I'm not sure if it is possible in this case, but I have seen videos linked from this very site of a science teacher who can partially dip his flat, wet hand into molten lead. I can't recall off the top of my head how long the replicant has their hand in the jug, so it might be too long for that explanation. So then there's the genetic engineering or artificial limb replacement type explanation I also gave. BTW, I was more referring to the ability to overcome pain, not prevent major physical trauma.
Anyway, I think asking people to stick their hands into liquid nitrogen to prove they are human sounds a bit like drowning suspected witches. Or do you think that is probably ethically OK in the world of the Blade Runner movie? Remember that Deckard is still answerable to the law, and he might not have been satisfied himself that he wasn't actually harming another creature during the ordeal.
But then they couldn't rule out the possibility that this person was just highly trained in martial arts or meditation. That's one thing that bugs me about many of the humans in Battlestar Gallactica, they have this missconception that humans can't learn to train their mind (and body) to a high level -- I'm not sure if this is intentional, in terms of the writers. Other reasons for lack of physical tests could be that genetic engineering, or something to the equivalent, could mess up the tests, or could require a brain biopsy or some other dangerous test. Psychological testing seems more practical. Of course, there's no point in getting too deep here, since we're debating fiction.
You sound like an elitist who thinks that people who don't read books are stupid. The truth is, intelligence comes in many forms, and it's not always literature. Plus, some people don't have the time to sit around all day reading books. Perhaps you should stop thinking that you are better than everybody else just because you read more books than they do -- at least that's the impression I'm getting here.
Except that most of these kinds of light bulbs have dimmers.
There is really no difference from directly emitting light and having it reflected, except the brightness, and reading a book in the sun is quite bright. In fact, being outdoors is often bright compared to indoors where you have your desktop PC. So it really depends on the screen, its settings, and your environment.
Every time someone complains that black on white hurts their eyes, I suggest they play with the brightness first to see if that takes care of things.
The pilot can dance a jig on the rudder pedals and the damn rudder should not fall off!
Here's to hoping you never get a pilots license. Flying a plane is not like diving a car, or using your computer. The have operation limits for reasons. They aren't built to be idiot proof -- that would be too expensive, then idiots like you would complain about the prices. And the idiot could still fly it into the ground, anyway.
To think that one of the major companies is worse than another to the point where it makes a real difference to you, is simply unfounded.
That's interesting about Nader -- I did see a book about this once, but didn't read it. If this event and 9/11 had happened around the same time, Nader would have been laughed at compared to The Evils of Terrorism. While 3000 people dying in one year is a tragedy that would be great to avoid, obviously, 25,000 a year is a greater tragedy, yet undoubtedly, out of many who don't make their kids wear a seatbelt, some probably think the dangers of terrorism are so great that they support war to stop it.
It really does put things into perspective. Nader deserves a lot more respect than being the butt of many jokes, especially compared to what his opponents have achieved.
People still upgrade their computers one component at a time? RAM and HDDs are the most often upgraded parts, and the iMac does them. The last time I wanted to upgrade the CPU or graphics card on my old PC, the motherboard was no longer compatible with the new stuff. I think a lot of people find this. Upgradability isn't as big of a deal as it used to be -- it's just easier to by a whole new computer.
So yeah, I guess you upgrade too often. At least compared to the average user; if you need top-of-the-line stuff, that's different (but then you'd probably need a PowerMac/Mac Pro, anyway, not an iMac).
It's not the white plastic that bothers me so much, but the large space under the monitor. Of course, the ratio is less on the 24" than the 17", and there's also fact that the 24" screen is so nice compared to my old dual 17" setup, that I don't really care what the rest of the computer looks like;)
I can't see Apple using multi-touch touchscreen monitors for a desktop PC for the following reason: It sits on your desktop. Hold your arm out in front of you for a while and see how it feels. A tablet/laptop, I can see...
I also agree with the other guy about a detachable iMac. To make it practical enough, you'd basically be making a laptop, which.
Desktops belong on the desk, and I think there is going to be a line between desktops and laptops for quite a while, simply because desktops can be made cheaper.
If it does have a keychain like OS X, syncs it, and allows access to it, then that's fine.
I don't lack imagination, I just want a nice solution, rather than a hack. SplashID is a nice solution, and they make it for many devices. I'm sure they'd make a port for the iPhone once Apple makes an SDK for it. Untill then, it's just easier to stick with my Treo.
Please link to this psychological fact. I don't recall anything such as selfish always being the main motivator in decisions. In fact, I thought that this was part of the point in this article -- that the human brain has predisposition to altruistic thinking -- at least partially, because I'm sure it is also partly predisposed to be selfish, to.
Donating to the KKK is obviously not a altruistic act if you have half a brain, because most people know what the KKK do. What they do is certainly not altruistic, therefore, if you donate money to them, knowing what they will do with it, you are not altruistic, are you? Just as if you were give money to a politician who would bring in certain laws you wanted, then that is a selfish, not altruistic, because even though you gave something up, it was only with the intent of getting something back.
