the philosophy that says that whatever course of action provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is the most ethical one
As opposit to the philosophy that says that whoever can drag in the most gods and religious stories is the most ethical?
But those are the two extremes. Utilitarianism would approve of the Hollocause as the number of "good Germans" were much higher than the number of "undermenshen" (sp?)(All those who were procecuted because they weren't Arian, or were gay, or happen to have the "wrong" political views), while the religious extreme would let people die of easy-to-cure illness because "only God decides about live and death".
Let say the real most ethical actions are the once near the center between those two extremes.
Your comment also smacks of elitism ("religious fanatical mob")
If you're willing to let people die because your religion says that the actions needed to heal them are unethical, that's religious fanatisme in my book.
and demonstrates your willingness to let "those who are knowledgable" make all your decisions for you.
Why not? You already let your doctor decide what medication and other threatments you use when you're ill. And nobody would have a problem with that because you know the person has a great deal more knowledge about the matter than you.
Besides this isn't "my" decision. It's a decision that has to be made by society. And in my opinion society should bring together the experts on the matter to make the decision.
Actually, those could be a help to find those who got lost. Consider a track with sensors at various points. Suppose a lost hiker got detected by sensor 5, but not by any of the following, you could assume a circular area around sensor 5 in which the hiker should be. The radius of that circle could be determined because you'll know when he passed that sensor and can approximate a walking speed based on the landscape. It can reduce the area a search and resue operation would need to cover.
If you happen to be less than a few cm away from a RFID reader.
Just give everybody an active radio beacon. Divide the landscape in large "cells" and put a few receivers in each of them. Perhaps we could build a phone in those devices.
I wonder how many sceptics would still oppose cloning research (or genetic research in general) if they knew it could lead to a cure for his/her child. IMO the question if an experiment is ethical or not should be decide by those who are knowledgable enough to judge wisely. And not by a Hollywood-educated, religious fanatical mob.
Or call them and start making an order. But not just any order, make one that would be their biggest of the month (but stay realistic), so the person answering would know this is a very important call.
About half way through, in the middle of a sentence, hang up.
Call back and repeat, be sure to go through all the (numerous) details again and be sure to have the same guy again. Start as understanding, become more annoyed, and then just plain angry tell them you'll call some one else.
Especially when they are paid a percentage of each sale they make, this is going to give them one very bad day.
TV is just a means to make people buy all sorts of crap. And in order to sell they program people to feel unhappy. Or did you think they use those oh so pretty people to make you feel better? Ofcourse not. It's to make you feel unconfortable about your body and want to buy whatever product they sell to be "normal" and "Pretty".
Why do people buy shoes that were made by children in a 3th world country for a few cents each and pay rediculouse prices for them?
If the brand has to pay some popular basketball player millions to wear them, doesn't that say enough?
The name isn't that bad. The bird always got reborn from his ashes. Let's hope that if one of these shuttles ever has a serieus accident, they follow the birds example and build a new one instead a burrowing the project.
Their are plenty of alternative technologies that don't release radiation at all.
Like what?
Oil? Causes air polution. Air polution can cause cancer as well.
Gas? Releases CO and CO2 gas, heats up the planet.
Solar power? If you don't mind living without pretty much all your electric appliances.
Hydropower? Requires to flood an entire valley (if one happens to be available). Alters the local climate.
Wind power? Same as solar power, plus kills birds.
Nuclear power is the closest thing to clean energy currently available that can provide sufficent energy. Learn to live with it, move to a cave or get an engineering degree and find an alternative.
After all, since many women are freely judged by their breast size, why shouldn't men be freely judged by their penis size? After a few generations of this, the stigma attached to penis size should become relatively meaningless
Like the 'stigma' about breast size became meaningless?
We had an NT server and 2 clients per mobile office.
You know, you could have just formated the server and installed Linux or BSD or something. I mean, Windows can be a pain in the lower regions, but blowing up the server with a grenade is a little harsh.
