"blocked from receiving information" is a really, extremely loose standard.
Have you seen the full JFK assassination file? Because I haven't. Their website says the last of it can be held until 2017, so I'm guessing (unless you're Barrack Obama) that you are blocked from receiving information by your government as well.
As far as dissidents being shot by the government, well, in recent US history we have Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. It is sort of rare, but it does happen.
When it comes to 'relatively', and once you factor billions vs millions, I do wonder which government has actually killed more people, as a ratio. I'm not confident what the result would be, but it would be interesting to see someone actually do the math.
I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong. I'll let the numbers do that.
Please do let us know once you have that completed.
In a sane society, the criteria for an obligating bond such as marriage would be "informed consent" and nothing else.
Some cultures, such as our own, also use marriage as an institution to shore up child rearing efforts. Ergo tax benefits for married couples and for merely having children. You're painting it with entirely too simple a brush, probably simply to support your position, but there it is.
Next, juxtapose:
Informed itself is limited by the capacity to be informed, and so creates natural age, intelligence and species limits
with
We live in a society guided by rank superstition and goat-age desert morality, a condition exacerbated by a legal system that tries to solve very grey problems with black and white lines in the sand such as "age."
So you reject the laws made by anyone that used to subsist off of goats outright. Strange, but okay. Next you assert 'natural limits' and yet deny the law the right to arbitrarily define them. Also very odd. Would you advocate a one-time assessment, or merely an ad-hock application of the law at the whim of the arbiter? I think the age 'line' works as sort of a compromise. You know once you've hit it, and everyone else does also. I think it sort of 'just works'. Why don't you?
On a more positive note, you can live together with any number of consenting adults you choose to and there are very few restrictions on that anywhere in the country
In the United States this is largely false. You cannot live together with more than a handful of people from different families in basically any area with zoning laws. Check your statutes for the exact details, but around my home town, the limit is five people and only two of which may be adults. Otherwise, people would be turning residential neighborhoods into frat houses, etc...
Steve goes out of his way to claim that it's really just a trifling little problem. That's not how to win customers. The way to win customers is to say, "We admit that screwed up, and bad. We'll make it right. Here's how."
Agreed. And further,
He went on to say that only 0.55% of all iPhone 4 users have called in to complain about reception problems
No kidding? People didn't call tech support for a phone having bad reception? Are you SURE?
Maybe, just maybe, they emailed instead? I'm just saying...
Talk about a 'supporting statistic'. It almost insults the intellect.
>>>What you seem to have done is attempted to claim that they ignored the fact altogether
No actually I was saying the the world of the Matrix has about the same chances of happening, in real life, as Harry Potter. i.e. Matrix doesn't deserve to carry the label "science fiction"
Okay... But then nothing else does, either, and the label no longer has any use. It isn't as if Star Trek is any more or less accurate.
I really wish people would THINK before they post.
You'd do well to do the same.
No sun == no plants == no nutrients to consume. Remember what happened to the dinosaurs when their sun was blotted out?
You do, of course, realize that this happened to 'humans' as well at that exact same time, do you not? You're not a creationist, I don't think, because you're making dinosaur arguments. So if it killed ALL LIFE on earth, do we assume that the whole primordial-ooze thing just started from scratch?
No. We don't. We know that 'no sun' wasn't what happened. Only 'little sun', and anyone who studies even a tiny bit of biology understands that some forms of life need more of it than others.
Please don't be such an ass about 'not thinking' until you're ready to lead the way yourself.
That's what would happen to humans. Even if the machines fed 2 dead corpses per year to keep alive 1 human alive, the race would be almost extinct within a decade.
A 6 billion population would have decreased to less than a million in ten years.
1) And if they fed them bacteria? Or some other substance? It wasn't exactly Big Macs, to be sure, but your imagination is way too limited here. Things can live in adverse environments. Look at the 'shrimp' found under the Antarctic ice. Not much light down there, either. Not to mention that photosynthesis is assumed to have evolved from something that didn't even possess it previously.
2) What if the robots only required 'less than a million' to operate, and grew the remainder once that operation was established?
Again, your attitude is way too harsh for someone with such huge gaps in their position.
You could just say "I didn't like the show" if you want. That's totally cool. Calling people stupid simply for not agreeing with you is why I object.
