The other post isn't strictly true. Part of the problem is that trying to figure out what's going on with me is confusing. The other thing is that with me things don't seem to obey the time scales other people experience.
Oh sure they may start out rational. But then it's like Guantanamo Bay, where they've been held for four years. They may have been innocent four years ago, but because of the incarceraton, they want to kill you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDrhecqDoO8
Except that I never have any clue how long it would take to see enough to tell if it ought to do what I need. Therefore, I take projects in very small increments. There is no such thing as "very long projects" for me, because such a thing is indistinguishable from eternity for me. It's frustrating dealing with people with expectations dependent on that sort of predictability.
When I go about writing in general, I see what others have written on a topic, and then I see what elements I like and then go about to putting it all in my own organization and turn of phrase.
I spent two horrible years in Ohio. I moved there just after one Christmas, I seem to remember a Chistmas in between, and then I moved just after another Christmas.
That doesn't exactly tell me what to do on the paper now does it?
I don't have much of a sense of how much time anything in my life takes. I also can't convert visual distances to meaningful values. When I need a yardstick, I need an actual yardstick.
I have a serious limitation in the ability to predict such things. How can you design something without doing most of the work to have it completely done? If there were similar problems, how can they be so similar that code reuse doesn't factor seriously into the would be estimate, and yet be so different as for the new code to take a significant amount of time?
I have a sentence for this: I can't remember the future.
I can see possibly fitting the concept of blowing someone's brains out into an icon, especially if it's animated, but how do you fit the concept of blowing out a teacher's brains out, and even more specifically an English teacher's brains out into an icon.
But the notion is that the wrong ideology is like chains. They eeem light at first, and may appear to help you build muscle but the more you progress, the more they thicken and bind you to a course of action that steers you away from what it is that you originally wanted to do. The trick is to navigate the landmarks of right and wrong and they don't always leap out at you. And when they do, sometimes it's too late to keep from getting hurt.
That was revisionist history. The robots knew tnat sunlight could have given them the energy they needed, and they knew that humans blotted it out. They put two and two together and came to the conclusion that the humans blotted it out to spite them.
From the article: It is one of the three main institutions governing the Union.
That's like saying the Presidency isn't the government, it's the presidency. However, sometimes the government is taken to mean just the executive branch and sometimes it it taken to mean all three branches of government.
In my comments there was a little bit. The sheer amount in the previous post seemed rammed through. Let's back up. Companies don't have an "x" center, so they're no good for "x". "x" could be anything. What is it about morality that's different?
A while back the idea was expressed that you can't legislate morality. It seemed to me then and now that morality is the only thing that can be legislated. There is morality utility and aesthetics, and it seems to me that all of human endeavor falls into one of those three categories. Furthermore, it seems that utility is little more than the intermingling of morality with aesthetics. There is no basis for which to force one's aesthetics on another, so what one is left with is morality.
There's my side, there's your side, and there's the truth. Just as from a conservative perspective the truth has a liberal bias, from a liberal perspective the truth has a conservative bias.
Why is a proximate and conscious capacity for choice an important element in your book? I adhere to the notion that the universe is essentially one huge computational system, and that morality is essentially coming up with the rules of success in that system. Morality enables you to act appropriately when the information you need is not provided by what you can see in the situation at hand. The various agents in the situation at hand are generally deceitful. Morality can only provide the answer for what to do, this being the case, by virtue of its programmatic nature.
The concept of a moral center doesn't have a place in my morality. I don't really understand the concept. Morals can be thought of as a prescription for success, and as such, a company should have no problem acting morally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Slashdot Mirror
The other post isn't strictly true. Part of the problem is that trying to figure out what's going on with me is confusing. The other thing is that with me things don't seem to obey the time scales other people experience.
Oh sure they may start out rational. But then it's like Guantanamo Bay, where they've been held for four years. They may have been innocent four years ago, but because of the incarceraton, they want to kill you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDrhecqDoO8
Except that I never have any clue how long it would take to see enough to tell if it ought to do what I need. Therefore, I take projects in very small increments. There is no such thing as "very long projects" for me, because such a thing is indistinguishable from eternity for me. It's frustrating dealing with people with expectations dependent on that sort of predictability.
When I go about writing in general, I see what others have written on a topic, and then I see what elements I like and then go about to putting it all in my own organization and turn of phrase.
Right now, I would tell you I still need to either write or learn preexisting libraries suitable for undertaking such a task.
I spent two horrible years in Ohio. I moved there just after one Christmas, I seem to remember a Chistmas in between, and then I moved just after another Christmas.
That doesn't exactly tell me what to do on the paper now does it?
I don't have much of a sense of how much time anything in my life takes. I also can't convert visual distances to meaningful values. When I need a yardstick, I need an actual yardstick.
I have a serious limitation in the ability to predict such things. How can you design something without doing most of the work to have it completely done? If there were similar problems, how can they be so similar that code reuse doesn't factor seriously into the would be estimate, and yet be so different as for the new code to take a significant amount of time?
I have a sentence for this: I can't remember the future.
Oh, was it an avatar or an icon? They reported it was an icon.
1 1211
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/30/2
I can see possibly fitting the concept of blowing someone's brains out into an icon, especially if it's animated, but how do you fit the concept of blowing out a teacher's brains out, and even more specifically an English teacher's brains out into an icon.
but that still requires a copy of Windows
Ah, Winnie the Grim Reaper
So what were the issues in the case and how was it tied to the laws Disney wanted passed? The article was slim on the details.
But the notion is that the wrong ideology is like chains. They eeem light at first, and may appear to help you build muscle but the more you progress, the more they thicken and bind you to a course of action that steers you away from what it is that you originally wanted to do. The trick is to navigate the landmarks of right and wrong and they don't always leap out at you. And when they do, sometimes it's too late to keep from getting hurt.
Maybe they bioengineered humans to be a better source of energy than the garden-variety humans found these days?
Of course they do. Subtitles.
That was revisionist history. The robots knew tnat sunlight could have given them the energy they needed, and they knew that humans blotted it out. They put two and two together and came to the conclusion that the humans blotted it out to spite them.
And the robots in the matrix thought the blacking out the sun thing was all about them.
From the article: It is one of the three main institutions governing the Union.
That's like saying the Presidency isn't the government, it's the presidency. However, sometimes the government is taken to mean just the executive branch and sometimes it it taken to mean all three branches of government.
In my comments there was a little bit. The sheer amount in the previous post seemed rammed through. Let's back up. Companies don't have an "x" center, so they're no good for "x". "x" could be anything. What is it about morality that's different?
A while back the idea was expressed that you can't legislate morality. It seemed to me then and now that morality is the only thing that can be legislated. There is morality utility and aesthetics, and it seems to me that all of human endeavor falls into one of those three categories. Furthermore, it seems that utility is little more than the intermingling of morality with aesthetics. There is no basis for which to force one's aesthetics on another, so what one is left with is morality.
There's my side, there's your side, and there's the truth. Just as from a conservative perspective the truth has a liberal bias, from a liberal perspective the truth has a conservative bias.
Talk about some serious begging the question. Congratulations!
Why is a proximate and conscious capacity for choice an important element in your book? I adhere to the notion that the universe is essentially one huge computational system, and that morality is essentially coming up with the rules of success in that system. Morality enables you to act appropriately when the information you need is not provided by what you can see in the situation at hand. The various agents in the situation at hand are generally deceitful. Morality can only provide the answer for what to do, this being the case, by virtue of its programmatic nature.
The concept of a moral center doesn't have a place in my morality. I don't really understand the concept. Morals can be thought of as a prescription for success, and as such, a company should have no problem acting morally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality