The last I heard the most promising AI being developed was being built by a group in Isreal. They had developed learning algorithms and taught their program how to speak by reading it children's books. The idea was to grow the bot and raise it like a real child.
The last I heard a child psychologist couldn't tell the difference between the bot and an actual six year old child.
That was a few years ago and I'm curious if the project is still going or how its working out.
'So, all those historical references I've seen to people living in the Americas in the times of the "Civil War", in the terrorist actions of the Revolutionary War, at the first Thanksgiving meal, and the whole Aztec, Indian and Clovis civilisations ; all of them were allegorical references to populations that could not exist in this continent which was only settled once Henry Ford got his plant going? Come to think of it, that would also imply that losing your driving license for drunk driving is actually a death penalty. Wow, how do your government manage to hide the figures on that?'
Do you actually expect an answer to any of that?
'One day, quite soon, within our lifetimes, hydrocarbon reserves are going to be economically exhausted, and the era of individual personal transportation machines for the masses is going to be ended.'
Hydrocarbon reserves will be exhausted but personal transport will not be. Not in the United States. It would be more feasible to reverse to ride on horseback than to live without personal transport.
Unlike Europe were almost the entire population is grouped together in the cities, in most of the U.S. things are spaced out. It is perhaps 20 miles to the nearest store and maybe 5 or 10 to your neighbor. Of course the bank in turn is 5 miles from the store. Etc.
'I don't think that you actually mentioned 65 as an age limit, but whatever. I take it that you live in an area of America where the blind and the congenitally retarded, the "legless, the armless, the blind and insane" (to quote a song about the returning war heroes of Gallipoli), are all carefully caged up, out of the sight, mind and consideration of the "Real People".'
Actually I did mention 65, again because that is the standard retirement age. People over 65 generally do not need to drive back and forth to work every day.
I fail to see the relevance of caging the handicapped to the discussion at hand. If you are handicapped and can't drive with assistance you wouldn't have passed your test in the first place. If you become handicapped in some fashion later then it will likely show when you go to renew your license at the normal intervals (5yrs in most states). The blind in particular will have a tough time passing the vision test.
Those who are handicapped and can't drive, or who have had their drivers licenses revoked are dependent on others to get from place to place. I've known a few people who have had their licenses revoked for drunk driving and life is very hard for them. They have to live in close proximity to a store and rely on friends for transport to and from work each day.
'There is a LOT more to driving a car than pushing a "pedal".'
Not physically there isn't and we are talking about decreased physical capacity to operate the vehicle.
'Which is why my wife, coming to Britain with a full driving license and a few thousand miles of driving under it, is absolutely petrified of driving in this country.'
That sounds like simple inexperience. I am 27 years old and started driving late (18 rather than 15 like most Americans). Compared to most I don't do a lot of driving but I have over 500,000 miles of driving experience based on my personal vehicle odometers. I don't really take long trips, so pretty much all of that is in town driving. And of course, as an on-site computer technician I drive all day long in a work vehicle and I'm not counting that.
'Three quick questions for you : do you have a full car license, or are you restricted to automatic-transmission vehicles (I think the American idiom is "non-stick shift")? How do you feel when you're driving an American-design car "on the other side of the road", when you visit your neighbouring countries? which do you find easier to navigate - 5-way traffic light systems (and larger) or the corresponding 5+entry roundabouts?'
I have an unrestricted license. Even my vision restriction has been removed now because I had Lasik surgery to fix my eyes.
'If FOSS's goal is simply collective itch-scratching, OK. Don't expect to be relevant to anyone outside a closed community.'
FOSS has been working that way for decades and I'd dare say its fairly relevant outside a closed community.
It's not a question of listening, its a question of prioritizing. There are only so many hours in the day and developers can only work on so much. They have to choose and just like anyone else, they are going to choose to spend that time working on their concerns and not yours.
If you are a developer contributing to their project or even another project then your concerns are a higher priority.
If you help with documentation, again your concerns are higher priority.
If you are paying them, then your concerns ARE their concerns.
If you are some random guy who contributes nothing to their project or even a project they use then you are just a freeloader and your concerns are of the lowest priority.
That doesn't mean you get no voice. If you are bright, you'll use a paid distribution and present your concerns to them. You paid them, your concerns are higher priority to them. Their concerns in turn are likely of much higher priority to the developers of the project in question.
Nothing is in stasis. The system works well, with things becoming more and more stable and user friendly every day.
