You're right that some scientific research can be used for very bad things, but often the same technology can be both beneficial and harmful depending on how it's used.
On another note, I think the high cost and skill required to use such information to actually make something destructive, such as nerve gas or a biological agent, should prevent some disgruntled teenager from wiping out whole cities because his girlfriend dumped him. I can believe that a country like Iraq has the resources to do this, or possibly even a large terrorist organization, but we probably can't keep the information out of their hands no matter how hard we try. The materials they need, on the other hand, are much easier to control, and that's where I think we need to concentrate.
Now I hope you'll forgive me for going off topic, but have you seen Jaws? How did technology go too far in that movie? The shark was an implausibly large but completely natural creature.
Yeah, I saw that riddle shortly after posting my original comment. I think it works better with vending machines, too. The locked vending machine is easier to visualize than a magic box that lets you remove fruit, but won't let you open it or look inside.
I'm envious, my question was too easy
on
Tech-Interview Riddles
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When I interviewed for my current job, I was asked a riddle. It was nothing compared to these, though. I actually got it wrong on my first try (I started writing pseudo code to try to compute an answer, wasting lots of time), but he gave me a second chance. I got it right after I realized that I hadn't read the directions carefully enough. I looked, but didn't see it either here or on the riddle site. Here it is if you're interested:
There are three vending machines. One dispenses only Cokes, one dispenses only Pepsis, and one dispenses either Cokes or Pepsis at random. Someone rearranges the labels on the machines so that none of the machines are labeled correctly. Given that you have no prior knowledge of which machine is which and no way to open the machines, how many drinks will you have to buy to determine which machine is which?
People seem to be comparing it to the B2 stealth bomber and other "flying wings," but none of those could carry 800 passengers. Perhaps that's the breakthrough?
I was only able to load one image, but to me it looks like the main benefit is the ability to fold this laptop (portable, whatever) into fourths. That makes it all the more portable and easy to carry. Whether that's worth the tradeoff in screen space remains to be seen. Maybe someday soon we'll have displays that can actually be folded. Then we'll see some really cool laptops.
Combat was the coolest game ever. Invisible tanks, bouncing rounds, and the most complex level layout made for the most chaotic gameplay imaginable. I just wish someone with half a brain would port a nice collection of classic Atari games to the Gameboy. Updating them would be nice, too, especially since four-player Combat would be even better than the original.
That's where the different points of view I mentioned come in. I don't want to force anything on anybody, and I'm sure you don't want to force anything on anybody, either. The problem is that Christians see events like this as atheists forcing atheism on them, and atheists see it as Christians forcing their beliefs on them. Nobody intends to force anything on anybody, but they think of their own beliefs as "normal" and "right," and therefore they do exactly that unintentionally. That goes for both atheists and Christians.
All of this is separate from my stance on the Pledge of Allegiance issue, of course. I still don't see a problem with removing the phrase "Under God" because that phrase itself was an edit of the original. This means that not only are we changing the Pledge back to its previous form, but also that there is already a precedent for modifying the Pledge.
I was using the word "religion" to mean a belief system in general. Believing that there is no God is still a belief. I admit that it wasn't the best term to use, but I hope you see my point.
Regardless, I don't actually think of atheism as a religion. I was simply trying to explain one of the reasons Christians sometimes feel persecuted when the government takes any position whatsoever regarding religion in any form.
I think laws that say kids can't pray in school or bring Bibles for their own reading, or teachers can't say what they believe (not teach just say) is wrong and should be overturned... we're so worried about one group's right that we are ignoring several other group's rights and mandating that everyone have no belief in God.
I don't think any such laws have ever been enacted. Some school administrators mistook court rulings on prayer in schools to mean absolutely no prayer instead of no school-mandated prayer.
Here's what I think is the tricky part. From a certain point of view, atheism can be considered a form of religious belief. No one thinks it's an organized religion, of course, but it is a belief system. Thus, from a certain point of view, it often appears that the government is favoring atheism over other religions.
The real problem is the whole "Congress shall make no law" part of the Bill of Rights was ignored a few times. It would have been so simple if absolutely no laws regarding religion in any form had ever been passed. There was hardly any opposition when they were passed (throughout the nation's history), and now that there is opposition, we have one mell of a hess to clean up.
My take on it is that it's okay to return the Pledge of Allegiance to its original form, but that reciting the Pledge is not inherently bad. I think it would help if public schools had a required course about the principles on which the nation was really founded. So many people today seem to have no idea what their rights really are. That means they don't exercise the rights they have, and they expect rights they don't have.
I don't think there is a comma in that phrase, but everyone always pauses there when reciting it. I've always felt kind of weird trying to say it "right" by not pausing there while everyone else in the room stopped for a breath.
