You've enumerated their experience on tall ships. Rereading the article, it sounds like ALL of them were experienced sailors, with the possible exception of the electrician, who may or may not have been. Anybody with any knowledge of sailing at all knows that hurricanes are dangerous and anybody with more than basic knowledge, which all of these people had, should know that things like a cluttered, messy engine room and a captain who likes purposely sailing into hurricanes are bad news.
The inexperience of the crew on tall ships in general, and that one in particular SHOULD have weighed heavily in the captain's decision to go to sea in bad weather, but it's not a get out of responsibility free card for the crew for going with him.
There are already laws about what orders are legal for a captain to give, and what options crew have.
People have been working these issues out in a modern legal way for several hundred years and in a less modern way for a few thousand before that. Maritime law is VERY mature. It doesn't need some knee jerk regulation inspired by one shipwreck.
If a captain is found to have endangered the safety of his ship and crew he can be punished, including loss of his license and jail time. He doesn't get to hide behind a regulation like a regular boss (but I TOLD them to use safety harnesses....)
At a higher level, people need to quit acting like serfs. If your boss tells you to do something dangerous, illegal or immoral, don't do it. Or go ahead and do it, but accept that the responsibility is yours.
So when you print to your eight colour inkjet, what file format is your image stored in that has eight colour channels? What software are you using that supports it?
Note that in CMYK, which is the most by far the most popular "four colour" system (and is the one all those "four colour" printers use), black is one of the colours. That makes up for a shortcoming in the colour inks (which is not shared by camera sensors or displays) in which you can't make a decent black by mixing the colours. I suspect the eight colour printer is doing something very similar - mixing colours to give you a better (they say anyway) representation of the three colour additive system that your computer, camera and monitor use.
Besides, the vast, vast majority of people don't colour calibrate their monitors OR printers. Unless you do that regularly all the extra colour channels in the world aren't going to help you.
That's not really that much of a problem. Big transactions take time. When I bought my car I had to wait a day for the dealership to confirm that my cheque was good. I could have gotten around that by getting it certified by a bank, but only if I stored my money with that bank already.
Small transactions will be on the (short term) honour system. I the days before we had electronic credit card verification the store would take an imprint and only find out later whether the card was good or not. If you did screw them over you wouldn't be getting any more service there, and might get arrested.
Cash is the same. If you buy a coffee with a $5 bill the transaction will probably be essentially instant. If you buy something with a $100 bill you might have to wait for the cashier to inspect it. If you buy something with a suitcase of bills, it might take some time for the seller to verify them.
National currencies are backed by large organizations (national governments) with lots of guns (national militaries). If, for example, some shopkeeper in the US decided to stop accepting US dollars, he'd get a nice visit from a man with a gun. On a larger scale, when Iraq decided they were going to stop accepting US dollars, they got a nice visit from a bunch of men with guns (and aircraft carriers). That last one might have been a coincidence, but the first one definitely isn't.
In order for national currencies to lose their value, a national government has to lose interest in it. That does happen sometimes, but not very often with the major ones. That's why nobody holds vast reserves of Zimbabweyan dollars, unless they have need of large amounts of cheap toilet paper.
You usually don't tax OR regulate money of any type. Except for special circumstances you can't. You tax and regulate exchanges of money. The government doesn't tax you on how much money you have, they tax you on how much you earn and spend. You can already get around a lot of taxing and regulation if you use cash. But if you, for example, own a store, and you do it on a large scale, you might be caught when you get audited and somebody notices that your inventory keeps disappearing.
Bitcoin is a bit easier to sneak across borders in large quantities and it (currently) opens up some options for shenanigans to the average man that are usually reserved for bankers, but it's not really that different from a regular currency.
"And of course neither variety of photo image capture is comparable to the qualities of light that our rods and cones respond to in our eyes."
You're right. The colour filters used in cameras generally need extra filtering to block out portions of the IR and UV that our eyes are not sensitive to.