I thought it was pretty clear there was a tube running down Neo's throat. Wouldn't they just pump nutrients in that way? Or hell, since he had never been born they could be doing something similar to the umbilical cord.
At any rate, it isn't at all vague. The humans get energy from 'eating', which means the machines are getting their electricity in the same way we're getting beef.
You could make an argument that it isn't efficient enough, or something, but that would be forgetting both that this is future-tech and that this is a movie. What you seem to have done is attempted to claim that they ignored the fact altogether, where they clearly illustrated it - at least up to Hollywood standards.
Why is it ok for a human to do it, but not a machine?
It isn't ok. If your product or service isn't good enough to attract customers on its own, then You're Doing It Wrong. Good products sell themselves, they don't need shithead MBAs who can't tie their own shoes to tell the great unwashed what they want.
Or, perhaps...
If your (idea) isn't good enough to attract (followers) on its own, then You're Doing It Wrong.
Communication is an understated thing in your world, it seems. Imagine the difficulty in spreading your anti-marketing idea if you were forbidden to discuss it with anyone. Further imagine opening a new business in a strip mall down town and being forbidden to advertise on the radio, pass out flyers, or even hang a sign out front. How long are you in business?
Many times, without advertising, you wouldn't know of a product of service and therefore wouldn't know you could seek said product or service.
I'm perfectly capable of typing, for example, "Blue Jeans" into a search engine and reading the result.
That's a rather excellent example.
Why 'Blue'? Denim isn't naturally that color, is it?
Why 'Jeans'? Do you typically purchase products from Gênes (France)?
The entire reason you're aware that 'blue jeans' are something you'd want is due to the marketing efforts folks like Levi Strauss and Co.
Now if you had said 'dungarees' or 'denim trousers', maybe I would have believed you. But this product has already been marketed, and thus is a bad example for your no-marketing world.
Sorry to interrupt your regularly scheduled slashdot, but we have breaking news. Scientists at Twitter, Inc, have just published the shocking results from their study of the moods of their posters. They have some to the shocking conclusion that they do not like being at work. Stay with this station for more breaking news on this exciting topic!
Not only that, but the article and wikipedia's write up disagree on a key point. E.g. from wikipedia:
The size of the patch is unknown, as large items readily visible from a boat deck are uncommon. Most debris consists of small plastic particles suspended at or just below the surface, making it impossible to detect by aircraft or satellite.
Even the photo for the slashdot submission is 'off'. We seem to be talking about tiny particles of plastic. Not even something you can see, let alone build a structure upon.
Finding citations is a pain in the ass. But I can get you started. Go check out Liberal Viewer's YouTube channel, specifically the video about Stewart on O'Reilly. He explicitly states something to the effect of how his show doesn't edit for comedy and/or to treat people unfairly.
Anyway I'm not going to wade through an hour of video to shore up a point on slashdot where there's no cost whatsoever for [citation needed], but I can blow a day chasing it down. It probably won't change your mind anyway...
... he's just an entertainer like any other news or talk media figure.
Then there's the case of Jon Stewart, who keeps reminding people that he's a professional comedian, and still so many people treat him as a serious journalist.
That's a bit of a stretch. Jon Stewart also, for example, purports to adhere to journalistic standards. He's not exactly Monty Python. He is somewhere in the middle, by his behavior, despite what he says.
It makes for a really neat Catch-22. Because the press is 'free', it is also for sale. There's no way to prevent the corporate/wealthy interests from gaining control over the media without allowing the government to control it instead.
So, pick your evil -
A) Government-run media
B) Greed-run media
There isn't any 'C'. At least not within the reasonable confines of established western civilization.
I know people who are still in the closet. The have several characters. The have the character they play with their gay friends, and a character they play with there older friends and family.
You could argue that should just 'come out', but that would show how little you know of those situations.
Would it be an undue burden for them to have a second account?
Slashdot Mirror
"blocked from receiving information" is a really, extremely loose standard.
Have you seen the full JFK assassination file? Because I haven't. Their website says the last of it can be held until 2017, so I'm guessing (unless you're Barrack Obama) that you are blocked from receiving information by your government as well.
As far as dissidents being shot by the government, well, in recent US history we have Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. It is sort of rare, but it does happen.