'Just don't expect outsiders to take Open Source that's done that way seriously.'
Pretty much all open source works that way.
It seems to work out much better than closed source. Your little bug crashes YOUR computer. Vista crashes millions. The major commercial Anti-Virus apps trash half the systems they are installed on.
'If we're content with small closed communities that play only to themselves, that's a perfectly valid goal. It's a lot easier, certainly. You get it the way you want and basically enter stasis.'
No, that is the result of refusing to accept patches. Suggest that someone take the initiative for something they want is simply choosing not to be someone elses bitch.
If I get myself some tea and offer to fill your glass while I'm at it and you tell me you want milk instead I'll tell you fetch it yourself. The same is true when I scratch my software itch.
If you want a feature the developers aren't interested in and they invite you to submit a patch, that is an opportunity. Contribute in some way, hire a developer to work on gimp. Appeal to some of the corporate paid developers who DO have the goal of mass adoption. Hell, write some documentation for the project and you are more likely to get a slice of developer attention.
Some projects like bzflag might well be in stasis. It could be for many reasons but its not for asking people to contribute their fair share. More likely it is because they don't want the features in question and they aren't about to accept your patches at all!
'To use your road analogy you can't stand on the side of the road and flash children as they go by either.'
We are discussing content viewed privately in the home, not content viewed publicly. The only change you made to my road analogy was to make it no longer analogue to the topic at hand.
Both are examples of peoples moral codes impeding upon the legal process. Both are excellent examples of why moral views do NOT legislating behavior.
'Many items we seem to easily agree upon (morally) and laws are easily made.'
There have been such laws. One by one they are removed from the books or revised. Unfortunately moral judgement can cloud the minds of legislatures, as well as the population at large. Other laws that have been made include laws regarding slavery, indentured service, many laws in the jim jones south. Do you suggest that these laws were ever appropriate?
Simply because something is on the books does not mean it should be a law or is moral justified or even agreed upon. It isn't as if lawmakers ACTUALLY represent their constituents.
'If it's wrong but there is no moral underpinning behind that conclusion, how do you know it is wrong?'
If something is 'wrong' there will be a practical reason. A simple one that covers most action is that building a positive report with others tends to improve your chances for success in life. Many systems are unworkable without agreed rules of behavior.
A simple example. I worked at a place with a fridge in the breakroom. In the fridge there were cases of soda and a little cup. If you took a soda you put a quarter in the cup, this worked on the honor system. Why didn't you steal sodas? Because there wouldn't be enough money to buy more soda if you did. No moral code required, just a simple selfish desire for readily available cold drinks.
If the moralists say its wrong but there is no practical underpinning for that belief, they are incorrect.
If you want to get philosophical, technically humans and even the entire species are insignificant, let alone our individual actions. In a billion years our existence won't even have mattered. The universe won't care, but you might.
'You need to take some classes in law, ethics, and philosophy.'
Been there, done that.
'You are obvously on the side of argument that there are no moral absolutes.'
You say that as if there is a legitimate debate ongoing. Short of invoking an invisible man there is only one side to the debate.
'This is where morals are argued over until laws (common understanding of the morals) are agreed upon and enforced.'
False. Laws and morals are separate issues. There are no shortage of blatantly immoral actions that are specifically allowed by law (as opposed to merely not being legislated against).
'As near as I can tell there are only a few things you can't have in the privacy of your own home.'
Television, Radio, and Internet are all things that are viewed in the privacy of your own home. Unlike the billboard that you have to cover your childs eyes from, you or your child have to request the content in some form.
'I have no problem with this in public spaces over public transports, etc... When I think we need to worry about it is when they do it in the home which is where those things belong and should be allowed.'
I do. The right to free speech overrides the 'moral majority' and what YOU like. That said, we are talking about content that is viewed in the home, not public content. Internet access is just the road, the website is a private establishment like an adult club or a bookstore. You aren't talking about not allowing me to flash children as I drive by, you are talking about preventing me from using public roads to go to private clubs.
'Those would be laws, those would be censored, and the moral majority has decided that's the way they like it.'
Any law in violation of the Constitution is neither legal nor applicable. The Constitution is the HIGHEST law of the land. Any enforcement of a law that breaks it is a crime in itself.