Whether or not the Foveon is technologically superior is pretty debatable. It was a neat idea that had some pretty serious shortcomings and, even forgiving those, the difficulty of producing the things left them in the dust as conventional sensors improved.
Too bad you're displaying them on a screen or printing them with a process that only uses three colours....
Additionally, it's not really a four-different-colour sensor. It's just got a different division of the usual red green and blue, and the result is processed into regular RGB pixels.
The Bounty was originally a merchant ship but she was purchased by the Royal Navy and named the Bounty. Proper dress aboard the Bounty would be late 18th century Royal Navy.
Not quite. "Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage or loss by rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime environment has always been a Coast Guard priority." If you get yourself in trouble and it's dangerous for the coast guard to come and get you, they will tell you they can't help you until conditions improve. That happens all the time. If they do fish you out and you were doing something stupid, you might just get a bill for it. Or you might be criminally charged. If you're a professional, your license could be revoked.
There are already LOTS of marine regulations, particularly regarding commercial ships. At some point somebody has to make the decision to go out or not. In this case that decision was made by a properly licensed captain for the ship, and by fifteen experienced sailors for themselves.
They also appear to have foundered earlier than necessary because they lost power. As my sailing instructor drilled into us, you're in a sailboat. The engines are auxiliaries. Being beam on to the sea in a storm is not a happy situation, and, in a sailing ship, having your engines die isn't a good reason for it.
The captain sounds like an irresponsible thrill seeker, and the crew, although they were all supposedly experienced sailors, does seem to have neglected a lot. The article implies throughout that it was some kind of hero worship.
Actually, that's exactly what he did. Reported in the first section of the article. Except you don't "hold a vote" on a ship. The captain tells you where the ship is going and you have the chance to quit if you feel it's too dangerous. The crew had that chance and nobody decided to quit.
Yes, the captain sounds reckless. If he had survived it seems likely his license would be in jeopardy, as it should be. If he did knowingly take an unseaworthy vessel to sea there are already laws against that.
The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. The Bounty was simply not registered to carry paying passengers (just like the vast majority of private vessels). The crew were most definitely crew. Almost all of them were experienced sailors and, except for one retired volunteer, were all being paid.
It's hard to say what happened without more information, but it sounds like the captain took a risk and paid for it. The crew was consulted before they left, and given the chance to jump ship with no hard feelings.
I didn't say survival is objectively beneficial. That's why I listed it as an assumption. Right after a paragraph about how you have to assume something at the beginning of any logical argument. Nevertheless, the universe does seem to favour organisms that are good at survival. That's the "natural selection" part in Darwin's Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection.
"Murder is a social construct. Humans are just animals. Can animals "murder" each other?"
It sounds kind of like the Chewbacca defence. I don't even know what you're trying to say, so I can't tell whether I agree with your thesis or not. I know I disagree with your argument, because it's incoherent.
No, it doesn't. Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.
When you go to sea you take some risk, under any circumstances. People doing that should take responsibility for it. It's not the coast guard or the government's job to make sure people who make stupid decisions don't get hurt.
"Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society."
This is a popular assertion, but I don't believe it. Religion has generally changed to echo what the people of an era considered to be moral, including today. As far as western morality is concerned, the commandments and leviticus are all based on older laws. Even then, things like the adultery commandment are interpreted very differently now than they were in the past.
Your argument starts with an assumption many people would disagree with.
Your second paragraph ends with an incorrect statement. In many, perhaps most species, the female determines which male she will mate with, and when. Your statements suggest you're not as scientifically literate as you think you are.
One of the popular mistakes people make when quoting philosophy is to forget that any logical argument necessarily begins with assumptions. Kant showed why some things are universally wrong, given his assumptions. If you don't accept his assumptions, stated or otherwise, his argument is meaningless. The value of respect for autonomy, for example, is not some kind of physical law. It is itself a potentially relative moral value, one that may be considerably weaker in other cultures.
