My point is that you are wrong when you say "just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned". I have already explained that by turning your logic around and hoping you would see this that one could try and argue to legalize all that is liked. This apparently did not sink in for you, possibly because you have convinced yourself of your opinion being a rational and absolutely logical truth. It is not. What you have is just another opinion like everyone else's.
If politics finds that supporting an opinion gives them power then they will pursue it. They do this for almost any if not all opinions. If drugs are then disliked and people want to see them banned then this it is exactly what it means will happen. You fail to understand this or only do not want to believe it, because you remain convinced of your opinion.
I completely comprehend what you are saying. You cannot believe it, but beliefs also do not matter. Laws are created by those who are in power and power is given through votes (at least in a democracy it is).
You can long for power as much as you like, and argue for as much as you want, it is not giving you any power.
No, you are wrong. If what you are saying had any merit, then it would be possible to argue 'when someone likes it then it should also be made legal'. We could legalize theft and killings.
Fact is arguments do not matter. What matters are votes, and the government that gets the most votes wins. Arguments, regardless of how logical and rational these may be, mean nothing to the process. It is simply not required for a minority to understand why the majority wins.
So when people say they do not like it then, yes, it can mean that it should be banned.
Again, I was not arguing. This is my experience. It is what I see. There is nothing to debate.
I can also see that you have a problem. You argue just like many alcoholics. They not care for any of the warnings either and only want it their way even when it destroys them. No words will change them and only they can change themselves.
I am not saying that you are an alcoholic. This is for you to find out. Most alcoholics, who admit to having a problem, do not seek a debate. They try to find help.
It is not meant to be an argument. It is an opinion I have. And seeing how you are trying to argue with an opinion, unable to tell the difference between argument and opinion, do I doubt you have a use for arguments. You will be happy when you only get someone's attention, or drugs. At best would you only be looking to get my approval, but it would also be too late for it, because I am sure you are already using drugs.
I do not support it, but I am also not a violent or only angry person. So everyone who disagrees here with me know you are save from me!
I see daily what alcohol can do to people. I have had friends who died at an age of 30 to failing livers. Others who are still alive drink 4l-8l of cider a day. They cannot stop even if they wanted to, because their liver has adjusted to these amounts and a rapid change will cause a liver failure. They first need to get their consumption down before a rehab takes them or else their need for alcohol would interfere with the other alcoholics who can actually stop drinking.
These are extremes, but many people who drink alcohol only occasionally do not realize that they are actually addicted to it. They often say something like they need their beer on the weekend or else they cannot unwind. They do not know how true this actually is. They balance their addiction with work, but if they lose their job for someone reason do they enter into a spiral.
I do not even like talking to people who are intoxicated. They fail to listen, they fail to argue, and they only want to enjoy their high on alcohol, meaning, they want to "have fun". The only people who enjoy the company of drunk people are other drunk people.
I do not believe in recreational drugs. There is no need for them and I rather want to see less drugs in our society than more. It is never the drugs who break the law, but it is people and they will continue breaking laws, because it did not stop them before. If, theoretically speaking, drug dealing would get punished with the death sentence, would we get rid of drugs and drug dealers pretty fast. If you do not like my opinion then talk to the dad and his son in the following picture. They might agree with the World Health Organization:
No, sorry, you must have read too much into it. It is an example of a nation responding to a situation in a stupid and escalating manner, which is only asking for more conflict. China took a different approach and chose to change the nature of the situation itself. I think it is a smart and brilliant move by China.
I would love to know how many spy satellites each nation has got in orbit. We only get to see the bickering and bitching really, but perhaps it is coming from those nations who also deploy the most spy satellites.
It is time to accept that it has superheros among us and we need to welcome them with open arms, and stop accussing one another of having made mistakes. Show yourselves!
Well, being, dumb, stupid, idiotic, moronic, and what ever else is - besides being insulting - a birthright of the young. The young are meant to be this way, because wisdom only comes with age and through a lot of experience. Do not blame them for it, but love them.
Games can help here. A PvP MMO game such as EVE Online teaches quite some interesting lessons. If you already have made all these lessons then bravo, good for you, but some are still in need of them and you should not mind it. They are only teaching these lessons to themselves and not to you.
If Mr. Roberts had not started the biggest crowd fund raiser in gaming history ever and for his upcoming space game "Star Citizen", then CCP might never had started their Valkyre project. CCP would problably still be trying to create a perma-death vampire game, or worse, to try and push micro-transactions together with vanity items further onto their players. It then just makes completele sense to go public and explain what FPS games cannot do, but their upcoming game can. Those cute, smug icelandian bastards!