Nanotech isn't going to make everything free without switching to a communisme-like society (the theoreticaly happy one, like Startrek). But it could make things very cheap. Sufficent advanced nanotech factories could be as efficient as biological cells. (creating complex chemicals without any garbage). Combined with fusion it could make cheap fuel, cheap food and cheap thingamabobs.
Even resources aren't an issue. We've got huge piles of resources that are considered so worthless that people would pay you to get rid of it (what would be the value of the contents of one garbage truck? And what would be the value of the same material after it's sorted on a molecular scale?). As soon as nanotech becomes a reality, those landfills are going to be a goldmine.
Fusion fuel isn't going to be a problem either. Most of the planet is covert with water. A lot of this water is heavy water (1 or 2% IIRC), there are huge amounts of lithium too. Should be enough the get us through a century of 2 on cheap fuel.
I would definitly want to see Greenpeace protesting against that one. The standard Greenpeace protest involves chaining themselfs against whatever they are protesting against.
Just picture this:
1) build nuclear launch system.
2) Allow greenpeace hippies to chain themselfs to launch system.
3) Launch system.
4) Annouce the first hippies in space to the world.
Common, you really think the Gods would waste a perfectly good lightning bolt on an unpolite idiot in armor?
Besides it's much more funny to strike the person standing next to the idiot, who's trying to explain the dangers involved.
hmmm, I doubt he would be winning time.
It would take time to remove all those white spaces (from a copy of the source code) and the end product is unreadable source code. So if something gets changed he'll have to remove the white spaces from another copy.
I wonder what would take the most time: Removing all the whitespaces or letting the parser skip them.
Bad solution. Every Darwinist knows how to solve this. Let only the best programmers reproduce. That way we'll be breeding a race of superprogrammers!
And perhaps we could breed some very small furry humans as pets. I'm very sure there is a market for pet-humans as no less than 25% of the Andromedians voted yes on a survey asking if they would spend more than 100 Astrobucks on a pet-human if they would be smaller and less noisy.
I've prepared for the afterlife. I'll be burried with my computers and all my data (My slav..., euh, employees are building my piramid as we speak.). As if I would spend the rest of eternity without a computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Provide cell phone access in the woods*. That would make quite a lot of people traceable, without them suspecting anything.
* Along the tracks at least. Would be very expensive to cover the whole forest.
But those are the two extremes. Utilitarianism would approve of the Hollocause as the number of "good Germans" were much higher than the number of "undermenshen" (sp?)(All those who were procecuted because they weren't Arian, or were gay, or happen to have the "wrong" political views), while the religious extreme would let people die of easy-to-cure illness because "only God decides about live and death".
Let say the real most ethical actions are the once near the center between those two extremes.
If you're willing to let people die because your religion says that the actions needed to heal them are unethical, that's religious fanatisme in my book. Why not? You already let your doctor decide what medication and other threatments you use when you're ill. And nobody would have a problem with that because you know the person has a great deal more knowledge about the matter than you.
Besides this isn't "my" decision. It's a decision that has to be made by society. And in my opinion society should bring together the experts on the matter to make the decision.
Actually, those could be a help to find those who got lost. Consider a track with sensors at various points. Suppose a lost hiker got detected by sensor 5, but not by any of the following, you could assume a circular area around sensor 5 in which the hiker should be. The radius of that circle could be determined because you'll know when he passed that sensor and can approximate a walking speed based on the landscape. It can reduce the area a search and resue operation would need to cover.
If you happen to be less than a few cm away from a RFID reader.
Just give everybody an active radio beacon. Divide the landscape in large "cells" and put a few receivers in each of them. Perhaps we could build a phone in those devices.
I wonder how many sceptics would still oppose cloning research (or genetic research in general) if they knew it could lead to a cure for his/her child. IMO the question if an experiment is ethical or not should be decide by those who are knowledgable enough to judge wisely. And not by a Hollywood-educated, religious fanatical mob.
Or call them and start making an order. But not just any order, make one that would be their biggest of the month (but stay realistic), so the person answering would know this is a very important call.