There ARE excellent arguments for why things like murder and torture are morally wrong, if you assume that survival is beneficial. Murder is something that most species have evolved to control, and it can be particularly damaging in species that depend on cooperation.
Generally people who participate on the other side of shorts (a) expect the value to continue to rise and (b) charge some amount of interest. If they didn't charge interest there would be no point as they could get the same return simply by holding the stock themselves.
That IS how shorting works (and you can short pretty much anything if you find a willing lender). The lender believes the stock will go up, or at least doesn't intend to sell regardless of what happens, and the borrower believes the stock will go down. The lender gets a guaranteed return (interest) in exchange for giving up flexibility for a period of time. The borrower gains the ability to bet on the value of the stock decreasing.
Sure you can make individual predictions, if you can't make the predictions, then you can't claim that it's the case. This attitude is why medical science is such garbage, you cannot use retrospective studies in this fashion.
An easy counter example. In quantum physics it's impossible to make detailed predictions about individual particles. Yet it's often held up as the epitome of hard science.
I think you need to think through your argument more. The rest of your examples illustrate that you don't understand the basics of statistics at all and have a poor understanding of the basics of science as well.
Regarding your statements about alcohol: Oxygen is a poison. You can pussy foot around it all you like, but the fact of the matter is that once it's in your system your body does what it needs to do to get it out of your system as quickly as possible, because it is poison. The real question is at what point does that become important[?]
Actually, let me revise my previous statement. You don't understand statistics, you don't understand science, and you suffer from the issues most puritans do - use of excessive generalization, straw man construction, and any other logical fallacy you have to commit to convince yourself your hatred of something is justified.
Slashdot Mirror
You've enumerated their experience on tall ships. Rereading the article, it sounds like ALL of them were experienced sailors, with the possible exception of the electrician, who may or may not have been. Anybody with any knowledge of sailing at all knows that hurricanes are dangerous and anybody with more than basic knowledge, which all of these people had, should know that things like a cluttered, messy engine room and a captain who likes purposely sailing into hurricanes are bad news.
The inexperience of the crew on tall ships in general, and that one in particular SHOULD have weighed heavily in the captain's decision to go to sea in bad weather, but it's not a get out of responsibility free card for the crew for going with him.
There are already laws about what orders are legal for a captain to give, and what options crew have.
People have been working these issues out in a modern legal way for several hundred years and in a less modern way for a few thousand before that. Maritime law is VERY mature. It doesn't need some knee jerk regulation inspired by one shipwreck.
If a captain is found to have endangered the safety of his ship and crew he can be punished, including loss of his license and jail time. He doesn't get to hide behind a regulation like a regular boss (but I TOLD them to use safety harnesses....)
At a higher level, people need to quit acting like serfs. If your boss tells you to do something dangerous, illegal or immoral, don't do it. Or go ahead and do it, but accept that the responsibility is yours.
So when you print to your eight colour inkjet, what file format is your image stored in that has eight colour channels? What software are you using that supports it?
Note that in CMYK, which is the most by far the most popular "four colour" system (and is the one all those "four colour" printers use), black is one of the colours. That makes up for a shortcoming in the colour inks (which is not shared by camera sensors or displays) in which you can't make a decent black by mixing the colours. I suspect the eight colour printer is doing something very similar - mixing colours to give you a better (they say anyway) representation of the three colour additive system that your computer, camera and monitor use.
Besides, the vast, vast majority of people don't colour calibrate their monitors OR printers. Unless you do that regularly all the extra colour channels in the world aren't going to help you.
That's not really that much of a problem. Big transactions take time. When I bought my car I had to wait a day for the dealership to confirm that my cheque was good. I could have gotten around that by getting it certified by a bank, but only if I stored my money with that bank already.
