Can somebody explain what to what this means? It seems to have been said by somebody on The Daily Show and I keep hearing people quote it like it's something insightful. I must be missing the context it was said in because by the literal interpretation:
"something that exists independently of ideas concerning it has a tendency to be favorable to progress or reform"
Our analysis suggests the large male on the left is the leader of earth. Directly to the right is his attractive wife who we are unable to derive any logical semantic patterns from. The other two females seem to have been exposed to a strong gravitational field for quite some time and appear to resent the leader.
It is believed that the new leader came to power after a military coup with a dark hued shape-shifter.
Show a lot of things happing at once, Remind everyone of what's going on (what's going on?) And with every shot you show a little improvement To show it all would take to long That's called a montage (montage) Oh we want montage (montage)
He may not be an expert in robotics or even software engineering for that matter, but he is certainly an expert on what people will use in their homes.
It's not so simple. Almost every philosopher has contemplated this question.
The only way I can tell if a mammal is suffering is by how it reacts and even then I'm not always sure. How is this any different with robots?
"It can also be argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself. Life has become more complex in the overwhelming sea of information. And life, when organized into species, relies upon genes to be its memory system. So, man is an individual only because of his intangible memory... and memory cannot be defined, but it defines mankind."
There is no way to be certain if a product is going to be a big hit. Most new products don't have a high demand until they have been on the market for a little while. So a company can test the waters with a small release and then ramp up production if it becomes a success.
In your scenario only people who can afford to mass distribute their product would ever see any benefits from it, which is wrong.
The problem here is that whoever is first to market inevitably gets screwed because they have to pay for the costs of development while everyone else gets the development portion practically for free.
It gives less incentive to be an innovator or risk manufacturing an unproven product.
I disagree, if you want to get cheaper health care and new drugs then simply make it so you don't need a perscription to get drugs. In other words, make it an open market.
Doctors should be nothing more than a highly recommended consultant. They should not be the gateway to what you are allowed to put inside of your own body. Just about every doctor has the "I went to 6+ years of school, so I know what is good for you" mentality. If they were so god damn sure of themselves they wouldn't need so much insurance.
I think you're missing the point. All the talent, intelligence and hard work that goes into these products has already been done by the time comes around to manufacture it.
Patents protect the innovators from having every vulture on the block swoop in, reverse engineer their product and manufacture and sell it as their own.
In any case, if boxcutters can crash 4 planes simultaneously i'm sure you don't need something as complicated as a binary liquid explosive. The reason to not be afraid isn't because something bad isn't reasonably feaseable, but because so far it's unlikely.
"The bubble-era vision of a Utopian Internet is dented and dirty... The Lexus has collided with the olive tree, and its crumpled hulk spins in a ditch as the orchard smolders..."
William Gibson and Chuck Palahniuk are saying to themselves: "Oh god, *I* don't sound like that, do I?"
Slashdot Mirror
Fair Enough.x .asp?PID=434
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/inde
The only ones who complain about DRM are the legit users. Pirates actually enjoy cracking DRM.
Here's a little business tip: Don't treat all your customers like thieves.
That statement has been made by old men since the beginning of time. There is nothing special about our time.
That is a horrible analogy.
If 1 in a 100 people were doing something bad with a gun you can bet your ass we would have martial law declared.
Almost everybody I know has copied something illegally at some point in their lives.
"Reality has a liberal bias"
Can somebody explain what to what this means? It seems to have been said by somebody on The Daily Show and I keep hearing people quote it like it's something insightful. I must be missing the context it was said in because by the literal interpretation:
"something that exists independently of ideas concerning it has a tendency to be favorable to progress or reform"
Which makes no sense.
Our analysis suggests the large male on the left is the leader of earth. Directly to the right is his attractive wife who we are unable to derive any logical semantic patterns from. The other two females seem to have been exposed to a strong gravitational field for quite some time and appear to resent the leader.
It is believed that the new leader came to power after a military coup with a dark hued shape-shifter.
The universe would be symmetrical and when we make first contact it's from earth's mirror planet.
Show a lot of things happing at once,
Remind everyone of what's going on (what's going on?)
And with every shot you show a little improvement
To show it all would take to long
That's called a montage (montage)
Oh we want montage (montage)
Yeesh, somebody has a low thetan count today.
He may not be an expert in robotics or even software engineering for that matter, but he is certainly an expert on what people will use in their homes.
Oh come on: CONDIE RICE. Raaawr! What? None of you find power sexy?
If your body can inhabit a soul, why can't a robots? The idea of having a "soul" only complicates the issue.
Yeah, that's all well and good until somebody programs the same line of thinking into robots.
It's not so simple. Almost every philosopher has contemplated this question.
The only way I can tell if a mammal is suffering is by how it reacts and even then I'm not always sure. How is this any different with robots?
"It can also be argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself. Life has become more complex in the overwhelming sea of information. And life, when organized into species, relies upon genes to be its memory system. So, man is an individual only because of his intangible memory... and memory cannot be defined, but it defines mankind."
There is no way to be certain if a product is going to be a big hit. Most new products don't have a high demand until they have been on the market for a little while. So a company can test the waters with a small release and then ramp up production if it becomes a success.
In your scenario only people who can afford to mass distribute their product would ever see any benefits from it, which is wrong.
That's not a counterbalance. That just adds to the risk of manufacturing it. Nobody would touch a new product with a 10 foot pole in this case.
The problem here is that whoever is first to market inevitably gets screwed because they have to pay for the costs of development while everyone else gets the development portion practically for free.
It gives less incentive to be an innovator or risk manufacturing an unproven product.
I disagree, if you want to get cheaper health care and new drugs then simply make it so you don't need a perscription to get drugs. In other words, make it an open market.
Doctors should be nothing more than a highly recommended consultant. They should not be the gateway to what you are allowed to put inside of your own body. Just about every doctor has the "I went to 6+ years of school, so I know what is good for you" mentality. If they were so god damn sure of themselves they wouldn't need so much insurance.
I think you're missing the point. All the talent, intelligence and hard work that goes into these products has already been done by the time comes around to manufacture it.
Patents protect the innovators from having every vulture on the block swoop in, reverse engineer their product and manufacture and sell it as their own.
How much you want to bet that he is slurring his words and waving his hands furiously as he reads this post back to himself?
Would you like to play a game?
>> Y
Game Over. Opponent has no weapons.
In any case, if boxcutters can crash 4 planes simultaneously i'm sure you don't need something as complicated as a binary liquid explosive. The reason to not be afraid isn't because something bad isn't reasonably feaseable, but because so far it's unlikely.
"The bubble-era vision of a Utopian Internet is dented and dirty... The Lexus has collided with the olive tree, and its crumpled hulk spins in a ditch as the orchard smolders..."
William Gibson and Chuck Palahniuk are saying to themselves: "Oh god, *I* don't sound like that, do I?"
It made perfect sense to me. "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" isn't that obscure a reference. Wasn't this book a bestseller?
Probably hanging out with Richard Feynman, Oppenheimer and Edison in the afterlife.