Actually, it has more to do with trying to get you into the movie theater. Theaters are desperate for a gimmick that they can market that will get people in the door.
So the government essentially owns all corporations?
How long do you suppose before this gets implemented for individuals? Move to Canada, and we take all your shit before you go. Or, hey, move from New Jersey to New York, and New Jersey takes all your shit at the border.
Nobody (in this thread, anyway) is talking about shipping a significant amount of our population to other planets. It also isn't an argument about how we're using up and destroying our planet.
Here's what it boils down to: Off-site backups. Every good geek should know the importance of those. And we're not protecting against anything we're doing--we're protecting against the stuff we may not even be able to ever predict or control. Asteroid/comet strikes, for example.
Why are you so butt-hurt over this, anyway? Your own evidence supports the idea of putting radio telescopes on the lunar far side. Why do I have to continue to convince you?
It talks almost exclusively about optical and infrared telescopes, and concludes that the lunar surface is not optimal for them, for the reasons you cited. But I was never arguing for optical 'scopes there. You do know the difference between an optical telescope and a radio telescope, right?
But near the end, it asks the question of what kind of astronomy WOULD benefit from lunar surface siting:
"One exciting idea reviewed in the workshop is the use of the Moon as a shield against terrestrial radio interference (both from human-operated transmitters on the ground and in GEO, as well as natural radiation from the geomagnetic auroral zone). The Radio Astronomy Explorer satellite (RAE-2) was launched into an inclined lunar orbit in 1973, with 13-25 MHz receivers fed by large ~200m long V-dipole antennae (Alexander et al. 1975). The satellite was in a 1000 km high orbit, low enough that the Earth and Sun were occulted by the Moon, which subtended a disk size of ~76. RAE-2 showed remarkable drops in the ambient radio power density during each such occultation - by almost two orders of magnitude for an Earth occultation, and less for an occultation of the Sun. RAE- 2 thus established that the lunar farside is, by virtue of it being a large rocky body, the quietest radio location in the Earth-Moon system. Such galactic background-limited performance is not achievable anywhere else nearby, and can be hugely enabling for low frequency radio cosmology probes. Terrestrial implementations of low frequency radio interferometers (e.g. SKA, LOFAR) are designed to address high priority astronomical questions, but are limited by their terrestrial siting, and the enormous challenge of interference rejection. Using the farside of the Moon for such a telescope is thus of significant interest, and several participants of this workshop, including Jackie Hewitt and Chris Carilli, have presented ideas on it. It should be noted that telescopes down at ground level, perhaps inside craters where more than half the sky in the direction of the Earth is blocked, are likely to be even better shielded from terrestrial interference than was RAE-2."
It goes on to say the only free-space alternative is to just send a radio telescope really far from the Earth in order to minimize interference.
So, yeah. Lunar far side is a good place for radio telescopes, like I said. It's actually the best possible place to put them as far as limiting interference from the Earth is concerned.
Actually, it's unclear whether the Earth-Moon L2 is within the moon's cone of "radio silence". And anyway, L2 is unstable and requires constant station keeping. The moon is a big hunk of rock. Part of the attraction is that you can set up large arrays on the surface and they don't ever drift apart from each other or have any need of constant course correction to keep them a known distance apart. Plus, the lunar far side is also blocked from the Sun for two solid weeks at a time, which also eliminates another big source of radio noise.
Radio telescopes on the lunar far side are shielded from the radio background noise from the Earth. Among other things, it's probably the best place in the solar system to listen for messages from E.T.
I mean it in the same sense as when you're talking about limits in calculus. The size of the universe is tending towards infinity--meaning it is growing without limits.
It isn't infinite in size. The size is approaching infinity, though. The universe is finite, but unbounded--meaning it is finite in volume at any given time, but is constantly increasing in size as space expands.
We may never know exactly "how big" the universe really is, since we are effectively cut off from whatever is beyond the edge of the observable universe. Anything that might be beyond that is expanding "away" from us faster than light--so we can never see it from here, and can likely never go there (barring discovery of true FTL travel).