Small transactions will be on the (short term) honour system. I the days before we had electronic credit card verification the store would take an imprint and only find out later whether the card was good or not. If you did screw them over you wouldn't be getting any more service there, and might get arrested.
Cash is the same. If you buy a coffee with a $5 bill the transaction will probably be essentially instant. If you buy something with a $100 bill you might have to wait for the cashier to inspect it. If you buy something with a suitcase of bills, it might take some time for the seller to verify them.
Something along those lines was tried. It was nasty. Children working in coal mines, extreme poverty, tycoons.
If you're posting on Slashdot you're NOT one of the people who would benefit from extreme libertarianism.
National currencies are backed by large organizations (national governments) with lots of guns (national militaries). If, for example, some shopkeeper in the US decided to stop accepting US dollars, he'd get a nice visit from a man with a gun. On a larger scale, when Iraq decided they were going to stop accepting US dollars, they got a nice visit from a bunch of men with guns (and aircraft carriers). That last one might have been a coincidence, but the first one definitely isn't.
In order for national currencies to lose their value, a national government has to lose interest in it. That does happen sometimes, but not very often with the major ones. That's why nobody holds vast reserves of Zimbabweyan dollars, unless they have need of large amounts of cheap toilet paper.
You usually don't tax OR regulate money of any type. Except for special circumstances you can't. You tax and regulate exchanges of money. The government doesn't tax you on how much money you have, they tax you on how much you earn and spend. You can already get around a lot of taxing and regulation if you use cash. But if you, for example, own a store, and you do it on a large scale, you might be caught when you get audited and somebody notices that your inventory keeps disappearing.
Bitcoin is a bit easier to sneak across borders in large quantities and it (currently) opens up some options for shenanigans to the average man that are usually reserved for bankers, but it's not really that different from a regular currency.
"And of course neither variety of photo image capture is comparable to the qualities of light that our rods and cones respond to in our eyes."
You're right. The colour filters used in cameras generally need extra filtering to block out portions of the IR and UV that our eyes are not sensitive to.
Whether or not the Foveon is technologically superior is pretty debatable. It was a neat idea that had some pretty serious shortcomings and, even forgiving those, the difficulty of producing the things left them in the dust as conventional sensors improved.
Too bad you're displaying them on a screen or printing them with a process that only uses three colours....
Additionally, it's not really a four-different-colour sensor. It's just got a different division of the usual red green and blue, and the result is processed into regular RGB pixels.
"From what I can tell, this will not get rid of the need for the anti-aliasing."
You ALWAYS need antialiasing when you discretize.
The Bounty was originally a merchant ship but she was purchased by the Royal Navy and named the Bounty. Proper dress aboard the Bounty would be late 18th century Royal Navy.
Not quite. "Minimizing the loss of life, injury, property damage or loss by rendering aid to persons in distress and property in the maritime environment has always been a Coast Guard priority." If you get yourself in trouble and it's dangerous for the coast guard to come and get you, they will tell you they can't help you until conditions improve. That happens all the time. If they do fish you out and you were doing something stupid, you might just get a bill for it. Or you might be criminally charged. If you're a professional, your license could be revoked.
There are already LOTS of marine regulations, particularly regarding commercial ships. At some point somebody has to make the decision to go out or not. In this case that decision was made by a properly licensed captain for the ship, and by fifteen experienced sailors for themselves.
They also appear to have foundered earlier than necessary because they lost power. As my sailing instructor drilled into us, you're in a sailboat. The engines are auxiliaries. Being beam on to the sea in a storm is not a happy situation, and, in a sailing ship, having your engines die isn't a good reason for it.
The captain sounds like an irresponsible thrill seeker, and the crew, although they were all supposedly experienced sailors, does seem to have neglected a lot. The article implies throughout that it was some kind of hero worship.
Actually, that's exactly what he did. Reported in the first section of the article. Except you don't "hold a vote" on a ship. The captain tells you where the ship is going and you have the chance to quit if you feel it's too dangerous. The crew had that chance and nobody decided to quit.
