In a debate it could be considered useful to point out the fallacies in a party's argument. I think he did do a good job.
Who KNOWS what will happen in a few hundred or thousand years. By far the majority of our technology could not have been conceived of a few hundred or thousand years ago.
Wait and see. Meanwhile, live your life and don't worry. In the grand scheme of things (from an atheistic perspective) it's not long enough to amount to a hill of dirt.
And in the end, thanks be to God for his everlasting promise of eternal life to those who love Him. We really don't need to worry one bit about things like AI taking over or moving to another planet.
(I would argue that from a secular perspective we need not worry either. If the human race were to gradually go extinct...so what? Who would it harm, other than the last few people left who might be lonely? Why do we need to preserve our species for eternity? So some aliens can come along and laugh at us someday? I don't think they'd miss us. Those of us who are alive today surely wouldn't know the difference. We place so much importance on ourselves, but other than our spiritual value, we matter very little.)
Perhaps your example could be used to support the opposite viewpoint as well. If farm machinery reduced the percentage of the population employed as farmers from 75% to 2% (a 97% decrease!), imagine what would happen to each industry as it became mechanized or roboticized (new word?). If each industry's need for human labor were reduced by 97%, new industries and jobs couldn't be conceived of quickly enough to employ all the newly-laid-off workers, even though it would happen gradually.
Combine that with outsourcing to foreign countries and you may have a recipe for disaster.
It's really not necessary to know or remember or record everything. Life goes on. Earth keeps spinning.
The question is of cost vs. benefit. Maybe the best solution is to invent a nuclear-powered robot into which you can dump anything at all which would automagically record for all posterity whatever you dump into it. That way you wouldn't have to waste humans' time and money to do it.
Infinitely accurate memory could be as much of a curse as a blessing. There's a tightrope to be walked between remembering and forgetting.
I use LockInfo (jailbroken, of course), and it gives a nice "today page" overview. I use Toodledo for to-do items, and have it linked to my Google Calendar account, which syncs to my iPhone through the Exchange support. All of this adds up to the LockInfo calendar plugin displaying both calendar events and to-do items due on that day in the same list. LockInfo displays when the phone is still locked, and can even hide the unlock slider for more display space (the slider still works even though it's invisible). With the email plugin and push mail through Gmail/Exchange, I can read, mark as read, and archive recent Gmail without even unlocking the iPhone.
Naturally, none of this is possible without jailbreaking, thanks to Apple. Why Apple hasn't already implemented such functionality on their own is beyond me. But I think that when the time comes to replace my iPhone, I'll be looking toward Android.
Given a multi gigahertz multi processor computer do I really care if it consumes 10% or 33% or even 50% of the processor while I'm watching a video?
I care a lot. My laptop fan runs much louder when Flash video is playing, using 50% CPU, than when an accelerated, local video is playing in something like MPlayer or VLC, using 10% CPU. This is on a Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz system with the dynamic kernel governor running.
How about putting a stop to the stupid apps that have ads in them? (Sure, it's my choice to not use them, but a few actually useful ones do have them. *sigh*) I can't believe with these tiny screens and tiny batteries and limited bandwidth that we (and "they") are putting up with apps that suck up my battery to suck up their bandwidth to fill up my screen with a stupid advertisement that I will NEVER, EVER tap on. You know what? Even if I was interested in their product (which I'm not, and don't have disposable income now), I wouldn't buy anything from them on principle because they're contributing to the problem by buying ads that end up sucking up my phone's limited resources! Grr!
I don't use anywhere close to 400 MB a month. My iPhone spends more time on WiFi than 3G or EDGE. When I am on 3G or EDGE, it works fine. No, I don't live in a big city. What about all the other people that don't?
Interesting. Do you make sure to consciously observe every ad on the page, scrolling up and down to catch them all, and watching every frame of the animated ones?
When you're watching TV, do you make sure to watch every commercial that airs during the show you're watching, without muting, changing the channel, or going to the bathroom?
When you read a magazine or newspaper, do you make sure to look at and think about every ad? Yeah, you paid for the magazine or paper, but the ads subsidize the price of it. Do you owe it to the publisher and advertisers to look at every ad? What if someone else already paid for it, and you picked it up off the table?
What about web ads that only pay the site when clicked? So you're giving them some brainshare, is that it? You're voluntarily allowing them to partially brainwash you? Well, that's your decision. I don't think it's a good one, though.:)
Of course, we should do what's right, regardless of what others do.
But the fact is, I don't click on ads anyway. At all. Even before I used any ad blockers, I just overlooked them, ignored them, and surfed around them. A site isn't going to make more money by my not blocking ads. I'm not using any more of their bandwidth than the search engines that hit their site multiple times a day. I might even be using less bandwidth than most people, if I avoid loading some ads.