And if you are going to tell me that this means than Mother Teaser and the Dalai Lama are therefore selfish, because what they want is to live in a peaceful world where everyone is happy, then you'd be right. The Dalai Lama even jokes that people like him are the most selfish people in the world, yet at the same time their actions are the least.
I mean, without selfishness, there is no such thing as compassion. So the obvious thing is to use selfishness to spread compassion. There is no feel-good religious or spiritual BS here, just logic.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out the rest -- I have to go to work.
Why do you assume that a person teaching altruism has selfish motives? Seems like you've got things a bit backwards to me. Or you believe that we are all inherently selfish. In which case, how can altruism arising from selfish motives be a bad thing if the alternative is selfishness anyway?
If altruism is a natural part of who we are, then how can we be forced to like it? You would have to be inherently selfish to be forced to like altruism. Lazarus Long sounds like a bit of an idiot from what you've presented here.
How do you even know I'm religious? And why on earth would you assume that I know nothing about balance? I bet you haven't even gone though my comment history to confirm that I'm an moron before making such an accusation. For all you know, I could have posted many times about the importance of balance when it comes to biology/food science etc.
You could have at least prodded me with a carefully disguised comment to confirm my ignorance before acting like a prick. Luckily for you, you decided to take the cowards way out.
But back to the point. Any moron knows that anything can be toxic or beneficial -- that it depends on the amount (see my earlier post). So, why don't you tell us why in this case (GM food) what is an appropriate level of GM food to eat? Let me guess...you don't know? Not many of us do, and that's part of the point.
If the result of not paying attention to GM food leads to the possibility of death, and and you believe that killing people is generally bad, and you think that ethics and morals align on many of the same issues (in this case, selling food that could lead to early death or suffering), then how is this not a moral issue?
I'm not saying sodium benzoate is an issue, but you really are simplifying the situation too much. That you started your comment with "This should be trivially easy..." is what raised a red flag. In science, designing proper experiment, getting accurate results, interpreting them correctly, and applying them to the real word in a meaningful way can be incredibly hard.
Simplifying such things is how health scares like this happen in the first place (except for when the media is solely to blame).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if it is possible in this case, but I have seen videos linked from this very site of a science teacher who can partially dip his flat, wet hand into molten lead. I can't recall off the top of my head how long the replicant has their hand in the jug, so it might be too long for that explanation. So then there's the genetic engineering or artificial limb replacement type explanation I also gave.
BTW, I was more referring to the ability to overcome pain, not prevent major physical trauma.
Anyway, I think asking people to stick their hands into liquid nitrogen to prove they are human sounds a bit like drowning suspected witches. Or do you think that is probably ethically OK in the world of the Blade Runner movie? Remember that Deckard is still answerable to the law, and he might not have been satisfied himself that he wasn't actually harming another creature during the ordeal.
But then they couldn't rule out the possibility that this person was just highly trained in martial arts or meditation. That's one thing that bugs me about many of the humans in Battlestar Gallactica, they have this missconception that humans can't learn to train their mind (and body) to a high level -- I'm not sure if this is intentional, in terms of the writers. Other reasons for lack of physical tests could be that genetic engineering, or something to the equivalent, could mess up the tests, or could require a brain biopsy or some other dangerous test. Psychological testing seems more practical. Of course, there's no point in getting too deep here, since we're debating fiction.
You sound like an elitist who thinks that people who don't read books are stupid. The truth is, intelligence comes in many forms, and it's not always literature. Plus, some people don't have the time to sit around all day reading books. Perhaps you should stop thinking that you are better than everybody else just because you read more books than they do -- at least that's the impression I'm getting here.
Smarter in all the ways that I am not?
Save something here, save something there, it all adds up.
Except that most of these kinds of light bulbs have dimmers.
There is really no difference from directly emitting light and having it reflected, except the brightness, and reading a book in the sun is quite bright. In fact, being outdoors is often bright compared to indoors where you have your desktop PC. So it really depends on the screen, its settings, and your environment.
Every time someone complains that black on white hurts their eyes, I suggest they play with the brightness first to see if that takes care of things.
The pilot can dance a jig on the rudder pedals and the damn rudder should not fall off!
Here's to hoping you never get a pilots license. Flying a plane is not like diving a car, or using your computer. The have operation limits for reasons. They aren't built to be idiot proof -- that would be too expensive, then idiots like you would complain about the prices. And the idiot could still fly it into the ground, anyway.
To think that one of the major companies is worse than another to the point where it makes a real difference to you, is simply unfounded.
That's interesting about Nader -- I did see a book about this once, but didn't read it. If this event and 9/11 had happened around the same time, Nader would have been laughed at compared to The Evils of Terrorism. While 3000 people dying in one year is a tragedy that would be great to avoid, obviously, 25,000 a year is a greater tragedy, yet undoubtedly, out of many who don't make their kids wear a seatbelt, some probably think the dangers of terrorism are so great that they support war to stop it.