Prosecutors only get one shot at a conviction. If the jury returns a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, that's it--the prosecution doesn't get to try again.
Well, that still wouldn't apply to the situation we've been discussing, I don't think. If the seller doesn't catch the mistake in the listing before it sells, and the goods get sold and delivered, he has no legal recourse after that, right?
So under UK law, if you sell me a car for a 1000 pounds, and later find out I turned around and sold it for 2000 pounds, you get take backsies and get to come get your share of my profit from me?
Someone selling a significant and obviously powerful item for 1/1000th its price is -VERY probably- a mistake. The circumstances under which a normal person would do this are VERY unusual. Further, in the big scheme of things, its a BIG mistake. It doesn't take a lot of empathy to see that will -VERY probably- affect the other player significantly.
That's not seeing things 'my way'; its an objective truth.
I agree you can't KNOW for sure that its a mistake, or how its going to affect the other person. But we should be able to objectively agree that you do know its VERY probably a big mistake, and that its VERY probably going to significantly negatively affect the other person if it is.
And again, I point out that the onus for getting the listing right is on him, not you. I don't see how you have any ethical burden to not buy the sword at his listed price just because you think he screwed up the listing. Is it just because the discrepancy is so big? What if we look at it this way. What if some guy is selling an item you think you can resell for 10g for 7g? Is it wrong to take a profit there? If that's wrong, then you just don't believe in capitalism. Which is fine, but in that case maybe don't play the AH in WoW.
But if that's not wrong, where do you draw the line? You've apparently drawn it somewhere before you get to 1k for a 100k item. And I still say, that's fine, but it's your choice. There's no objective reason for anybody else to also draw the line there, or even anywhere.
It hurts him a lot? On what scale? How much is a lot? 1k for a 2k item? 1k for a 5k item? Is that too much?
The game has rules. In this case, the game we're talking about in particular happens to be World of Warcraft (or likely some other MMORPG, but let's assume WoW since we both are apparently familiar with it.) You list an item on the AH with a buy price, that's the price. You don't get take backsies once the auction sells. The onus is on you to get the listing right in the first place. How can you fault someone for buying what you're selling for the price you're listing it for? Everybody played the game by the rules--you just screwed up your opening gambit, as it were.
I personally don't see anything at all wrong or unethical about buying an item for the price the seller listed it for. I happen to think that if after I bought the item, and while it was still in my possession, the seller asked me nicely to return it for a refund because it was a screw up, it'd be a dick move not to do so. Dick move, sure, but unethical? I don't buy it. Not nice, maybe. But there's a shitload of things in life that aren't nice, but they don't qualify as unethical.
Is it really "nice" to buy something, *anything*, from somebody, at any time, in WoW or IRL, that you knew for a fact you were going to turn around and sell for a profit? Wouldn't the "nice" thing to do be to tell the guy selling the item "Hey, I know this guy who will pay half again what you're asking for that thing"? Sure, nice maybe. But is it unethical? I don't see it. It'd be unethical to mislead the guy into thinking you were giving him a super deal at the price you're paying. It'd be unethical to lie to the guy and swear you have no idea what the thing is "really" worth. But other than that? If I see a car in a used car lot selling for $1500 and I take a look at it and know I can put half an hour into cleaning the interior and sell it for $2500 to someone else, how is that unethical? If I see a Faberge egg in an antique store I know is worth thousands selling for a hundred bucks, is it unethical to buy it for the hundred bucks the shopkeeper is asking for it? Where's the line? Again, you may think it's not nice, and in several of these cases I'd even agree with you. But again, "nice" and "ethical" are not synonyms.
I'm fairly certain you're going to tell me it's a matter of degrees, and that at some point a line is crossed. But again, I'm saying that is a personal choice, and you will inevitably draw the line in a different place than I will, or that the used car salesman down the block will. I think you're fooling yourself with your appeals to "objective truth".