Yes, the captain sounds reckless. If he had survived it seems likely his license would be in jeopardy, as it should be. If he did knowingly take an unseaworthy vessel to sea there are already laws against that.
The summary makes it sound like they were exploiting a loophole in the regulations or something. The Bounty was simply not registered to carry paying passengers (just like the vast majority of private vessels). The crew were most definitely crew. Almost all of them were experienced sailors and, except for one retired volunteer, were all being paid.
It's hard to say what happened without more information, but it sounds like the captain took a risk and paid for it. The crew was consulted before they left, and given the chance to jump ship with no hard feelings.
I didn't say survival is objectively beneficial. That's why I listed it as an assumption. Right after a paragraph about how you have to assume something at the beginning of any logical argument. Nevertheless, the universe does seem to favour organisms that are good at survival. That's the "natural selection" part in Darwin's Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection.
By that (non) definition you could say:
"Murder is a social construct. Humans are just animals. Can animals "murder" each other?"
It sounds kind of like the Chewbacca defence. I don't even know what you're trying to say, so I can't tell whether I agree with your thesis or not. I know I disagree with your argument, because it's incoherent.
No, it doesn't. Just because a bunch of people who took a risk died doesn't mean we need to make laws to stop it in the future.
When you go to sea you take some risk, under any circumstances. People doing that should take responsibility for it. It's not the coast guard or the government's job to make sure people who make stupid decisions don't get hurt.
"Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society."
This is a popular assertion, but I don't believe it. Religion has generally changed to echo what the people of an era considered to be moral, including today. As far as western morality is concerned, the commandments and leviticus are all based on older laws. Even then, things like the adultery commandment are interpreted very differently now than they were in the past.
Your argument starts with an assumption many people would disagree with.
Your second paragraph ends with an incorrect statement. In many, perhaps most species, the female determines which male she will mate with, and when. Your statements suggest you're not as scientifically literate as you think you are.
He doesn't have to. The article itself counters the GPs assertion with an actual study instead of an unfounded statement.
One of the popular mistakes people make when quoting philosophy is to forget that any logical argument necessarily begins with assumptions. Kant showed why some things are universally wrong, given his assumptions. If you don't accept his assumptions, stated or otherwise, his argument is meaningless. The value of respect for autonomy, for example, is not some kind of physical law. It is itself a potentially relative moral value, one that may be considerably weaker in other cultures.
There ARE excellent arguments for why things like murder and torture are morally wrong, if you assume that survival is beneficial. Murder is something that most species have evolved to control, and it can be particularly damaging in species that depend on cooperation.
Generally people who participate on the other side of shorts (a) expect the value to continue to rise and (b) charge some amount of interest. If they didn't charge interest there would be no point as they could get the same return simply by holding the stock themselves.
That IS how shorting works (and you can short pretty much anything if you find a willing lender). The lender believes the stock will go up, or at least doesn't intend to sell regardless of what happens, and the borrower believes the stock will go down. The lender gets a guaranteed return (interest) in exchange for giving up flexibility for a period of time. The borrower gains the ability to bet on the value of the stock decreasing.
An easy counter example. In quantum physics it's impossible to make detailed predictions about individual particles. Yet it's often held up as the epitome of hard science.
I think you need to think through your argument more. The rest of your examples illustrate that you don't understand the basics of statistics at all and have a poor understanding of the basics of science as well.
Regarding your statements about alcohol: Oxygen is a poison. You can pussy foot around it all you like, but the fact of the matter is that once it's in your system your body does what it needs to do to get it out of your system as quickly as possible, because it is poison. The real question is at what point does that become important[?]
Actually, let me revise my previous statement. You don't understand statistics, you don't understand science, and you suffer from the issues most puritans do - use of excessive generalization, straw man construction, and any other logical fallacy you have to commit to convince yourself your hatred of something is justified.