obviously wrong", repeated ad nauseam. You have yet to explain why the argument "since you're developing this using their resources on their time" is valid, if it doesn't apply to contractors.
I was commenting on the "using their resources on their time" part. This is the same for employees, independent contractors, and contractors working through another company. In any of those cases, it is possible that you're working on the customer's site, using their resources, and getting paid for the work.
It may be customarily different in a legal sense, but there's no law that says you can't negotiate exceptions.
Only a few client's would find those terms acceptable, many would move on to the next consultant.
No, it makes perfect sense for most of them. I do mostly embedded software work. Their business is selling hardware widgets. They just need the software to make it work. It doesn't harm them in the slightest if I use the same code for some other widget for a different customer who's not competing with them.
But even if you were making purely software applications that were going to be sold, it still has many useful components that can be reused for non-overlapping work. It would also be in the customer's benefit if they could reuse such code. It's a similar concept as open source software, but in a more limited scope.
When a contractor gets such terms they take a massive cut in pay.
A cut in pay in return for the rights to the code seems reasonable. Whether it's small or massive depends entirely on the circumstances.
What typically goes into contracts is that contractors get to keep software they *brought* to the job, not new code written for the customer
Not for me. All new code, paid for by my customer, is owned by me. The customer gets a license to use it for their business, and I get to use the same code for the next customer. In return for this, they get free access to code I've made for previous customers.
no employer is going to sign a contract stating that all work you do for them is actually owned by you and they cannot profit from it
There are various ways in which in employer can profit from work they don't own, as long as they have a license to do so. Having the same code in use somewhere else may not have any harmful effect on the profitability for the company. And if they employee is willing to trade some of his salary, the company may consider it a good deal.
Slashdot Mirror
"If the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to melt, this would contribute 4.8 m (16 ft) to global sea level."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
Obviously, even if this were to happen, it would take a considerable amount of time.
The only thing worse than the climate change deniers are the people like you who are absolutely convinced that the doomsday is coming. At least the deniers are skeptical.
Very few deniers are honestly skeptical.
These are satellite measurements, so probably zero.
Well, there's this company called Google. They've got this thing called Google Docs. No idea what it does though
They manage to make my 5 year old PC really slow. Even a simple application like the new Google maps is almost unbearably sluggish.
An iPad isn't a computing device. It's an entertainment unit.
Except that many things are addictive without a genetic predisposition
Really ? Heroin is addictive because it attached to certain receptors in the brain. These receptors are made by proteins, encoded by DNA. If you change the right gene, heroin won't be able to attach, or will attach in a different way, and maybe just make you nauseous and dizzy instead.
So even if all of the people with some sort of addiction never bred again, there would still be addictions
There would be much less.
Most addictions do not have a genetic trait as much as we want to be able to say it's not our fault.
Most do, and acknowledging that has nothing to do with who's fault it is. For instance, I get motion sickness from playing 3D games, that's why I never do it, and that's why I don't get addicted to them. I doubt that my motion sickness was learned.
Damn those parents teaching the kids how to get addicted to porn and video games. Seriously, it's genetic, and even if it was learned, genetics can still influence what you learn.
The desire to play video games or look at porn as an alternative to genuine social interaction has *always* been there
Always ? Pong wasn't available until 1972, and that's not exactly a game you could get addicted too. Porn was available, but not easily, and certainly not in video format. So instead of always, let's make that "has been there for 1 generation, maybe 2".
If you frame something as "addiction" you are blaming not helping
Or maybe you're just explaining it, not blaming or helping.
So where are these gamers going to live and what do they eat ? Mom's basement and hot pockets ?
One's parents don't have to use heroin for their offspring to develop an addiction to it.
No, but your parents still need to pass the genes that help you enjoy heroin and get addicted to it. Some of the people with those genes would try heroin, and if they got addicted and didn't have children they wouldn't pass those genes on. Over the long run, the population would genetically drift towards having less heroin-addictive genes.
The subtopic of the GP post was about nature breeding it out. It doesn't matter if the article mentions hereditary traits, it's still a correct observation. Some men are much more interested in games and porn than others.
You want a blonde with big tits today and a redhead with little tits tomorrow?
Or, for the hard core addicts, Japanese girls puking in mouth today and Brazilian fart porn tomorrow.
Most women are initially attracted to 'the "cowboy" type or the "biker" type or the "go chiefs" type'. Though I'm not sure if it's an inherent thing, or learned. But they almost never want you to actually be that way long term.
They are facing a wicked dilemma. She wants the cowboy/biker type with a unfaithful streak, because she want his genes for her sons and grandsons. On the other hand, she wants him to be nice and faithful to help raise their kids. So, the intended solution is to hook up with a rebel, and try to change him.
I don't think there are many guys out there, video game addicts or otherwise, who would prefer masturbation to porn over sex with someone they like, trust, and feel comfortable with.
I do both. Real sex is nice, but it also takes time to do it properly, and you both need to be in the mood for that. Masturbation is quick and easy, and only requires one person to be in the mood.
since it isn't a hereditary trait in the first place.
You are saying there's no hereditary trait that influences brain development and addiction levels to games and porn ?
So what was the entire seismology field doing until now?
I don't know, but this will have them quaking in their boots.
Every time your computer connected to any network, anywhere in the world, the damned CPU offered a unique identifier, unless you knew to turn that identifier off.
Just run Linux.
Yet somehow humans manage to do well without all of that perfect access and recall to huge quantities of information.
Humans also have access and recall to huge quantities of information. It may not be perfect, but in the case of professional poker players, it's close enough.
Your arguments are nothing but "I am right, you are obviously wrong", repeated ad nauseam. You have yet to explain why the argument "since you're developing this using their resources on their time" is valid, if it doesn't apply to contractors.
I was commenting on the "using their resources on their time" part. This is the same for employees, independent contractors, and contractors working through another company. In any of those cases, it is possible that you're working on the customer's site, using their resources, and getting paid for the work.
It may be customarily different in a legal sense, but there's no law that says you can't negotiate exceptions.
Only a few client's would find those terms acceptable, many would move on to the next consultant.
No, it makes perfect sense for most of them. I do mostly embedded software work. Their business is selling hardware widgets. They just need the software to make it work. It doesn't harm them in the slightest if I use the same code for some other widget for a different customer who's not competing with them.
But even if you were making purely software applications that were going to be sold, it still has many useful components that can be reused for non-overlapping work. It would also be in the customer's benefit if they could reuse such code. It's a similar concept as open source software, but in a more limited scope.
When a contractor gets such terms they take a massive cut in pay.
A cut in pay in return for the rights to the code seems reasonable. Whether it's small or massive depends entirely on the circumstances.
What typically goes into contracts is that contractors get to keep software they *brought* to the job, not new code written for the customer
Not for me. All new code, paid for by my customer, is owned by me. The customer gets a license to use it for their business, and I get to use the same code for the next customer. In return for this, they get free access to code I've made for previous customers.
Any AI problem that is solved, is no longer AI.
no employer is going to sign a contract stating that all work you do for them is actually owned by you and they cannot profit from it
There are various ways in which in employer can profit from work they don't own, as long as they have a license to do so. Having the same code in use somewhere else may not have any harmful effect on the profitability for the company. And if they employee is willing to trade some of his salary, the company may consider it a good deal.