He put the tree there as a basic test of obedience. He wanted to be obeyed, but he also wanted people to have the free choice to do it. Not that making the wrong choice would be without consequences, but the choice had to be there or it wasn't ever REALLY a free will. (If you have only one choice, is it really free will to choose it?)
How is that different from leaving a loaded gun around a toddler "as a test of obedience"?
I do, however, find that some, if not all, of the "best" teachers are those that are willing to admit they are wrong, learn from their mistakes, and admit that there will always be more that they do not know.
That's got nothing to do with teachers though. That is a trait that is probably shared by most of the best in any field.
In the example you gave I don't see how MySpace was the problem at all, your insecure, jealous girlfriend would have given you grief with or without MySpace.
As for your classmates, why would they have friends on Facebook that they don't care about? If there are people on Facebook I don't care about I either hide them or unfriend them. Social networking is a tool. That some people don't know how to use it is not the tools fault.
Maybe... OTOH our populace is also terribly apathetic and has almost no long-term political memory. Getting 10 million people to click a link or sign a petition after having the issue thrown in their face all day is a good accomplishment, but how many of those people will a) go to the polls, and b) remember what it was they cared so much about 10 months previously?
I know it's more of that cynicism, but i'm just not convinced it will be a major factor come election time.
Is that what he said? His comment was ambiguous, but I assumed he wanted a service that didn't do any of those things he listed. I don't think that is an unreasonable interpretation because plenty of people consider the mere act of storing personal data a security/privacy risk. If he's only concerned about how the service uses private data, then you're right. That can be minimized at the cost of some features.
The relationships you have on Facebook can be real, it depends entirely how you use it. My friend just recently posted about his dog dying and he got several dozen supportive comments, YMMV. My Facebook friends are pretty much all friends IRL, so they do really care.
You want a "social networking" platform that doesn't track or use any relationship or other personal data? What exactly would it do then? That seems counter to the very idea of a social network.
So when the app is running and is in a situation where it needs a permission that is blocked it notifies the user of the error. Apps like Google Maps already do that when GPS is disabled, there's no reason other apps can't do the same. And in fact, there's no reason other apps shouldn't already be doing that because on a phone things like SMS, location data, and network connections aren't always available.
I realize you changed what we were talking about, that's why your response wasn't helpful. The person you responded to was looking for alternate ways to acquire truth and you answered suggesting something totally different which is of no use.
Nuclear testing is done far away from where people live or intend to live. Also it is contained underground most of the time, *that* is why the radiation from testing has not been a big problem. In actual usage the radiation was a *huge* problem. At least half of the casualties of the bombing of Hiroshima were from the effects of radiation long after the war ended. But I'm the "cluetard", whatever. The rest of your post is either equally ignorant or sociophathic, so I won't bother to continue.
Are there any people that think "energy weapons" will ever even approach.0001% of what's possible with chemical warheads?
I wouldn't really call that an "energy weapon"
No? Magic, then? lol
So what do you think chemical weapons are? Magic, then? We all know what the OP was talking about, no need to be an ass.
The only reason to develop better conventional explosives is because we want to avoid actually using nuclear weapons
Be careful with that "we" there, pardner, you'll find yourself describing a situation that doesn't actually exist. I support the use of nuclear weapons under circumstances that some other people do not. But then again, I actually understand them and don't run around pretending death by nuke is somehow worse than death by firestorm, MOAB, landmine or a 50 caliber round, or that "da fawlout will killz us allz!", or that the death of thousands of American soldiers is somehow of greater value to us than dropping a nuke or two and keeping the soldiers alive.
For instance, would have been just fine with me if, in response to 9/11, we had dropped a nuke each on Riyadh, Mecca and the most significant Taliban headquarters would could identify in response to the 16 Muslim Arabs and 2...3 other Muslim state actors supported by Saudi money and the Saudi state religion. Not to worry, though, I'll never be president, we'll never stop meddling with other nations, and the Muslims will continue to hound us endlessly. Endless war for everyone, but no nukes. Those guys with the cigars are in 7th heaven.
The last thing the world needs are cowboys like you in power. Non-psychopaths have no trouble understanding why nuclear weapons are to be avoided. How do you control the fallout? Are you ok with a slow, painful death from radiation for thousands of innocents for years to come after your objective has been achieved? Are you ok with other countries justifying nuclear weapon use because if we can do it so can they?
Threatening the President is not the same as badmouthing the president. If you report someone saying something about the president to the SS they will investigate to see if there is a credible threat, but if it is found to be just badmouthing then nothing further will be done.
I would say yes, for the most part there is no reason to dislike aliens. Being in the country undocumented is legally wrong, but that doesn't make it wrong by my own judgment. The worst thing many illegal aliens are responsible for is low priced produce.
I'm not excluding the rest of the universe because we don't understand it, I'm excluding it because it's irrelevant for the purpose of what we are talking about and only adds complexity.
Yes there is. I'm talking about thermodynamic systems in general, not the universe as a whole. But even if we assume there is no external energy source it doesn't change the fact that your perpetual motion plan won't work.
Maybe mass and energy aren't as distinct as they seem to be.
You means as distinct as they seemed to be before Einstein thought up e=mc2 a century ago. This is not a new idea.