About half way through, in the middle of a sentence, hang up.
Call back and repeat, be sure to go through all the (numerous) details again and be sure to have the same guy again. Start as understanding, become more annoyed, and then just plain angry tell them you'll call some one else.
Especially when they are paid a percentage of each sale they make, this is going to give them one very bad day.
Or just the opposite: cry; don't get IDed; be considered an illegal alien; get deported to Antartica; get eaten by an icebear.
I think if anyone would cry to prevent this thing to work, they'll give him/her a nice chair at the police office and let them try again later.
TV is just a means to make people buy all sorts of crap. And in order to sell they program people to feel unhappy. Or did you think they use those oh so pretty people to make you feel better? Ofcourse not. It's to make you feel unconfortable about your body and want to buy whatever product they sell to be "normal" and "Pretty".
Why do people buy shoes that were made by children in a 3th world country for a few cents each and pay rediculouse prices for them?
If the brand has to pay some popular basketball player millions to wear them, doesn't that say enough?
Or perhaps They have always been using tin foil hats to program you...
Since you're the only one who noticed that, I presume we can consider the "nobody-reads-the-articles-anyway"-theory as proven.
The name isn't that bad. The bird always got reborn from his ashes. Let's hope that if one of these shuttles ever has a serieus accident, they follow the birds example and build a new one instead a burrowing the project.
Oil? Causes air polution. Air polution can cause cancer as well.
Gas? Releases CO and CO2 gas, heats up the planet.
Solar power? If you don't mind living without pretty much all your electric appliances.
Hydropower? Requires to flood an entire valley (if one happens to be available). Alters the local climate.
Wind power? Same as solar power, plus kills birds.
Nuclear power is the closest thing to clean energy currently available that can provide sufficent energy. Learn to live with it, move to a cave or get an engineering degree and find an alternative.
Nanotech isn't going to make everything free without switching to a communisme-like society (the theoreticaly happy one, like Startrek). But it could make things very cheap. Sufficent advanced nanotech factories could be as efficient as biological cells. (creating complex chemicals without any garbage). Combined with fusion it could make cheap fuel, cheap food and cheap thingamabobs.
Even resources aren't an issue. We've got huge piles of resources that are considered so worthless that people would pay you to get rid of it (what would be the value of the contents of one garbage truck? And what would be the value of the same material after it's sorted on a molecular scale?). As soon as nanotech becomes a reality, those landfills are going to be a goldmine.
Fusion fuel isn't going to be a problem either. Most of the planet is covert with water. A lot of this water is heavy water (1 or 2% IIRC), there are huge amounts of lithium too. Should be enough the get us through a century of 2 on cheap fuel.
I would definitly want to see Greenpeace protesting against that one. The standard Greenpeace protest involves chaining themselfs against whatever they are protesting against.
Just picture this:
1) build nuclear launch system.
2) Allow greenpeace hippies to chain themselfs to launch system.
3) Launch system.
4) Annouce the first hippies in space to the world.
Common, you really think the Gods would waste a perfectly good lightning bolt on an unpolite idiot in armor?
Besides it's much more funny to strike the person standing next to the idiot, who's trying to explain the dangers involved.
600Mhz? And you complain? I would give my neighbours right arm for that!
hmmm, I doubt he would be winning time.
It would take time to remove all those white spaces (from a copy of the source code) and the end product is unreadable source code. So if something gets changed he'll have to remove the white spaces from another copy.
I wonder what would take the most time: Removing all the whitespaces or letting the parser skip them.
And perhaps we could breed some very small furry humans as pets. I'm very sure there is a market for pet-humans as no less than 25% of the Andromedians voted yes on a survey asking if they would spend more than 100 Astrobucks on a pet-human if they would be smaller and less noisy.
Scientific American wrote about a simulare idea like this.
I've prepared for the afterlife. I'll be burried with my computers and all my data (My slav..., euh, employees are building my piramid as we speak.). As if I would spend the rest of eternity without a computer.