Well, that's fine, and I understand your position. But that makes it unethical for you. Condemning other people for not seeing it your way doesn't make any sense, though.
Here's another example. Say you bought the Insane Sword of Awesomeness for 1k, knowing you could resell for one hundred times that. Then an hour later, before you've relisted it on the auction house, the original seller sends you a message that says "Oh man, I messed up and meant to list that sword for 100k! Any chance I can buy it back from you? I'll give you your gold back plus an extra 1k for your trouble!"
What's the ethical thing to do here? I'm guessing (and this is just a guess, of course, since I don't know you from Adam) that you'd say the ethical thing to do here is to give him his sword back. Maybe you'd even go so far as to refuse the extra 1k gold and just take only what you paid back.
But it's easy to turn it around and say that by buying it for the price he listed it for, you did nothing wrong. You played completely by the rules. It's absolutely not your fault that he messed up, and you have every right, both legally and morally, to keep the sword and resell it for 100k. You might even say that were he in your shoes, you'd expect him to do the very same thing, and can't see why he'd be upset at all--you take responsibility for your screw ups, why shouldn't he?
You could even look at it this way: He's ripping YOU off! You bought a sword you know you can resell for 100k for 1k, fair and square--you are under no obligation to "do the right thing" (or, as you see it, what someone else inexplicably tells you is the right thing) and return it, even at a 100% profit. He's trying to get you to sell something for 1/500th market value! He's the asshat here, not you!
My point is, calling one unethical and the other ethical as if those are the only interpretations of "ethical" is disingenuous. And as for why I used terms like "rationalizing" and "assuming you know", it's because way too often people just take a gut reaction at face value, and fail to really explore the situation. "It just is" is a cop out. "If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you" is another. It's an excuse not to think. I want to see people (myself included!) put rational thought into these things. You've demonstrated you can and have done that, so that's cool--but way too often when I challenge people that way, they just get pissy, as if they shouldn't have to defend their feelings or their thoughts--OMG IT'S JUST HOW I FEEL! As if that's any kind of explanation for anything. No, dammit--THINK about it for a bit. You may find you feel differently about it after you used that tool between your ears! Then again, you may find that your gut response matches with your rational one--that's fine too. I just hate watching people make irrational decisions about anything without putting even a tiny bit of rational thought into it, or even worse, without understanding why a little rational thought might be a good thing!
For the record, in the hypothetical I offered, I'd probably give the guy his sword back and take the 100% profit for my trouble. But I don't think that's the cut-and-dry ethical choice. I just know that's what I'd do, because that's what I'd like for somebody to do for me if the roles were reversed. But as I said, it's easy to think of the exact same situation in a different light.
Explain why your first situation is "unethical" and the second one is not. Avoid using terms such as "it just is" or "if you don't understand, I can't explain it." Also, try avoid rationalizing it by assuming you know what's going on in the head of the seller, like you do in your second example ("The original owner was happy with 900k, and perhaps he just wanted to ge tit out of his inventory quickly...)
The point isn't that you should do whatever George Washington says because he's mofo George Washington. The point is, someone over 200 years ago realized the dangers of political parties and talked about how we should try to avoid having them at all costs.
Nobody is telling you "GEORGE WASHINGTON HATED POLITICAL PARTIES SO YOU SHOULD TOO!" The point is, just realize that this isn't some new development, isn't some new thing--200+ years ago, our first President saw the dangers and tried to warn us, and we didn't listen--in fact, we started having fairly well developed political parties almost the instant Washington left office.
Slashdot Mirror
I figure if you have something to say, then say it. Just denying what the other guy is saying isn't very useful. Might as well debate a creationist.
How did this get moderated "informative"?
Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
And it's not informative, either.
Actually, it has more to do with trying to get you into the movie theater. Theaters are desperate for a gimmick that they can market that will get people in the door.
How was the Apache attack video edited?
So the government essentially owns all corporations?