Honestly, I am more interested in why the player numbers of EVE Online are in stagnation for the past 5 years now. http://eve-offline.net/?server...
Well, this sadly only shows the culture you are growing up in. To some of us is spying a sign of mistrust and an offence. If you had read Sun Tzu would you know that spying is an act of war.
China's is more than 5,000 years old, possibly 10,000 years. The "Art of War" was written more than 2,500 years ago. The book alone is far older than the Bible or the USA. It is also being used at the military academy in Westpoint as teaching material.
Anyhow, when you then want to make China your enemy, should you also learn about them. Or let me quote Sun Tzu for you: "If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."
But also the philosopher Socrates already knew "I know that I know nothing". Only some people cannot sleep before they think they have convinced themselves of knowing what exactly is going on, even when at the same time they also know they can never be sure and it could all be a trick.
To assume you have the right to spy on every one and nobody would take it as an offence is simply dumb.
I said to be glad in comparison to what China could have done instead. Nothing more. You are missing the point if you now want to expand onto what happened in Europe. We might be sitting here all day and night just remind us what happened before then and then before then, and so on. Say, are you at least glad it is not worse?
The entire western world is thankful for the teachings of Sun Tzu. One cannot blame China for following a good defensive strategy.
By the way, the article makes it sound like it was an offence by China, but the initial offence is the one of nations putting spy satellites into space in the first place. It is then just twisted and ironic, if not funny, to see how the US and Japan seemingly want to defend themselves against China's defence plans, when it took some more spying to find out about the launch.
Be glad they are not stupidly trying to set up nuclear missiles on Cuba in order to get a "head start" in a nuclear world war like the Russians did.
First, every adult knows there is more than just academic careers in life but the life of "little girls" does not simply progress from an early interest towards a PhD. People go through many different phases in their life and "the road" we take is full of choices. To think it would be this simple and to make a straight connection from childhood to adulthood is quite naive. It is the same as to believe one only needs to teach a child to play the violin and it will automatically become a musician later in life.
Second, there are "little boys", too. In fact, one speaks of "little children" and does not to distinguish between the genders unless it is necessary. And for someone who wants to get children closer to science should their gender certainly not matter.
Being an adult and seeing how someone goes in a single sentence from "little girls" to "sexual advances [on women]" is certainly alarming. This is an entirely imaginary connection created by Mr. Johnson and for who knows what purpose. It comes across like he is driving with his "science van" to schools, to lure little girls into it with promises of academic careers, but sees his efforts threatened by male colleges who make advances on women.
I would like to know from Dr. Chun in which areas of life can AIs be used right now (are most beneficial), which areas are too difficult (for now) and in which areas should AIs never be used.
While I can certainly recognize the seriousness of the topic can I only gasp at a statement such as the following:
“How can we encourage little girls to study science if their future academic careers will be marked by not only the normal struggles of solving the mysteries of the universe, but also fending off professors who make unwelcome sexual advances?” (John Johnson of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts)
It might be a good idea for some scientists to learn about life and nature before anything else. Men, or rather the male gender in general, have made sexual advances onto the female gender throughout the entire history of evolution. One cannot go through life being a woman, and only dream of science and have all men arrested, because they made an advance. Maybe the man was not the right one, or maybe the woman send out the wrong signals, but there are plenty of women who do like it when men make an advance. And do not get me wrong. I am not trying to defend stalkers, perverts and rapists here. Only the struggle between men and women is a completely normal struggle, always has been a part of life, and came long before the "normal struggles of solving the mysteries of the universe". Mr. Johnson even manages to talk of "little girls" and "sexual advances" in a single sentence. Why does he bring little girls into the discussion? Does this not seem wrong on its own?...
Whatever Mr. Johnson really was trying to say in his statement does it come across like the plot of a mad scientist, who in his ivory tower dreams of being a white knight and basically wants to live out his sociopathic tendencies by avoiding all human contact.
Just saying... One needs to be careful here and not generalize everything as sexual harassment.
No, you are not depressed any more, but why suddenly so jealous? Building carrier rockets is no cutting-edge science any more. Quantum physics is the new rocket science.
Why so depressed? Every pioneer who has every lived took on risks others were not willing to take. Not every pioneer succeeded, some failed, but it never meant that those who succeeded were wrong or that their efforts were of no value. Instead, we are grateful for what pioneers did. And you should be, too. Only because of pioneers who are pushing the limits further and who are giving us new knowledge do we also know what we are truly capable of.
