I certainly felt more threatened when some evangelist(Pat Robertson I think) flew to my highschool years ago in a helicopter to deliver a speech. They converted a spot on the main parking lot into a helipad and security was everywhere. I'd rather have soliders drop in from a blackhawk. That would be much cooler, and certainly makes for a good recruiting gimmick.
I am not "mired in specifics". I am pointing out but one of many flaws in your argument.
Any attempt to weigh the value of human life by presenting a "kill or be killed" scenario while also categorically refusing to consider how such a scenario would play out in real life is absurd. No philosophy regarding human life(or its value) is relevant unless you are willing to apply it to your own life and use it to guide your own actions. Someday, you may be forced to choose between your life or the life of another, and "irrelevant details" particular to the situation may present you with a clear and logical reason to respond in a fashion that is contradictory to your philosphy regarding the supposedly finite worth of human life.
Furthermore, your initial scenario does nothing to highlight the "finite" value of human life. It only shows how difficult it is to preserve human life when faced with violence at the hands of those who do not believe similarly. Such scenarios are, sadly, very common in this day and age, though they are hardly so contrived or silly as the situation you portray.
No matter what situation you concoct, you prove nothing. The proper decision for the believer in infinitely-valuable human life is the decision to preserve as much human life as possible, regardless of who or what that life might represent in the long run. In the short run, sometimes preserving specific lives(given their position, training, or merely equipment) may save more in the long run. If I had to choose between saving three people who each have keys to cells holding captives who will die in mere minutes to poison gas, I'd save the guy who had the key which unlocked the cell with the most people in it. Does that make the fellow with the "best" key more valuable as a human being? Of course not! What it does mean is that, in that specific scenario, he has an object which can save lives. I would choose to save him merely for the object and the added bonus that he'd get to go free along with the maximum number of human lives possible. Take away his key and he's in the same position as all the prisoners locked in the cells. I'll save them if I can, but if I can't, I'll save as many as possible.
By the same token, if the cell with the fewest prisoners had a scientist that could create a vaccine to save millions of people upon release, then I'd chose to save the man who had the key to open the cell with the fewest people. Even further, if this man had the same medical training and ability to produce vaccines, and there was no plague in need of being cured, I would no longer consider his medical training when contemplating whether or not I'd save the people in his cell.
It might seem that someone's equipment, knowledge, or position might make their worth as human beings greater than others, but the truth is that their equipment, knowledge, or position only has worth as compared to other equipment, knowledge, or positions. Divested of their advantages, they're "just human lives". They are still worth saving, if it can be done. If you do not believe in the infinite value of human life, you are on a slippery slope that will lead to the belief that no human life is really worth saving(other than, perhaps, your own).
In the scenario you laid out, why would I have any reason to believe that I could protect myself by following any instruction given to me by a person holding a gun to my head? The gunman could easily kill me AFTER I had done as he instructed. He might have a greater incentive to do so, given that the gunman somehow valued the fact that I could be used to kill another human being, therefore causing him to have no further use for me once I had performed the desired task. Killing me would eliminate all witnesses.
When held at gunpoint, it is best to carry out simple instructions that do not directly or indirectly threaten others. This is done to buy time in hopes that somebody else can kill, incapacitate, or otherwise neutralize the gunman. Following orders that would lead to the injury or death of other human beings merely aids the gunman in his task of extinguishing human life. If he is determined to kill people, force him to do it himself, even if doing so puts your own life at risk.
In the aforementioned scenario, if I refused to kill the target and died due to head wounds as result, it might give the target an opportunity to escape. I can safely assume that both I and the target would die if I did as instructed.
1). Most drinkable water supplies in the US(and possibly, even probably, in other countries) are controlled by private or government(municipal or otherwise)-owned utilities. This "necessity of life" is already controlled by "small groups".
2). Agribusiness giants like ADM already control an enormous percentage of our food supply in the US(and, again, possibly in other countries).
I don't particularly like Monsanto's approach to business, but you know that they really want the royalty payments from big agribusiness firms that nearly have a "monopoly on a necessity of life" already. I'm sure Monsanto could care less if little farms everywhere continue to grow heirloom crops. As long as they keep making the big bucks off ADM etc, they'll be happy(and wealthy).
Natrually, Monsanto will make examples out of any small farmers that wind up deliberately or accidentally growing patented GM foods without paying the appropriate royalties, but I view this more as zealotry on the part of lawyers seeking to justify their own existence than anything else.
Can't they just anchor a beacon of some kind to mark the find so they can bring a larger team to verify it later?
The article gives very little information about their plans for exploration. You'd think they would include more on the nuts and bolts of the operation.
Well, the ISS is modular, isn't it? Something that is currently on the outside of the ISS might be inside later. They seem to imply that the position of that particular breaker is temporary(either that, or its status as being "outside" is temporary).