Besides, think about TV. Is there an unwritten contract between me and networks and advertisers that says I have agreed to sit there and watch commercials? That I won't get up and go to the bathroom, or change channels, or use the mute button? I'm sure they'd like me to.
The very nature of advertising and commercials is that the advertisers are casting a wide net, throwing bottles into the ocean, not knowing who they will catch, if anyone. If they choose to spend their money trying to reach people like me, that's their decision. I haven't agreed to allow them to fill my brain with their messages. If Web site owners choose to rely on advertising to survive, that's their decision. I haven't agreed to click on ads or look at ads.
If you choose to subject yourself to them, that's fine. But I completely disagree that it's a moral decision. It's not "right" to not block ads, and it's not "wrong" to block them, just as it isn't wrong to change the channel, use the mute button, or flip a page in a magazine without looking at an ad.
It makes sense to me. Imagine something like Facebook, but on a much smaller scale, got open-sourced with the AGPL. Then someone took it, made a lot of improvements, and started a new site to compete with it. They're benefiting from the source, but they aren't giving back, because their modified code runs on their server and provides a service to others over the net. They aren't distributing the code, but they're distributing the resulting service, and no one else can also benefit from the improvements they've made. This isn't fair, because they're benefiting from the code that was initially open-sourced. The AGPL addresses that.
If that's really what it said, verbatim, could Time Warner sue Viacom for that ad? It's misleading and factually inaccurate, and it seems to me that it would definitely harm Time Warner's reputation, leading to loss of business.
Your point may be valid, but I think he has one as well. What if there was no TV? What if it hadn't been invented yet (or if that channel wasn't around), or what if they lived in a third-world country and didn't have TV (in which case the disorder would go undiagnosed)? How would the child be raised? How would the family cope? And so on. I am curious, and I wonder if a diet of TV shows is what such children really need, however helpful it may seem in the short term. Again, just curious; I'm not preaching.
Slashdot Mirror
Patience, young whatever-you-are.
No, you're right: Intel should go ahead and start building a one million-core chip now. We need it now to...uh....
I don't see humans evolving "stupider", but I don't see humans lasting more than 50-100,000 more years either.
"The beginning of wisdom is the admission of one's ignorance."
It's absolutely ludicrous to think that one could have even a vague idea of what will happen in the next 100,000 years.
In a debate it could be considered useful to point out the fallacies in a party's argument. I think he did do a good job.
Who KNOWS what will happen in a few hundred or thousand years. By far the majority of our technology could not have been conceived of a few hundred or thousand years ago.
Wait and see. Meanwhile, live your life and don't worry. In the grand scheme of things (from an atheistic perspective) it's not long enough to amount to a hill of dirt.
And in the end, thanks be to God for his everlasting promise of eternal life to those who love Him. We really don't need to worry one bit about things like AI taking over or moving to another planet.
(I would argue that from a secular perspective we need not worry either. If the human race were to gradually go extinct...so what? Who would it harm, other than the last few people left who might be lonely? Why do we need to preserve our species for eternity? So some aliens can come along and laugh at us someday? I don't think they'd miss us. Those of us who are alive today surely wouldn't know the difference. We place so much importance on ourselves, but other than our spiritual value, we matter very little.)
Perhaps your example could be used to support the opposite viewpoint as well. If farm machinery reduced the percentage of the population employed as farmers from 75% to 2% (a 97% decrease!), imagine what would happen to each industry as it became mechanized or roboticized (new word?). If each industry's need for human labor were reduced by 97%, new industries and jobs couldn't be conceived of quickly enough to employ all the newly-laid-off workers, even though it would happen gradually.
Combine that with outsourcing to foreign countries and you may have a recipe for disaster.
...*faints*...*wakes up, thinking it's ten (more, really) years ago*
Blast from the past!!!
If you want something done right...? :) Hey, let me know too.
Or he could start wearing a mohawk, grow a gold chain, and start pitying fools.
It's really not necessary to know or remember or record everything. Life goes on. Earth keeps spinning.
The question is of cost vs. benefit. Maybe the best solution is to invent a nuclear-powered robot into which you can dump anything at all which would automagically record for all posterity whatever you dump into it. That way you wouldn't have to waste humans' time and money to do it.
Infinitely accurate memory could be as much of a curse as a blessing. There's a tightrope to be walked between remembering and forgetting.
...helpfully inserting blank lines since...a long time ago...
Very interesting. How'd you fix it?
I use LockInfo (jailbroken, of course), and it gives a nice "today page" overview. I use Toodledo for to-do items, and have it linked to my Google Calendar account, which syncs to my iPhone through the Exchange support. All of this adds up to the LockInfo calendar plugin displaying both calendar events and to-do items due on that day in the same list. LockInfo displays when the phone is still locked, and can even hide the unlock slider for more display space (the slider still works even though it's invisible). With the email plugin and push mail through Gmail/Exchange, I can read, mark as read, and archive recent Gmail without even unlocking the iPhone.