You now make it sound like there is still a need for a debate, but where is your explanation for it? Where is the debate? I do not see you coming up with an explanation as to why there is still a need for a debate. All you really seem to be doing is to express your fear over being called an idiot, but I am fairly certain you will be clever enough to know that insults can never replace a good explanation. The only explanation you are giving is in fact that you are not a scientist.
And yes, it does not only "sound like" as if this is the answer, but it is given as the answer. Quite purposely, consciously, deliberately and intentionally so. It is the f-ing point of a scientist's efforts.
Did you at least read the scientists' explanation of it?
I believe you are wrong. The mass of objects will certainly play a role in both effects. The Brazil Nut Effect will likely have something to do with the inertia of objects.
The difference when compared to buoyancy will be that with buoyancy you have a calm system, without any energy coming in from the outside, where objects come to a rest. Here the objects will order themselves merely based on their density - their size-to-mass ratio.
While in the Brazil Nuts Effect its the opposite and objects will find themselves exposed to vibrations and shocks. Here the objects with a higher mass also have a higher inertia. The smaller objects will bounce between the more inert objects on fast-changing trajectories, while the more inert and massive objects will have more stable trajectories, because these will only change their trajectory when they hit other massive objects. As a result will the larger, more massive objects travel further than the smaller objects and so end up further out. Therefore will mass and density play a role in the Brazil Nut Effect, too.
The difference will be that one system (buoyancy) is calm without external energy coming in and allowing objects to come together, while the other system (Brazil Nut Effect) sees energy coming in, which shakes up the order of objects and drives objects apart.
So basically what researchers are saying is that the trail a person leaves on the Internet, and the phone networks, is not much different from our body odour, which also stems more or less from bacteria. This is a rather fascinating if not a bizarre analogy. If so then we can only hope our trails drive of competitors and attracts the opposite sex. Somebody please pass me the soap.
I do wonder what Napoleon would have made of it. Would he have told his women before returning from battles not only not to wash, but also not to clear their browsing history?!?...
Slashdot Mirror
My point is that you are wrong when you say "just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned". I have already explained that by turning your logic around and hoping you would see this that one could try and argue to legalize all that is liked. This apparently did not sink in for you, possibly because you have convinced yourself of your opinion being a rational and absolutely logical truth. It is not. What you have is just another opinion like everyone else's.
If politics finds that supporting an opinion gives them power then they will pursue it. They do this for almost any if not all opinions. If drugs are then disliked and people want to see them banned then this it is exactly what it means will happen. You fail to understand this or only do not want to believe it, because you remain convinced of your opinion.
Do you understand this now?
I completely comprehend what you are saying. You cannot believe it, but beliefs also do not matter. Laws are created by those who are in power and power is given through votes (at least in a democracy it is).
You can long for power as much as you like, and argue for as much as you want, it is not giving you any power.
No, you are wrong. If what you are saying had any merit, then it would be possible to argue 'when someone likes it then it should also be made legal'. We could legalize theft and killings.
Fact is arguments do not matter. What matters are votes, and the government that gets the most votes wins. Arguments, regardless of how logical and rational these may be, mean nothing to the process. It is simply not required for a minority to understand why the majority wins.
So when people say they do not like it then, yes, it can mean that it should be banned.
Again, I was not arguing. This is my experience. It is what I see. There is nothing to debate.
I can also see that you have a problem. You argue just like many alcoholics. They not care for any of the warnings either and only want it their way even when it destroys them. No words will change them and only they can change themselves.
I am not saying that you are an alcoholic. This is for you to find out. Most alcoholics, who admit to having a problem, do not seek a debate. They try to find help.
It is not meant to be an argument. It is an opinion I have. And seeing how you are trying to argue with an opinion, unable to tell the difference between argument and opinion, do I doubt you have a use for arguments. You will be happy when you only get someone's attention, or drugs. At best would you only be looking to get my approval, but it would also be too late for it, because I am sure you are already using drugs.
I do not support it, but I am also not a violent or only angry person. So everyone who disagrees here with me know you are save from me!
I see daily what alcohol can do to people. I have had friends who died at an age of 30 to failing livers. Others who are still alive drink 4l-8l of cider a day. They cannot stop even if they wanted to, because their liver has adjusted to these amounts and a rapid change will cause a liver failure. They first need to get their consumption down before a rehab takes them or else their need for alcohol would interfere with the other alcoholics who can actually stop drinking.