When it comes to 'relatively', and once you factor billions vs millions, I do wonder which government has actually killed more people, as a ratio. I'm not confident what the result would be, but it would be interesting to see someone actually do the math.
I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong. I'll let the numbers do that.
Please do let us know once you have that completed.
In a sane society, the criteria for an obligating bond such as marriage would be "informed consent" and nothing else.
Some cultures, such as our own, also use marriage as an institution to shore up child rearing efforts. Ergo tax benefits for married couples and for merely having children. You're painting it with entirely too simple a brush, probably simply to support your position, but there it is.
Next, juxtapose:
Informed itself is limited by the capacity to be informed, and so creates natural age, intelligence and species limits
with
We live in a society guided by rank superstition and goat-age desert morality, a condition exacerbated by a legal system that tries to solve very grey problems with black and white lines in the sand such as "age."
So you reject the laws made by anyone that used to subsist off of goats outright. Strange, but okay. Next you assert 'natural limits' and yet deny the law the right to arbitrarily define them. Also very odd. Would you advocate a one-time assessment, or merely an ad-hock application of the law at the whim of the arbiter? I think the age 'line' works as sort of a compromise. You know once you've hit it, and everyone else does also. I think it sort of 'just works'. Why don't you?
On a more positive note, you can live together with any number of consenting adults you choose to and there are very few restrictions on that anywhere in the country
In the United States this is largely false. You cannot live together with more than a handful of people from different families in basically any area with zoning laws. Check your statutes for the exact details, but around my home town, the limit is five people and only two of which may be adults. Otherwise, people would be turning residential neighborhoods into frat houses, etc...
Steve goes out of his way to claim that it's really just a trifling little problem. That's not how to win customers.
The way to win customers is to say, "We admit that screwed up, and bad. We'll make it right. Here's how."
Agreed. And further,
He went on to say that only 0.55% of all iPhone 4 users have called in to complain about reception problems
No kidding? People didn't call tech support for a phone having bad reception? Are you SURE?
Maybe, just maybe, they emailed instead? I'm just saying...
Talk about a 'supporting statistic'. It almost insults the intellect.
>>>What you seem to have done is attempted to claim that they ignored the fact altogether
No actually I was saying the the world of the Matrix has about the same chances of happening, in real life, as Harry Potter. i.e. Matrix doesn't deserve to carry the label "science fiction"
Okay... But then nothing else does, either, and the label no longer has any use. It isn't as if Star Trek is any more or less accurate.
I really wish people would THINK before they post.
You'd do well to do the same.
No sun == no plants == no nutrients to consume. Remember what happened to the dinosaurs when their sun was blotted out?
You do, of course, realize that this happened to 'humans' as well at that exact same time, do you not? You're not a creationist, I don't think, because you're making dinosaur arguments. So if it killed ALL LIFE on earth, do we assume that the whole primordial-ooze thing just started from scratch?
No. We don't. We know that 'no sun' wasn't what happened. Only 'little sun', and anyone who studies even a tiny bit of biology understands that some forms of life need more of it than others.
Please don't be such an ass about 'not thinking' until you're ready to lead the way yourself.
That's what would happen to humans. Even if the machines fed 2 dead corpses per year to keep alive 1 human alive, the race would be almost extinct within a decade.
A 6 billion population would have decreased to less than a million in ten years.
1) And if they fed them bacteria? Or some other substance? It wasn't exactly Big Macs, to be sure, but your imagination is way too limited here. Things can live in adverse environments. Look at the 'shrimp' found under the Antarctic ice. Not much light down there, either. Not to mention that photosynthesis is assumed to have evolved from something that didn't even possess it previously.
2) What if the robots only required 'less than a million' to operate, and grew the remainder once that operation was established?
Again, your attitude is way too harsh for someone with such huge gaps in their position.
You could just say "I didn't like the show" if you want. That's totally cool. Calling people stupid simply for not agreeing with you is why I object.
You make a good point, but don't forget that the machines were made by humans, who designed all of their code.
Perhaps they gravitate toward humans sub-consciously?
Wasn't covered in the movie that way, I don't think, but then I've worked pretty hard to purge the sequels from my brain.
I thought it was pretty clear there was a tube running down Neo's throat. Wouldn't they just pump nutrients in that way? Or hell, since he had never been born they could be doing something similar to the umbilical cord.