'Your accountant doesn't tell you to fix your own damn tax problem, the mechanic doesn't derisively laugh because you don't know how to re-gap your own spark plugs,'
If I were an accountant or a mechanic and you didn't pay me you best your arse I'd tell you where you can stick your tax problem and spark plugs.
In the commercial software world, the interface is being designed for you with the intention of making it appealing to you. In the FOSS world the interface is being designed for the developer, who is writing the software for their own use. Not for random other people who are freeloading on the project.
If you don't like something about the project, you are welcome to A) Try to convince someone on the project of your point (and they still might not be willing to do the work for you) B) Write a patch and fork your change if those working on the project don't agree or C) Pay someone to do B for you, maybe even the developers.
That would be feature that adds function not aesthetics. If anything OO.org's interface is MORE functional than MS Office. Especially the new 'improved' office interface.
First they find the monogomy gene and then they find the baldness gene. How much longer before women insist on genetic pre-screening before they put out?
Someone else made the same claim that laws exist to enforce morality. That is a misconception. The constitutional laws (as opposed to unconstitutional statutes made by the FCC, some by the IRS, etc) that appear to exist to enforce a moral code actually exist to protect members of society from one another.
Although the choice to do so is a moral one, that choice is the basis for having a society at all. Without that and only that moral choice you have chosen anarchy which is fine. Unfortunately in anarchy the strongest imposes his rule upon the weaker and Mr. Society is stronger than Mr. Anarchist.
'But if you're advocating that books containing images of sodomized midgets should be available in public elementary schools I think you're going to find that not too many people outside of a small set of individuals is going to agree with you.'
If you mean do I suggest said books should be in the library then of course not. Unless there were some sort of education value no book should be in the library at school. That doesn't mean books should be banned in schools either.
For example, while attending Effingham High School in Illinois I brought a copy of the Satanic Bible by Anton Levy to study hall to read. Prior to that it was the Koran, and prior to that it was the King James Bible. I was sent to the office and book was confiscated and I was advised that it was inappropriate. Naturally, the following day I returned with a copy. Again, I found myself in the Vice Principal's office. I explained that this was my religion and the school had no right to prevent me from studying and practicing it. Again the book was confiscated.
The third time, it was the principal and not the vp that I spoke to. I advised the principal that so long as the school library contained christian bibles I was not about to allow anyone to prevent me from bringing the religious materials of any religion to school. I was expelled from school. The justification was that the Satanic Bible is on the states list of banned books. Christian Bibles remain in the school library to this day and are the only religious books in the collection.
'I think you're going to find that not too many people outside of a small set of individuals is going to agree with you.''
There is another way to say majority rule, it is mob rule.
That is the reason we have both a house and a senate, to ensure the will of the majority of the population is not the definition of law. The majority are ignorant, poorly educated, I dare say stupid, and as a rule are not qualified to have opinions on most matters.
Of course the senate just helps to secure the position of the wealthy elite rather than the competent elite but that is another debate altogether;)
'That and, well, I don't really see this as censorship as one can get HBO, Cinemax, etc and we certainly have the chance to get internet at home which is still mostly unfiltered.'
The existence of uncensored content does not justify government censorship.
It's not illegal to kill someone in this country. It's illegal to kill someone in states that have laws against murder.
'Why? Its morally wrong.'
Where states have passed laws against murder it is because they have an obligation to protect the citizens. Not due to someones code of morality.
'Its illegal to scam someone of money. Why?'
Again because it is the duty of the government to protect citizens from each other.
'When subject ourselves to a government and desire laws that help provide a common morality for us to live in.'
False. We subject ourselves to a government to pool our resources and strength in order to protect the weaker members of society from the stronger. Morality is not at play beyond the moral choice of a society over anarchy. Even the anarchists are allowed, they simply aren't strong enough to oppose the society.
'Should the government help provide control over what people can do and can't do. They have to!!!'
That is the duty of state and local governments not the federal government. The federal government exists to disputes between states and negotiate with foreign powers.
Even the state and local governments should impose upon the population to no greater extent than is needed to protect it. And by protection I mean financial and physical protection only, not moral, or protection of 'sensibilities'.
Censorship protects nobody, least of all the children used to justify it in this case.
'If you want the real reaction (I'd suggest you be prepared for violence) instead of asking the parents of the kids there at the store, ask their children while the parents are there within earshot.'
There is something of a difference between exposing the children to the material (not that children aren't already exposed regularly by their friends regardless of the parents wishes) and making the material available to adults who wish to view it.