These are extremes, but many people who drink alcohol only occasionally do not realize that they are actually addicted to it. They often say something like they need their beer on the weekend or else they cannot unwind. They do not know how true this actually is. They balance their addiction with work, but if they lose their job for someone reason do they enter into a spiral.
I do not even like talking to people who are intoxicated. They fail to listen, they fail to argue, and they only want to enjoy their high on alcohol, meaning, they want to "have fun". The only people who enjoy the company of drunk people are other drunk people.
Why not ban alcohol? I have not had any alcohol for years. How about you? How many days can you go without?
I do not believe in recreational drugs. There is no need for them and I rather want to see less drugs in our society than more. It is never the drugs who break the law, but it is people and they will continue breaking laws, because it did not stop them before. If, theoretically speaking, drug dealing would get punished with the death sentence, would we get rid of drugs and drug dealers pretty fast. If you do not like my opinion then talk to the dad and his son in the following picture. They might agree with the World Health Organization:
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/2...
No, sorry, you must have read too much into it. It is an example of a nation responding to a situation in a stupid and escalating manner, which is only asking for more conflict. China took a different approach and chose to change the nature of the situation itself. I think it is a smart and brilliant move by China.
I would love to know how many spy satellites each nation has got in orbit. We only get to see the bickering and bitching really, but perhaps it is coming from those nations who also deploy the most spy satellites.
It is time to accept that it has superheros among us and we need to welcome them with open arms, and stop accussing one another of having made mistakes. Show yourselves!
Well, being, dumb, stupid, idiotic, moronic, and what ever else is - besides being insulting - a birthright of the young. The young are meant to be this way, because wisdom only comes with age and through a lot of experience. Do not blame them for it, but love them.
Games can help here. A PvP MMO game such as EVE Online teaches quite some interesting lessons. If you already have made all these lessons then bravo, good for you, but some are still in need of them and you should not mind it. They are only teaching these lessons to themselves and not to you.
If Mr. Roberts had not started the biggest crowd fund raiser in gaming history ever and for his upcoming space game "Star Citizen", then CCP might never had started their Valkyre project. CCP would problably still be trying to create a perma-death vampire game, or worse, to try and push micro-transactions together with vanity items further onto their players. It then just makes completele sense to go public and explain what FPS games cannot do, but their upcoming game can. Those cute, smug icelandian bastards!
Honestly, I am more interested in why the player numbers of EVE Online are in stagnation for the past 5 years now. http://eve-offline.net/?server...
Well, this sadly only shows the culture you are growing up in. To some of us is spying a sign of mistrust and an offence. If you had read Sun Tzu would you know that spying is an act of war.
China's is more than 5,000 years old, possibly 10,000 years. The "Art of War" was written more than 2,500 years ago. The book alone is far older than the Bible or the USA. It is also being used at the military academy in Westpoint as teaching material.
Anyhow, when you then want to make China your enemy, should you also learn about them. Or let me quote Sun Tzu for you: "If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself."
But also the philosopher Socrates already knew "I know that I know nothing". Only some people cannot sleep before they think they have convinced themselves of knowing what exactly is going on, even when at the same time they also know they can never be sure and it could all be a trick.
To assume you have the right to spy on every one and nobody would take it as an offence is simply dumb.
I said to be glad in comparison to what China could have done instead. Nothing more. You are missing the point if you now want to expand onto what happened in Europe. We might be sitting here all day and night just remind us what happened before then and then before then, and so on. Say, are you at least glad it is not worse?
The entire western world is thankful for the teachings of Sun Tzu. One cannot blame China for following a good defensive strategy.
By the way, the article makes it sound like it was an offence by China, but the initial offence is the one of nations putting spy satellites into space in the first place. It is then just twisted and ironic, if not funny, to see how the US and Japan seemingly want to defend themselves against China's defence plans, when it took some more spying to find out about the launch.
Be glad they are not stupidly trying to set up nuclear missiles on Cuba in order to get a "head start" in a nuclear world war like the Russians did.
I can give you two simple indicators right now.
First, every adult knows there is more than just academic careers in life but the life of "little girls" does not simply progress from an early interest towards a PhD. People go through many different phases in their life and "the road" we take is full of choices. To think it would be this simple and to make a straight connection from childhood to adulthood is quite naive. It is the same as to believe one only needs to teach a child to play the violin and it will automatically become a musician later in life.
Second, there are "little boys", too. In fact, one speaks of "little children" and does not to distinguish between the genders unless it is necessary. And for someone who wants to get children closer to science should their gender certainly not matter.