It really does put things into perspective. Nader deserves a lot more respect than being the butt of many jokes, especially compared to what his opponents have achieved.
Because they have to at least pretend that they're keeping up with Mac OS X.
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with writers like John C. Dvorak.
Beats looking retarded now!
Of course, Apple have clean designs, too, which always age better.
People still upgrade their computers one component at a time? RAM and HDDs are the most often upgraded parts, and the iMac does them. The last time I wanted to upgrade the CPU or graphics card on my old PC, the motherboard was no longer compatible with the new stuff. I think a lot of people find this. Upgradability isn't as big of a deal as it used to be -- it's just easier to by a whole new computer.
So yeah, I guess you upgrade too often. At least compared to the average user; if you need top-of-the-line stuff, that's different (but then you'd probably need a PowerMac/Mac Pro, anyway, not an iMac).
It's not the white plastic that bothers me so much, but the large space under the monitor. Of course, the ratio is less on the 24" than the 17", and there's also fact that the 24" screen is so nice compared to my old dual 17" setup, that I don't really care what the rest of the computer looks like ;)
I can't see Apple using multi-touch touchscreen monitors for a desktop PC for the following reason: It sits on your desktop. Hold your arm out in front of you for a while and see how it feels. A tablet/laptop, I can see...
I also agree with the other guy about a detachable iMac. To make it practical enough, you'd basically be making a laptop, which.
Desktops belong on the desk, and I think there is going to be a line between desktops and laptops for quite a while, simply because desktops can be made cheaper.
If it does have a keychain like OS X, syncs it, and allows access to it, then that's fine.
I don't lack imagination, I just want a nice solution, rather than a hack. SplashID is a nice solution, and they make it for many devices. I'm sure they'd make a port for the iPhone once Apple makes an SDK for it. Untill then, it's just easier to stick with my Treo.
I don't think my clients would appreciate me storing the details to their servers and e-mail accounts on a web app.
Password manager.
I'm sure others will have different killer apps, and that's part of the point here.
Not so great if you just want a password manager such as SplashID. Security aside, there would also be the lack of desktop syncing.
Please link to this psychological fact. I don't recall anything such as selfish always being the main motivator in decisions. In fact, I thought that this was part of the point in this article -- that the human brain has predisposition to altruistic thinking -- at least partially, because I'm sure it is also partly predisposed to be selfish, to.
Donating to the KKK is obviously not a altruistic act if you have half a brain, because most people know what the KKK do. What they do is certainly not altruistic, therefore, if you donate money to them, knowing what they will do with it, you are not altruistic, are you? Just as if you were give money to a politician who would bring in certain laws you wanted, then that is a selfish, not altruistic, because even though you gave something up, it was only with the intent of getting something back.
And if you are going to tell me that this means than Mother Teaser and the Dalai Lama are therefore selfish, because what they want is to live in a peaceful world where everyone is happy, then you'd be right. The Dalai Lama even jokes that people like him are the most selfish people in the world, yet at the same time their actions are the least.
I mean, without selfishness, there is no such thing as compassion. So the obvious thing is to use selfishness to spread compassion. There is no feel-good religious or spiritual BS here, just logic.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out the rest -- I have to go to work.
Lions aren't the only subject in the field of zoology, you know. One could have just as easily picked-out bees as an example for Leninism-Marxism.
Why do you assume that a person teaching altruism has selfish motives? Seems like you've got things a bit backwards to me. Or you believe that we are all inherently selfish. In which case, how can altruism arising from selfish motives be a bad thing if the alternative is selfishness anyway?
If altruism is a natural part of who we are, then how can we be forced to like it? You would have to be inherently selfish to be forced to like altruism. Lazarus Long sounds like a bit of an idiot from what you've presented here.
Perhaps you don't, but many others do -- you just don't hear about them because they don't do it for selfish reasons.
How do you even know I'm religious? And why on earth would you assume that I know nothing about balance? I bet you haven't even gone though my comment history to confirm that I'm an moron before making such an accusation. For all you know, I could have posted many times about the importance of balance when it comes to biology/food science etc.
You could have at least prodded me with a carefully disguised comment to confirm my ignorance before acting like a prick. Luckily for you, you decided to take the cowards way out.
But back to the point. Any moron knows that anything can be toxic or beneficial -- that it depends on the amount (see my earlier post). So, why don't you tell us why in this case (GM food) what is an appropriate level of GM food to eat? Let me guess...you don't know? Not many of us do, and that's part of the point.
If the result of not paying attention to GM food leads to the possibility of death, and and you believe that killing people is generally bad, and you think that ethics and morals align on many of the same issues (in this case, selling food that could lead to early death or suffering), then how is this not a moral issue?
I'm not saying sodium benzoate is an issue, but you really are simplifying the situation too much. That you started your comment with "This should be trivially easy..." is what raised a red flag. In science, designing proper experiment, getting accurate results, interpreting them correctly, and applying them to the real word in a meaningful way can be incredibly hard.
Simplifying such things is how health scares like this happen in the first place (except for when the media is solely to blame).