You stated the problem exactly, nothing new is being created. The same energy generated in one half of the reaction needs to be spent to reverse the reaction. As with any "perpetual motion" system, an external source of energy is needed to keep things going.
What you are proposing is a perpetual motion device.You can not generate energy by continually fusing and fissioning the same material over and over again.
Slashdot Mirror
turn ALL texts off?
great solution grandpa. This isn't the 90's anymore, texts aren't just for teens.
He put the tree there as a basic test of obedience. He wanted to be obeyed, but he also wanted people to have the free choice to do it. Not that making the wrong choice would be without consequences, but the choice had to be there or it wasn't ever REALLY a free will. (If you have only one choice, is it really free will to choose it?)
How is that different from leaving a loaded gun around a toddler "as a test of obedience"?
I do, however, find that some, if not all, of the "best" teachers are those that are willing to admit they are wrong, learn from their mistakes, and admit that there will always be more that they do not know.
That's got nothing to do with teachers though. That is a trait that is probably shared by most of the best in any field.
In the example you gave I don't see how MySpace was the problem at all, your insecure, jealous girlfriend would have given you grief with or without MySpace.
As for your classmates, why would they have friends on Facebook that they don't care about? If there are people on Facebook I don't care about I either hide them or unfriend them. Social networking is a tool. That some people don't know how to use it is not the tools fault.
She probably doesn't understand why you want people asking her about executive compensation instead of asking her boss.
Maybe... OTOH our populace is also terribly apathetic and has almost no long-term political memory. Getting 10 million people to click a link or sign a petition after having the issue thrown in their face all day is a good accomplishment, but how many of those people will a) go to the polls, and b) remember what it was they cared so much about 10 months previously?
I know it's more of that cynicism, but i'm just not convinced it will be a major factor come election time.
I've heard of the Alan Parsons Project, but did not know he was involved with Pink Floyd.
Is that what he said? His comment was ambiguous, but I assumed he wanted a service that didn't do any of those things he listed. I don't think that is an unreasonable interpretation because plenty of people consider the mere act of storing personal data a security/privacy risk. If he's only concerned about how the service uses private data, then you're right. That can be minimized at the cost of some features.
Is that a trick question? Cloud services work by hosting your data on remote servers... exactly what he said he doesn't want.
The relationships you have on Facebook can be real, it depends entirely how you use it. My friend just recently posted about his dog dying and he got several dozen supportive comments, YMMV. My Facebook friends are pretty much all friends IRL, so they do really care.
You want a "social networking" platform that doesn't track or use any relationship or other personal data? What exactly would it do then? That seems counter to the very idea of a social network.
You mean Verizon? If it was on T-Mobile I'd be very tempted to get one.
So when the app is running and is in a situation where it needs a permission that is blocked it notifies the user of the error. Apps like Google Maps already do that when GPS is disabled, there's no reason other apps can't do the same. And in fact, there's no reason other apps shouldn't already be doing that because on a phone things like SMS, location data, and network connections aren't always available.
To be fair, maybe the AC is an astronomer.
What's your problem man? I know that badmouthing can include threats. And if it doesn't it isn't criminal. You must be one ignorant idiot.
I realize you changed what we were talking about, that's why your response wasn't helpful. The person you responded to was looking for alternate ways to acquire truth and you answered suggesting something totally different which is of no use.
Nuclear testing is done far away from where people live or intend to live. Also it is contained underground most of the time, *that* is why the radiation from testing has not been a big problem. In actual usage the radiation was a *huge* problem. At least half of the casualties of the bombing of Hiroshima were from the effects of radiation long after the war ended. But I'm the "cluetard", whatever. The rest of your post is either equally ignorant or sociophathic, so I won't bother to continue.
What other ways are there the acquire "Truth"?
Betting is another way to seek truth.
seeking != acquiring.
So what do you think chemical weapons are? Magic, then? We all know what the OP was talking about, no need to be an ass.
The last thing the world needs are cowboys like you in power. Non-psychopaths have no trouble understanding why nuclear weapons are to be avoided. How do you control the fallout? Are you ok with a slow, painful death from radiation for thousands of innocents for years to come after your objective has been achieved? Are you ok with other countries justifying nuclear weapon use because if we can do it so can they?
Threatening the President is not the same as badmouthing the president. If you report someone saying something about the president to the SS they will investigate to see if there is a credible threat, but if it is found to be just badmouthing then nothing further will be done.
I would say yes, for the most part there is no reason to dislike aliens. Being in the country undocumented is legally wrong, but that doesn't make it wrong by my own judgment. The worst thing many illegal aliens are responsible for is low priced produce.
I'm not excluding the rest of the universe because we don't understand it, I'm excluding it because it's irrelevant for the purpose of what we are talking about and only adds complexity.
There is no 'external'.
Yes there is. I'm talking about thermodynamic systems in general, not the universe as a whole. But even if we assume there is no external energy source it doesn't change the fact that your perpetual motion plan won't work.
Maybe mass and energy aren't as distinct as they seem to be.
You means as distinct as they seemed to be before Einstein thought up e=mc2 a century ago. This is not a new idea.
You stated the problem exactly, nothing new is being created. The same energy generated in one half of the reaction needs to be spent to reverse the reaction. As with any "perpetual motion" system, an external source of energy is needed to keep things going.
What you are proposing is a perpetual motion device.You can not generate energy by continually fusing and fissioning the same material over and over again.