How long do you suppose before this gets implemented for individuals? Move to Canada, and we take all your shit before you go. Or, hey, move from New Jersey to New York, and New Jersey takes all your shit at the border.
Great plan.
Nobody (in this thread, anyway) is talking about shipping a significant amount of our population to other planets. It also isn't an argument about how we're using up and destroying our planet.
Here's what it boils down to: Off-site backups. Every good geek should know the importance of those. And we're not protecting against anything we're doing--we're protecting against the stuff we may not even be able to ever predict or control. Asteroid/comet strikes, for example.
So what you're saying is you're not 100% sure he wasn't just a smart 12 year old fucking with you about being 20?
Why are you so butt-hurt over this, anyway? Your own evidence supports the idea of putting radio telescopes on the lunar far side. Why do I have to continue to convince you?
You didn't even read that whole paper, did you?
It talks almost exclusively about optical and infrared telescopes, and concludes that the lunar surface is not optimal for them, for the reasons you cited. But I was never arguing for optical 'scopes there. You do know the difference between an optical telescope and a radio telescope, right?
But near the end, it asks the question of what kind of astronomy WOULD benefit from lunar surface siting:
"One exciting idea reviewed in the workshop is the use of the Moon as a shield against
terrestrial radio interference (both from human-operated transmitters on the ground and in
GEO, as well as natural radiation from the geomagnetic auroral zone). The Radio
Astronomy Explorer satellite (RAE-2) was launched into an inclined lunar orbit in 1973,
with 13-25 MHz receivers fed by large ~200m long V-dipole antennae (Alexander et al.
1975). The satellite was in a 1000 km high orbit, low enough that the Earth and Sun were
occulted by the Moon, which subtended a disk size of ~76. RAE-2 showed remarkable
drops in the ambient radio power density during each such occultation - by almost two
orders of magnitude for an Earth occultation, and less for an occultation of the Sun. RAE-
2 thus established that the lunar farside is, by virtue of it being a large rocky body, the
quietest radio location in the Earth-Moon system. Such galactic background-limited
performance is not achievable anywhere else nearby, and can be hugely enabling for low
frequency radio cosmology probes. Terrestrial implementations of low frequency radio
interferometers (e.g. SKA, LOFAR) are designed to address high priority astronomical
questions, but are limited by their terrestrial siting, and the enormous challenge of
interference rejection. Using the farside of the Moon for such a telescope is thus of
significant interest, and several participants of this workshop, including Jackie Hewitt
and Chris Carilli, have presented ideas on it. It should be noted that telescopes down at
ground level, perhaps inside craters where more than half the sky in the direction of the
Earth is blocked, are likely to be even better shielded from terrestrial interference than
was RAE-2."
It goes on to say the only free-space alternative is to just send a radio telescope really far from the Earth in order to minimize interference.
So, yeah. Lunar far side is a good place for radio telescopes, like I said. It's actually the best possible place to put them as far as limiting interference from the Earth is concerned.
Actually, it's unclear whether the Earth-Moon L2 is within the moon's cone of "radio silence". And anyway, L2 is unstable and requires constant station keeping. The moon is a big hunk of rock. Part of the attraction is that you can set up large arrays on the surface and they don't ever drift apart from each other or have any need of constant course correction to keep them a known distance apart. Plus, the lunar far side is also blocked from the Sun for two solid weeks at a time, which also eliminates another big source of radio noise.
Here's some dudes at Caltech laying out the arguments: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/RALF/
Radio telescopes on the lunar far side are shielded from the radio background noise from the Earth. Among other things, it's probably the best place in the solar system to listen for messages from E.T.
The problem is, it's also the list of symptoms of any number of possible diseases, from the catch-all IBD to colon or stomach cancer.
I mean it in the same sense as when you're talking about limits in calculus. The size of the universe is tending towards infinity--meaning it is growing without limits.
It isn't infinite in size. The size is approaching infinity, though. The universe is finite, but unbounded--meaning it is finite in volume at any given time, but is constantly increasing in size as space expands.