Naturally, none of this is possible without jailbreaking, thanks to Apple. Why Apple hasn't already implemented such functionality on their own is beyond me. But I think that when the time comes to replace my iPhone, I'll be looking toward Android.
Given a multi gigahertz multi processor computer do I really care if it consumes 10% or 33% or even 50% of the processor while I'm watching a video?
I care a lot. My laptop fan runs much louder when Flash video is playing, using 50% CPU, than when an accelerated, local video is playing in something like MPlayer or VLC, using 10% CPU. This is on a Core 2 Duo 2.2GHz system with the dynamic kernel governor running.
...there your heart is also.
Just something to think about. :)
How about putting a stop to the stupid apps that have ads in them? (Sure, it's my choice to not use them, but a few actually useful ones do have them. *sigh*) I can't believe with these tiny screens and tiny batteries and limited bandwidth that we (and "they") are putting up with apps that suck up my battery to suck up their bandwidth to fill up my screen with a stupid advertisement that I will NEVER, EVER tap on. You know what? Even if I was interested in their product (which I'm not, and don't have disposable income now), I wouldn't buy anything from them on principle because they're contributing to the problem by buying ads that end up sucking up my phone's limited resources! Grr!
I do feel that nuclear power is a strong component of a sustainable future energy strategy.
You don't feel that, you think that. That is, unless the idea of nuclear power gives you a warm feeling in your tummy.
I don't use anywhere close to 400 MB a month. My iPhone spends more time on WiFi than 3G or EDGE. When I am on 3G or EDGE, it works fine. No, I don't live in a big city. What about all the other people that don't?
Interesting. Do you make sure to consciously observe every ad on the page, scrolling up and down to catch them all, and watching every frame of the animated ones?
When you're watching TV, do you make sure to watch every commercial that airs during the show you're watching, without muting, changing the channel, or going to the bathroom?
When you read a magazine or newspaper, do you make sure to look at and think about every ad? Yeah, you paid for the magazine or paper, but the ads subsidize the price of it. Do you owe it to the publisher and advertisers to look at every ad? What if someone else already paid for it, and you picked it up off the table?
What about web ads that only pay the site when clicked? So you're giving them some brainshare, is that it? You're voluntarily allowing them to partially brainwash you? Well, that's your decision. I don't think it's a good one, though. :)
Of course, we should do what's right, regardless of what others do.
But the fact is, I don't click on ads anyway. At all. Even before I used any ad blockers, I just overlooked them, ignored them, and surfed around them. A site isn't going to make more money by my not blocking ads. I'm not using any more of their bandwidth than the search engines that hit their site multiple times a day. I might even be using less bandwidth than most people, if I avoid loading some ads.
Besides, think about TV. Is there an unwritten contract between me and networks and advertisers that says I have agreed to sit there and watch commercials? That I won't get up and go to the bathroom, or change channels, or use the mute button? I'm sure they'd like me to.
The very nature of advertising and commercials is that the advertisers are casting a wide net, throwing bottles into the ocean, not knowing who they will catch, if anyone. If they choose to spend their money trying to reach people like me, that's their decision. I haven't agreed to allow them to fill my brain with their messages. If Web site owners choose to rely on advertising to survive, that's their decision. I haven't agreed to click on ads or look at ads.
If you choose to subject yourself to them, that's fine. But I completely disagree that it's a moral decision. It's not "right" to not block ads, and it's not "wrong" to block them, just as it isn't wrong to change the channel, use the mute button, or flip a page in a magazine without looking at an ad.
The F-22 is not useless against ground targets.
It makes sense to me. Imagine something like Facebook, but on a much smaller scale, got open-sourced with the AGPL. Then someone took it, made a lot of improvements, and started a new site to compete with it. They're benefiting from the source, but they aren't giving back, because their modified code runs on their server and provides a service to others over the net. They aren't distributing the code, but they're distributing the resulting service, and no one else can also benefit from the improvements they've made. This isn't fair, because they're benefiting from the code that was initially open-sourced. The AGPL addresses that.
Try it and you will quickly see.
Yeah, you're right.
If that's really what it said, verbatim, could Time Warner sue Viacom for that ad? It's misleading and factually inaccurate, and it seems to me that it would definitely harm Time Warner's reputation, leading to loss of business.
Your point may be valid, but I think he has one as well. What if there was no TV? What if it hadn't been invented yet (or if that channel wasn't around), or what if they lived in a third-world country and didn't have TV (in which case the disorder would go undiagnosed)? How would the child be raised? How would the family cope? And so on. I am curious, and I wonder if a diet of TV shows is what such children really need, however helpful it may seem in the short term. Again, just curious; I'm not preaching.