First of all, all of those things are already censored on cable. Second, of course they don't want to have to expend 10 seconds of effort to program the content blocking on their TV. Why should that equate to ignoring the constitution? If people would rather trade freedom of speech for the time it takes to program the v-chip in their TV then there is a method to amend the constitution.
The sad thing is, if pitched correctly I could see people doing it.
'so unless the FCC head has ties with a particular company that is looking to buy this spectrum'
They do, the FCC board has enjoyed the solicitation of a few major communications companies since the beginning. In many ways, that is the only reason we are still stuck with the FCC.
'Prohibition of a type of content via a single method does not equal censorship. '
Yes, actually prohibition of a type of content via any method does in fact equal censorship. Also your examples are terrible, cable is censored; books are banned in schools; magazines are regulated.
'It equals an implied morality for a public space'
The problem with attempting to do so is that morality is an individual and subjective thing. What is immoral for me may be moral for you and vice versa. There are NO agreed upon codes of morality. What is worse is that morality is often tied to religious values and that is another legislative no no.
'sort of like you can't legally have open sex at a public park even if you think you're doing so equals you saying something important.'
Even if that view were constitutional it still relies upon the fact that others walking through the park have no choice but to view the display. The same is not true of tv where you must buy a device and explicitly tune into a given channel, nor of radio where the same is true (you can't HEAR the airwaves bounced around everywhere without doing so), and is even less true of the internet where there isn't even a dial. You actually have to intentionally pull up content on the internet.
If an adult wants to use to the internet to browse images of sodomizing midgets that is his/her choice and not the FCC's. There is more than adequate censorship software available for parents to install on their family's computers.
'Free broadband is essentially the same as broadcast TV.'
And as with TV and Radio they are a violation of the rights of the citizens. It is neither the pejorative nor the right of government to attempt to legislate morality upon the people. Or to censor what they may say or hear in any fashion.
We have a right to free speech. Nobody is forced to tune to a radio station, a tv, or to pull up a given website.
'Well, we had to push her really hard to get a provisional license, take lessons, and eventually pass her test in her late 40's, but it was almost impossible to get her to drive.'
Apparently we live in entirely different worlds. It is not possible for someone of any age to function independently in the United States without driving outside a few metropolitan exceptions. Things are simply too far apart.
That is the reason the elderly here fight so strongly to retain their drivers license despite the fact that they are dangerous to themselves and others. For them, its about their freedom and independence. Without that drivers license they are forced to use special pay per use shuttles (if they qualify) or ask friends and/or relatives to drive them everywhere they wish to go. Even if there is public transportation of some sort available where they are, the elderly can't typically walk the several miles between the destinations and the stops.
My choice of age 65 was not arbitrary. 65 is the typical retirement age here in the United States. Mostly, people retire at 65 because their bodies don't function well enough to work anymore at this age. I've never seen someone who was mentally or physically impaired below the age of 65 who couldn't manage to physically operate a motor vehicle. By age 70 that level of physical and mental capacity is the exception rather than the rule.
'Oh, you intended to say "everyone BUT ME is a dangerous driver, and needs to be re-tested regularly" ?'
No I said, everyone who is of an age where their age is likely to have impaired their driving ability should be tested regularly. In the same token everyone in a motor vehicle accident should be retested regardless of age. But regardless of how you want to paint the picture there comes an age where age itself is a likely cause of impairment.
'Looking at the ages of successful athletes, probably in the early 20s.'
I'm fairly sure there is a performance level gap between achieving optimum speed in running a marathon and being able to push a peddle.
I do on the other hand feel that driving tests should include reaction and hearing tests the first time you take them as well instead of merely checking vision.
'What part of " I'm referring to true geniuses such as Newton and Einstein, not those who fall into an arbitrary statistical IQ region" did you fail to understand? I was very specific about this, because nobody knows what the IQ of historic geniuses was, so the claim that certain IQ test scores are "genius level" is unscientific balderdash.'
The part where you do not get to define what is or is not a genius. The idea that famous historic figures define genius is ridiculous. I never said anything about IQ level genius, I said there are millions of geniuses in the world.
'I see a straw man emerging here, because _my entire line of argument_ was that intelligence (and genius, which is more than simply intelligence) is something people are born with, and it was you who claimed otherwise.'