We may never know exactly "how big" the universe really is, since we are effectively cut off from whatever is beyond the edge of the observable universe. Anything that might be beyond that is expanding "away" from us faster than light--so we can never see it from here, and can likely never go there (barring discovery of true FTL travel).
They're learning to play the game that is the educational system.
Good. That will prepare them to play the game that is "real life" much better than whatever it is they're doing now.
Prosecutors only get one shot at a conviction. If the jury returns a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, that's it--the prosecution doesn't get to try again.
Well, that still wouldn't apply to the situation we've been discussing, I don't think. If the seller doesn't catch the mistake in the listing before it sells, and the goods get sold and delivered, he has no legal recourse after that, right?
So under UK law, if you sell me a car for a 1000 pounds, and later find out I turned around and sold it for 2000 pounds, you get take backsies and get to come get your share of my profit from me?
How does this work?
Someone selling a significant and obviously powerful item for 1/1000th its price is -VERY probably- a mistake. The circumstances under which a normal person would do this are VERY unusual. Further, in the big scheme of things, its a BIG mistake. It doesn't take a lot of empathy to see that will -VERY probably- affect the other player significantly.
That's not seeing things 'my way'; its an objective truth.
I agree you can't KNOW for sure that its a mistake, or how its going to affect the other person. But we should be able to objectively agree that you do know its VERY probably a big mistake, and that its VERY probably going to significantly negatively affect the other person if it is.
And again, I point out that the onus for getting the listing right is on him, not you. I don't see how you have any ethical burden to not buy the sword at his listed price just because you think he screwed up the listing. Is it just because the discrepancy is so big? What if we look at it this way. What if some guy is selling an item you think you can resell for 10g for 7g? Is it wrong to take a profit there? If that's wrong, then you just don't believe in capitalism. Which is fine, but in that case maybe don't play the AH in WoW.
But if that's not wrong, where do you draw the line? You've apparently drawn it somewhere before you get to 1k for a 100k item. And I still say, that's fine, but it's your choice. There's no objective reason for anybody else to also draw the line there, or even anywhere.
It hurts him a lot? On what scale? How much is a lot? 1k for a 2k item? 1k for a 5k item? Is that too much?
The game has rules. In this case, the game we're talking about in particular happens to be World of Warcraft (or likely some other MMORPG, but let's assume WoW since we both are apparently familiar with it.) You list an item on the AH with a buy price, that's the price. You don't get take backsies once the auction sells. The onus is on you to get the listing right in the first place. How can you fault someone for buying what you're selling for the price you're listing it for? Everybody played the game by the rules--you just screwed up your opening gambit, as it were.
I personally don't see anything at all wrong or unethical about buying an item for the price the seller listed it for. I happen to think that if after I bought the item, and while it was still in my possession, the seller asked me nicely to return it for a refund because it was a screw up, it'd be a dick move not to do so. Dick move, sure, but unethical? I don't buy it. Not nice, maybe. But there's a shitload of things in life that aren't nice, but they don't qualify as unethical.
Is it really "nice" to buy something, *anything*, from somebody, at any time, in WoW or IRL, that you knew for a fact you were going to turn around and sell for a profit? Wouldn't the "nice" thing to do be to tell the guy selling the item "Hey, I know this guy who will pay half again what you're asking for that thing"? Sure, nice maybe. But is it unethical? I don't see it. It'd be unethical to mislead the guy into thinking you were giving him a super deal at the price you're paying. It'd be unethical to lie to the guy and swear you have no idea what the thing is "really" worth. But other than that? If I see a car in a used car lot selling for $1500 and I take a look at it and know I can put half an hour into cleaning the interior and sell it for $2500 to someone else, how is that unethical? If I see a Faberge egg in an antique store I know is worth thousands selling for a hundred bucks, is it unethical to buy it for the hundred bucks the shopkeeper is asking for it? Where's the line? Again, you may think it's not nice, and in several of these cases I'd even agree with you. But again, "nice" and "ethical" are not synonyms.