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadaliac Eldarado Convertable, Hot Pink! With whale skin hub caps, An all leather cow interior, And big brown baby seal eyes for headlights. YEAH! And I'm gonna drive around in that baby, At 115 miles per hour, Getting one mile per gallon, Sucking down quarter pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old-fasioned non-biodegradable styrafoam containers. And when I'm done sucking down those grease ball burgers, I'm gonna wipe my mouth in the American flag, And then I'm gonna toss the styrafoam containers right out the side, And there ain't a God damn thing anybody can do about it, You know why? 'Cause we got the bombs, that's why. Two words, Nuclear Fucking Weapons OK. Russia, Germany, Romania, They can have all the democracy they want. They can have a big democracy cake, Walk right through the middle of Tienemen Square, And it won't make a lick of difference, Because we got the bombs OK! John Wayne's not dead, He's frozen. And as soon as we find a cure for cancer, we're gonna thaw out the duke. And he's gonna be pretty pissed off, You know why? Have you ever taken a cold shower? Well multiply that by 15 million times, That's how pissed off the duke's gonna be. I'm gonna get the duke, And John Desimeties, And Lee Marvinhaugh And Sam Beckinforth, And a case of whiskey, And drive down to Texas, And, (hey, Hey, You know you really are an asshole)
It's a shame the consumer-level players won't be using electron beams of the same intensity to read the discs.
It's cool enough that tweaked 52x cd-rom drives can be used to fire CDs at people/places/things at an insane velocity. It'd be even cooler to modify one's electron beam storage device/reader to fire electron beams at undesirables. Oh, the possibilities . . .
The same criticism has been made against movies made over the last 10-20 years, and yet, we find in modern theatres such wonderful, innovative, and novel pictures as . . . uh ... hmm, well, I'll get back to you on that one. Also, be glad the video games are still in the "sequel from hell" phase and not yet fully into the remake from hell phase.
Slashdot Mirror
I certainly felt more threatened when some evangelist(Pat Robertson I think) flew to my highschool years ago in a helicopter to deliver a speech. They converted a spot on the main parking lot into a helipad and security was everywhere. I'd rather have soliders drop in from a blackhawk. That would be much cooler, and certainly makes for a good recruiting gimmick.
I am not "mired in specifics". I am pointing out but one of many flaws in your argument.
Any attempt to weigh the value of human life by presenting a "kill or be killed" scenario while also categorically refusing to consider how such a scenario would play out in real life is absurd. No philosophy regarding human life(or its value) is relevant unless you are willing to apply it to your own life and use it to guide your own actions. Someday, you may be forced to choose between your life or the life of another, and "irrelevant details" particular to the situation may present you with a clear and logical reason to respond in a fashion that is contradictory to your philosphy regarding the supposedly finite worth of human life.
Furthermore, your initial scenario does nothing to highlight the "finite" value of human life. It only shows how difficult it is to preserve human life when faced with violence at the hands of those who do not believe similarly. Such scenarios are, sadly, very common in this day and age, though they are hardly so contrived or silly as the situation you portray.
No matter what situation you concoct, you prove nothing. The proper decision for the believer in infinitely-valuable human life is the decision to preserve as much human life as possible, regardless of who or what that life might represent in the long run. In the short run, sometimes preserving specific lives(given their position, training, or merely equipment) may save more in the long run. If I had to choose between saving three people who each have keys to cells holding captives who will die in mere minutes to poison gas, I'd save the guy who had the key which unlocked the cell with the most people in it. Does that make the fellow with the "best" key more valuable as a human being? Of course not! What it does mean is that, in that specific scenario, he has an object which can save lives. I would choose to save him merely for the object and the added bonus that he'd get to go free along with the maximum number of human lives possible. Take away his key and he's in the same position as all the prisoners locked in the cells. I'll save them if I can, but if I can't, I'll save as many as possible.
By the same token, if the cell with the fewest prisoners had a scientist that could create a vaccine to save millions of people upon release, then I'd chose to save the man who had the key to open the cell with the fewest people. Even further, if this man had the same medical training and ability to produce vaccines, and there was no plague in need of being cured, I would no longer consider his medical training when contemplating whether or not I'd save the people in his cell.
It might seem that someone's equipment, knowledge, or position might make their worth as human beings greater than others, but the truth is that their equipment, knowledge, or position only has worth as compared to other equipment, knowledge, or positions. Divested of their advantages, they're "just human lives". They are still worth saving, if it can be done. If you do not believe in the infinite value of human life, you are on a slippery slope that will lead to the belief that no human life is really worth saving(other than, perhaps, your own).
The parking garages of the USA are saved! I can now park my car without fearing ICBM-valets.
In the scenario you laid out, why would I have any reason to believe that I could protect myself by following any instruction given to me by a person holding a gun to my head? The gunman could easily kill me AFTER I had done as he instructed. He might have a greater incentive to do so, given that the gunman somehow valued the fact that I could be used to kill another human being, therefore causing him to have no further use for me once I had performed the desired task. Killing me would eliminate all witnesses.