It would appear that you are making the strawman. Your argument needs legs to stand on, your legs were faulty. You attempted to prove your points with questions, those questions relied on faulty assumptions about what intelligence is and how it would have to impacted by an environment. Based on those faulty questions you rested your case that intelligence is not based upon environment. Why on earth would I bother attacking your conclusion when it has no foundation?
'I fail to see what relevance this has to intelligence, because there's no evidence to suggest that (for example) a person is more intelligent when they're two years old than at sixteen, so the fact that they learned new things more quickly when they were two is a non-point.'
You aren't making any sense. But of course you can't be because you are wrong. There is plenty of evidence that a person learns more slowly when they are 60 than when they are two (or 16). Learning more slowly by pretty much any definition is less intelligent.
Again, since we all have similar numbers of neurons to work with, it is how efficiently we utilize those neurons that determines intelligence. Neurons are not fixed, but reorganized into chains that can be more or less efficient based on life experience.
Slashdot Mirror
That crashed pretty quick, only 8 comments and the site is already down.
I want pretty pictures damnit!!!
The last I heard the most promising AI being developed was being built by a group in Isreal. They had developed learning algorithms and taught their program how to speak by reading it children's books. The idea was to grow the bot and raise it like a real child.
The last I heard a child psychologist couldn't tell the difference between the bot and an actual six year old child.
That was a few years ago and I'm curious if the project is still going or how its working out.
Sorry but sex with men is disgusting, no matter what your gender.
'So, all those historical references I've seen to people living in the Americas in the times of the "Civil War", in the terrorist actions of the Revolutionary War, at the first Thanksgiving meal, and the whole Aztec, Indian and Clovis civilisations ; all of them were allegorical references to populations that could not exist in this continent which was only settled once Henry Ford got his plant going?
Come to think of it, that would also imply that losing your driving license for drunk driving is actually a death penalty. Wow, how do your government manage to hide the figures on that?'
Do you actually expect an answer to any of that?
'One day, quite soon, within our lifetimes, hydrocarbon reserves are going to be economically exhausted, and the era of individual personal transportation machines for the masses is going to be ended.'
Hydrocarbon reserves will be exhausted but personal transport will not be. Not in the United States. It would be more feasible to reverse to ride on horseback than to live without personal transport.
Unlike Europe were almost the entire population is grouped together in the cities, in most of the U.S. things are spaced out. It is perhaps 20 miles to the nearest store and maybe 5 or 10 to your neighbor. Of course the bank in turn is 5 miles from the store. Etc.
'I don't think that you actually mentioned 65 as an age limit, but whatever. I take it that you live in an area of America where the blind and the congenitally retarded, the "legless, the armless, the blind and insane" (to quote a song about the returning war heroes of Gallipoli), are all carefully caged up, out of the sight, mind and consideration of the "Real People".'
Actually I did mention 65, again because that is the standard retirement age. People over 65 generally do not need to drive back and forth to work every day.
I fail to see the relevance of caging the handicapped to the discussion at hand. If you are handicapped and can't drive with assistance you wouldn't have passed your test in the first place. If you become handicapped in some fashion later then it will likely show when you go to renew your license at the normal intervals (5yrs in most states). The blind in particular will have a tough time passing the vision test.
Those who are handicapped and can't drive, or who have had their drivers licenses revoked are dependent on others to get from place to place. I've known a few people who have had their licenses revoked for drunk driving and life is very hard for them. They have to live in close proximity to a store and rely on friends for transport to and from work each day.
'There is a LOT more to driving a car than pushing a "pedal".'
Not physically there isn't and we are talking about decreased physical capacity to operate the vehicle.
'Which is why my wife, coming to Britain with a full driving license and a few thousand miles of driving under it, is absolutely petrified of driving in this country.'
That sounds like simple inexperience. I am 27 years old and started driving late (18 rather than 15 like most Americans). Compared to most I don't do a lot of driving but I have over 500,000 miles of driving experience based on my personal vehicle odometers. I don't really take long trips, so pretty much all of that is in town driving. And of course, as an on-site computer technician I drive all day long in a work vehicle and I'm not counting that.
'Three quick questions for you : do you have a full car license, or are you restricted to automatic-transmission vehicles (I think the American idiom is "non-stick shift")? How do you feel when you're driving an American-design car "on the other side of the road", when you visit your neighbouring countries? which do you find easier to navigate - 5-way traffic light systems (and larger) or the corresponding 5+entry roundabouts?'
I have an unrestricted license. Even my vision restriction has been removed now because I had Lasik surgery to fix my eyes.