Being an adult and seeing how someone goes in a single sentence from "little girls" to "sexual advances [on women]" is certainly alarming. This is an entirely imaginary connection created by Mr. Johnson and for who knows what purpose. It comes across like he is driving with his "science van" to schools, to lure little girls into it with promises of academic careers, but sees his efforts threatened by male colleges who make advances on women.
I would like to know from Dr. Chun in which areas of life can AIs be used right now (are most beneficial), which areas are too difficult (for now) and in which areas should AIs never be used.
It looks pretty much like a tank on flip-flops.
While I can certainly recognize the seriousness of the topic can I only gasp at a statement such as the following:
“How can we encourage little girls to study science if their future academic careers will be marked by not only the normal struggles of solving the mysteries of the universe, but also fending off professors who make unwelcome sexual advances?” (John Johnson of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts)
It might be a good idea for some scientists to learn about life and nature before anything else. Men, or rather the male gender in general, have made sexual advances onto the female gender throughout the entire history of evolution. One cannot go through life being a woman, and only dream of science and have all men arrested, because they made an advance. Maybe the man was not the right one, or maybe the woman send out the wrong signals, but there are plenty of women who do like it when men make an advance. And do not get me wrong. I am not trying to defend stalkers, perverts and rapists here. Only the struggle between men and women is a completely normal struggle, always has been a part of life, and came long before the "normal struggles of solving the mysteries of the universe". Mr. Johnson even manages to talk of "little girls" and "sexual advances" in a single sentence. Why does he bring little girls into the discussion? Does this not seem wrong on its own? ...
Whatever Mr. Johnson really was trying to say in his statement does it come across like the plot of a mad scientist, who in his ivory tower dreams of being a white knight and basically wants to live out his sociopathic tendencies by avoiding all human contact.
Just saying... One needs to be careful here and not generalize everything as sexual harassment.
Hey, yo, why do two experiments? We all know dark matter. I thought we left that racism shit behind.
No, you are not depressed any more, but why suddenly so jealous? Building carrier rockets is no cutting-edge science any more. Quantum physics is the new rocket science.
Why so depressed? Every pioneer who has every lived took on risks others were not willing to take. Not every pioneer succeeded, some failed, but it never meant that those who succeeded were wrong or that their efforts were of no value. Instead, we are grateful for what pioneers did. And you should be, too. Only because of pioneers who are pushing the limits further and who are giving us new knowledge do we also know what we are truly capable of.
You now make it sound like there is still a need for a debate, but where is your explanation for it? Where is the debate? I do not see you coming up with an explanation as to why there is still a need for a debate. All you really seem to be doing is to express your fear over being called an idiot, but I am fairly certain you will be clever enough to know that insults can never replace a good explanation. The only explanation you are giving is in fact that you are not a scientist.
And yes, it does not only "sound like" as if this is the answer, but it is given as the answer. Quite purposely, consciously, deliberately and intentionally so. It is the f-ing point of a scientist's efforts.
Did you at least read the scientists' explanation of it?
I believe you are wrong. The mass of objects will certainly play a role in both effects. The Brazil Nut Effect will likely have something to do with the inertia of objects.
The difference when compared to buoyancy will be that with buoyancy you have a calm system, without any energy coming in from the outside, where objects come to a rest. Here the objects will order themselves merely based on their density - their size-to-mass ratio.
While in the Brazil Nuts Effect its the opposite and objects will find themselves exposed to vibrations and shocks. Here the objects with a higher mass also have a higher inertia. The smaller objects will bounce between the more inert objects on fast-changing trajectories, while the more inert and massive objects will have more stable trajectories, because these will only change their trajectory when they hit other massive objects. As a result will the larger, more massive objects travel further than the smaller objects and so end up further out. Therefore will mass and density play a role in the Brazil Nut Effect, too.
The difference will be that one system (buoyancy) is calm without external energy coming in and allowing objects to come together, while the other system (Brazil Nut Effect) sees energy coming in, which shakes up the order of objects and drives objects apart.
So basically what researchers are saying is that the trail a person leaves on the Internet, and the phone networks, is not much different from our body odour, which also stems more or less from bacteria. This is a rather fascinating if not a bizarre analogy. If so then we can only hope our trails drive of competitors and attracts the opposite sex. Somebody please pass me the soap.
I do wonder what Napoleon would have made of it. Would he have told his women before returning from battles not only not to wash, but also not to clear their browsing history?!? ...