When held at gunpoint, it is best to carry out simple instructions that do not directly or indirectly threaten others. This is done to buy time in hopes that somebody else can kill, incapacitate, or otherwise neutralize the gunman. Following orders that would lead to the injury or death of other human beings merely aids the gunman in his task of extinguishing human life. If he is determined to kill people, force him to do it himself, even if doing so puts your own life at risk.
In the aforementioned scenario, if I refused to kill the target and died due to head wounds as result, it might give the target an opportunity to escape. I can safely assume that both I and the target would die if I did as instructed.
Core Wars, man, Core Wars.
Oh look, I have a duck link too! Ain't I special.
I don't think they made any attempt to install the Loknar.
1). Most drinkable water supplies in the US(and possibly, even probably, in other countries) are controlled by private or government(municipal or otherwise)-owned utilities. This "necessity of life" is already controlled by "small groups".
2). Agribusiness giants like ADM already control an enormous percentage of our food supply in the US(and, again, possibly in other countries).
I don't particularly like Monsanto's approach to business, but you know that they really want the royalty payments from big agribusiness firms that nearly have a "monopoly on a necessity of life" already. I'm sure Monsanto could care less if little farms everywhere continue to grow heirloom crops. As long as they keep making the big bucks off ADM etc, they'll be happy(and wealthy).
Natrually, Monsanto will make examples out of any small farmers that wind up deliberately or accidentally growing patented GM foods without paying the appropriate royalties, but I view this more as zealotry on the part of lawyers seeking to justify their own existence than anything else.
Can't they just anchor a beacon of some kind to mark the find so they can bring a larger team to verify it later?
The article gives very little information about their plans for exploration. You'd think they would include more on the nuts and bolts of the operation.
Is that a metaphor for life in Asia or New York?
Well, the ISS is modular, isn't it? Something that is currently on the outside of the ISS might be inside later. They seem to imply that the position of that particular breaker is temporary(either that, or its status as being "outside" is temporary).
1. Bovine growth hormones in its milk
2. Possible steroid abuse
. . . the Russian probe fails YOU!!!
Cmon guys, "In Soviet Russia" jokes rule and you know it. Give a little love to the Yakov Smirnov wannabes, okay?
are a genius of comedy!
Mod up +5 funny
You know what I'm gonna do?
I'm gonna get myself a 1967 Cadaliac Eldarado Convertable,
Hot Pink!
With whale skin hub caps,
An all leather cow interior,
And big brown baby seal eyes for headlights.
YEAH!
And I'm gonna drive around in that baby,
At 115 miles per hour,
Getting one mile per gallon,
Sucking down quarter pounder cheeseburgers from McDonalds in the old-fasioned non-biodegradable styrafoam containers.
And when I'm done sucking down those grease ball burgers,
I'm gonna wipe my mouth in the American flag,
And then I'm gonna toss the styrafoam containers right out the side,
And there ain't a God damn thing anybody can do about it,
You know why?
'Cause we got the bombs, that's why.
Two words, Nuclear Fucking Weapons OK.
Russia, Germany, Romania,
They can have all the democracy they want.
They can have a big democracy cake,
Walk right through the middle of Tienemen Square,
And it won't make a lick of difference,
Because we got the bombs OK!
John Wayne's not dead,
He's frozen.
And as soon as we find a cure for cancer, we're gonna thaw out the duke.
And he's gonna be pretty pissed off,
You know why?
Have you ever taken a cold shower?
Well multiply that by 15 million times,
That's how pissed off the duke's gonna be.
I'm gonna get the duke,
And John Desimeties,
And Lee Marvinhaugh
And Sam Beckinforth,
And a case of whiskey,
And drive down to Texas,
And,
(hey, Hey, You know you really are an asshole)
You do it because OSX won't install on a dead badger.
The reason why there are so few comments posted is that everyone is still busy installing Linux on a dead badger.
Exactly how much bandwidth does Jesus have, anyway? Does he have more than Muhammad?
It's a shame the consumer-level players won't be using electron beams of the same intensity to read the discs.
It's cool enough that tweaked 52x cd-rom drives can be used to fire CDs at people/places/things at an insane velocity. It'd be even cooler to modify one's electron beam storage device/reader to fire electron beams at undesirables. Oh, the possibilities . . .
This guy I guess.
This doesn't look like the Lincoln Tunnels, Sam
The same criticism has been made against movies made over the last 10-20 years, and yet, we find in modern theatres such wonderful, innovative, and novel pictures as . . . uh . .. hmm, well, I'll get back to you on that one. Also, be glad the video games are still in the "sequel from hell" phase and not yet fully into the remake from hell phase.
No way, I'm too busy hanging out with ninjas to worry about pirates. Pullleeeeeze.
Highly unlikely. The geeks will gather after the sun goes down. After all, 20 minutes of exposure causes burns.
My Insight-fu is better than yours!