I'm fairly certain you're going to tell me it's a matter of degrees, and that at some point a line is crossed. But again, I'm saying that is a personal choice, and you will inevitably draw the line in a different place than I will, or that the used car salesman down the block will. I think you're fooling yourself with your appeals to "objective truth".
Ima guess French Foreign Legion
Well, that's fine, and I understand your position. But that makes it unethical for you. Condemning other people for not seeing it your way doesn't make any sense, though.
Here's another example. Say you bought the Insane Sword of Awesomeness for 1k, knowing you could resell for one hundred times that. Then an hour later, before you've relisted it on the auction house, the original seller sends you a message that says "Oh man, I messed up and meant to list that sword for 100k! Any chance I can buy it back from you? I'll give you your gold back plus an extra 1k for your trouble!"
What's the ethical thing to do here? I'm guessing (and this is just a guess, of course, since I don't know you from Adam) that you'd say the ethical thing to do here is to give him his sword back. Maybe you'd even go so far as to refuse the extra 1k gold and just take only what you paid back.
But it's easy to turn it around and say that by buying it for the price he listed it for, you did nothing wrong. You played completely by the rules. It's absolutely not your fault that he messed up, and you have every right, both legally and morally, to keep the sword and resell it for 100k. You might even say that were he in your shoes, you'd expect him to do the very same thing, and can't see why he'd be upset at all--you take responsibility for your screw ups, why shouldn't he?
You could even look at it this way: He's ripping YOU off! You bought a sword you know you can resell for 100k for 1k, fair and square--you are under no obligation to "do the right thing" (or, as you see it, what someone else inexplicably tells you is the right thing) and return it, even at a 100% profit. He's trying to get you to sell something for 1/500th market value! He's the asshat here, not you!
My point is, calling one unethical and the other ethical as if those are the only interpretations of "ethical" is disingenuous. And as for why I used terms like "rationalizing" and "assuming you know", it's because way too often people just take a gut reaction at face value, and fail to really explore the situation. "It just is" is a cop out. "If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you" is another. It's an excuse not to think. I want to see people (myself included!) put rational thought into these things. You've demonstrated you can and have done that, so that's cool--but way too often when I challenge people that way, they just get pissy, as if they shouldn't have to defend their feelings or their thoughts--OMG IT'S JUST HOW I FEEL! As if that's any kind of explanation for anything. No, dammit--THINK about it for a bit. You may find you feel differently about it after you used that tool between your ears! Then again, you may find that your gut response matches with your rational one--that's fine too. I just hate watching people make irrational decisions about anything without putting even a tiny bit of rational thought into it, or even worse, without understanding why a little rational thought might be a good thing!
For the record, in the hypothetical I offered, I'd probably give the guy his sword back and take the 100% profit for my trouble. But I don't think that's the cut-and-dry ethical choice. I just know that's what I'd do, because that's what I'd like for somebody to do for me if the roles were reversed. But as I said, it's easy to think of the exact same situation in a different light.
Explain why your first situation is "unethical" and the second one is not. Avoid using terms such as "it just is" or "if you don't understand, I can't explain it." Also, try avoid rationalizing it by assuming you know what's going on in the head of the seller, like you do in your second example ("The original owner was happy with 900k, and perhaps he just wanted to ge tit out of his inventory quickly...)
The point isn't that you should do whatever George Washington says because he's mofo George Washington. The point is, someone over 200 years ago realized the dangers of political parties and talked about how we should try to avoid having them at all costs.
Nobody is telling you "GEORGE WASHINGTON HATED POLITICAL PARTIES SO YOU SHOULD TOO!" The point is, just realize that this isn't some new development, isn't some new thing--200+ years ago, our first President saw the dangers and tried to warn us, and we didn't listen--in fact, we started having fairly well developed political parties almost the instant Washington left office.
Yes, I believe that's exactly what he means. "Give me things for free" is after all the battle cry of the new generation!
Since when does plastic have a half-life?