At any rate, it isn't at all vague. The humans get energy from 'eating', which means the machines are getting their electricity in the same way we're getting beef.
You could make an argument that it isn't efficient enough, or something, but that would be forgetting both that this is future-tech and that this is a movie. What you seem to have done is attempted to claim that they ignored the fact altogether, where they clearly illustrated it - at least up to Hollywood standards.
The pricetag is roughly $1600 Dollars. Ouch.
Either that or they'd tweet miserably about that, too.
All I want is to be able to walk down the street (in private)
Um, no.
It isn't ok. If your product or service isn't good enough to attract customers on its own, then You're Doing It Wrong. Good products sell themselves, they don't need shithead MBAs who can't tie their own shoes to tell the great unwashed what they want.
Or, perhaps...
If your (idea) isn't good enough to attract (followers) on its own, then You're Doing It Wrong.
Communication is an understated thing in your world, it seems. Imagine the difficulty in spreading your anti-marketing idea if you were forbidden to discuss it with anyone. Further imagine opening a new business in a strip mall down town and being forbidden to advertise on the radio, pass out flyers, or even hang a sign out front. How long are you in business?
Nobody has a RIGHT to (speak) to me if I don't want it.
I disagree. Vehemently.
I'm perfectly capable of typing, for example, "Blue Jeans" into a search engine and reading the result.
That's a rather excellent example.
Why 'Blue'? Denim isn't naturally that color, is it?
Why 'Jeans'? Do you typically purchase products from Gênes (France)?
The entire reason you're aware that 'blue jeans' are something you'd want is due to the marketing efforts folks like Levi Strauss and Co.
Now if you had said 'dungarees' or 'denim trousers', maybe I would have believed you. But this product has already been marketed, and thus is a bad example for your no-marketing world.
Methinks he dost protest too much...
Sorry to interrupt your regularly scheduled slashdot, but we have breaking news. Scientists at Twitter, Inc, have just published the shocking results from their study of the moods of their posters. They have some to the shocking conclusion that they do not like being at work. Stay with this station for more breaking news on this exciting topic!
Not only that, but the article and wikipedia's write up disagree on a key point. E.g. from wikipedia:
The size of the patch is unknown, as large items readily visible from a boat deck are uncommon. Most debris consists of small plastic particles suspended at or just below the surface, making it impossible to detect by aircraft or satellite.
Even the photo for the slashdot submission is 'off'. We seem to be talking about tiny particles of plastic. Not even something you can see, let alone build a structure upon.
Parent is right: "lunatic scheme"
Finding citations is a pain in the ass. But I can get you started. Go check out Liberal Viewer's YouTube channel, specifically the video about Stewart on O'Reilly. He explicitly states something to the effect of how his show doesn't edit for comedy and/or to treat people unfairly.
Anyway I'm not going to wade through an hour of video to shore up a point on slashdot where there's no cost whatsoever for [citation needed], but I can blow a day chasing it down. It probably won't change your mind anyway...
Sounds like a government run implementation to me, but perhaps I'm mis-reading your description.
Then there's the case of Jon Stewart, who keeps reminding people that he's a professional comedian, and still so many people treat him as a serious journalist.
That's a bit of a stretch. Jon Stewart also, for example, purports to adhere to journalistic standards. He's not exactly Monty Python. He is somewhere in the middle, by his behavior, despite what he says.
It makes for a really neat Catch-22. Because the press is 'free', it is also for sale. There's no way to prevent the corporate/wealthy interests from gaining control over the media without allowing the government to control it instead.
So, pick your evil -
A) Government-run media
B) Greed-run media
There isn't any 'C'. At least not within the reasonable confines of established western civilization.
Humans are neat!
Sure, sure, but my point was Blizzard can no longer claim that it is something they lack.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
C. S. Lewis
And I whole-heartedly agree.
'Slippery Slopes' aren't always 'Fallacy'. Ever courted a woman?
Oh wait, this is Slashdot. Nevermind...
This.
I know people who are still in the closet. The have several characters. The have the character they play with their gay friends, and a character they play with there older friends and family.
You could argue that should just 'come out', but that would show how little you know of those situations.
Would it be an undue burden for them to have a second account?