Neither reference to God in either context serves to enhance freedom of religion, and both serve to undermine the fundamental separation of church and state upon which the republic was founded
I always thought the republic was founded on the universal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Furthermore, the whole concept of the "separation of church and state" stems from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified after the founding of the republic. That's not revisionist, although it may be rhetoric.:)
In my experience, many people have absolutely no idea how gigantic Texas really is. My father, a real estate appraiser, once got a call from some New England loan officer who wanted him to appraise a house. As she described the neighborhood, my father realized that he had no idea where the place was. Finally, he asked her what city it was in. She said "It's just down there near Houston." Houston! That's several hundred miles away! Heck, where I'm sitting in West Texas right now is closer to Chicago, IL, than it is to El Paso, TX.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm bragging about the size of my home state. It's just lines on a map, after all. I'm glad to hear people in Australia have a good idea of how large Texas is, though. I've always wanted to visit Australia and see the giant grasshoppers for myself.
Slashdot Mirror
On another note, I think the high cost and skill required to use such information to actually make something destructive, such as nerve gas or a biological agent, should prevent some disgruntled teenager from wiping out whole cities because his girlfriend dumped him. I can believe that a country like Iraq has the resources to do this, or possibly even a large terrorist organization, but we probably can't keep the information out of their hands no matter how hard we try. The materials they need, on the other hand, are much easier to control, and that's where I think we need to concentrate.
Now I hope you'll forgive me for going off topic, but have you seen Jaws? How did technology go too far in that movie? The shark was an implausibly large but completely natural creature.
Yeah, I saw that riddle shortly after posting my original comment. I think it works better with vending machines, too. The locked vending machine is easier to visualize than a magic box that lets you remove fruit, but won't let you open it or look inside.
There are three vending machines. One dispenses only Cokes, one dispenses only Pepsis, and one dispenses either Cokes or Pepsis at random. Someone rearranges the labels on the machines so that none of the machines are labeled correctly. Given that you have no prior knowledge of which machine is which and no way to open the machines, how many drinks will you have to buy to determine which machine is which?
People seem to be comparing it to the B2 stealth bomber and other "flying wings," but none of those could carry 800 passengers. Perhaps that's the breakthrough?
I was only able to load one image, but to me it looks like the main benefit is the ability to fold this laptop (portable, whatever) into fourths. That makes it all the more portable and easy to carry. Whether that's worth the tradeoff in screen space remains to be seen. Maybe someday soon we'll have displays that can actually be folded. Then we'll see some really cool laptops.
Combat was the coolest game ever. Invisible tanks, bouncing rounds, and the most complex level layout made for the most chaotic gameplay imaginable. I just wish someone with half a brain would port a nice collection of classic Atari games to the Gameboy. Updating them would be nice, too, especially since four-player Combat would be even better than the original.
All of this is separate from my stance on the Pledge of Allegiance issue, of course. I still don't see a problem with removing the phrase "Under God" because that phrase itself was an edit of the original. This means that not only are we changing the Pledge back to its previous form, but also that there is already a precedent for modifying the Pledge.
Regardless, I don't actually think of atheism as a religion. I was simply trying to explain one of the reasons Christians sometimes feel persecuted when the government takes any position whatsoever regarding religion in any form.
That sounds like either new math or Andersen accounting practices.
I don't think any such laws have ever been enacted. Some school administrators mistook court rulings on prayer in schools to mean absolutely no prayer instead of no school-mandated prayer.
Here's what I think is the tricky part. From a certain point of view, atheism can be considered a form of religious belief. No one thinks it's an organized religion, of course, but it is a belief system. Thus, from a certain point of view, it often appears that the government is favoring atheism over other religions.
The real problem is the whole "Congress shall make no law" part of the Bill of Rights was ignored a few times. It would have been so simple if absolutely no laws regarding religion in any form had ever been passed. There was hardly any opposition when they were passed (throughout the nation's history), and now that there is opposition, we have one mell of a hess to clean up.
My take on it is that it's okay to return the Pledge of Allegiance to its original form, but that reciting the Pledge is not inherently bad. I think it would help if public schools had a required course about the principles on which the nation was really founded. So many people today seem to have no idea what their rights really are. That means they don't exercise the rights they have, and they expect rights they don't have.
I don't think there is a comma in that phrase, but everyone always pauses there when reciting it. I've always felt kind of weird trying to say it "right" by not pausing there while everyone else in the room stopped for a breath.
I always thought the republic was founded on the universal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Furthermore, the whole concept of the "separation of church and state" stems from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified after the founding of the republic. That's not revisionist, although it may be rhetoric. :)
A great many people seem to believe this is "stuff that matters."
I don't think I need or want Slashdot to tell me what is or isn't ethical.
I hope it doesn't sound like I'm bragging about the size of my home state. It's just lines on a map, after all. I'm glad to hear people in Australia have a good idea of how large Texas is, though. I've always wanted to visit Australia and see the giant grasshoppers for myself.