I have never been outside the United
'If FOSS's goal is simply collective itch-scratching, OK. Don't expect to be relevant to anyone outside a closed community.'
FOSS has been working that way for decades and I'd dare say its fairly relevant outside a closed community.
It's not a question of listening, its a question of prioritizing. There are only so many hours in the day and developers can only work on so much. They have to choose and just like anyone else, they are going to choose to spend that time working on their concerns and not yours.
If you are a developer contributing to their project or even another project then your concerns are a higher priority.
If you help with documentation, again your concerns are higher priority.
If you are paying them, then your concerns ARE their concerns.
If you are some random guy who contributes nothing to their project or even a project they use then you are just a freeloader and your concerns are of the lowest priority.
That doesn't mean you get no voice. If you are bright, you'll use a paid distribution and present your concerns to them. You paid them, your concerns are higher priority to them. Their concerns in turn are likely of much higher priority to the developers of the project in question.
Nothing is in stasis. The system works well, with things becoming more and more stable and user friendly every day.
'Just don't expect outsiders to take Open Source that's done that way seriously.'
Pretty much all open source works that way.
It seems to work out much better than closed source. Your little bug crashes YOUR computer. Vista crashes millions. The major commercial Anti-Virus apps trash half the systems they are installed on.
Oh great, a new troll
'If we're content with small closed communities that play only to themselves, that's a perfectly valid goal. It's a lot easier, certainly. You get it the way you want and basically enter stasis.'
No, that is the result of refusing to accept patches. Suggest that someone take the initiative for something they want is simply choosing not to be someone elses bitch.
If I get myself some tea and offer to fill your glass while I'm at it and you tell me you want milk instead I'll tell you fetch it yourself. The same is true when I scratch my software itch.
If you want a feature the developers aren't interested in and they invite you to submit a patch, that is an opportunity. Contribute in some way, hire a developer to work on gimp. Appeal to some of the corporate paid developers who DO have the goal of mass adoption. Hell, write some documentation for the project and you are more likely to get a slice of developer attention.
Some projects like bzflag might well be in stasis. It could be for many reasons but its not for asking people to contribute their fair share. More likely it is because they don't want the features in question and they aren't about to accept your patches at all!
'To use your road analogy you can't stand on the side of the road and flash children as they go by either.'
We are discussing content viewed privately in the home, not content viewed publicly. The only change you made to my road analogy was to make it no longer analogue to the topic at hand.
'Abortion and gay marriage.'
Both are examples of peoples moral codes impeding upon the legal process. Both are excellent examples of why moral views do NOT legislating behavior.
'Many items we seem to easily agree upon (morally) and laws are easily made.'
There have been such laws. One by one they are removed from the books or revised. Unfortunately moral judgement can cloud the minds of legislatures, as well as the population at large. Other laws that have been made include laws regarding slavery, indentured service, many laws in the jim jones south. Do you suggest that these laws were ever appropriate?
Simply because something is on the books does not mean it should be a law or is moral justified or even agreed upon. It isn't as if lawmakers ACTUALLY represent their constituents.
'If it's wrong but there is no moral underpinning behind that conclusion, how do you know it is wrong?'
If something is 'wrong' there will be a practical reason. A simple one that covers most action is that building a positive report with others tends to improve your chances for success in life. Many systems are unworkable without agreed rules of behavior.
A simple example. I worked at a place with a fridge in the breakroom. In the fridge there were cases of soda and a little cup. If you took a soda you put a quarter in the cup, this worked on the honor system. Why didn't you steal sodas? Because there wouldn't be enough money to buy more soda if you did. No moral code required, just a simple selfish desire for readily available cold drinks.
If the moralists say its wrong but there is no practical underpinning for that belief, they are incorrect.
If you want to get philosophical, technically humans and even the entire species are insignificant, let alone our individual actions. In a billion years our existence won't even have mattered. The universe won't care, but you might.
'You need to take some classes in law, ethics, and philosophy.'
Been there, done that.
'You are obvously on the side of argument that there are no moral absolutes.'
You say that as if there is a legitimate debate ongoing. Short of invoking an invisible man there is only one side to the debate.
'This is where morals are argued over until laws (common understanding of the morals) are agreed upon and enforced.'
False. Laws and morals are separate issues. There are no shortage of blatantly immoral actions that are specifically allowed by law (as opposed to merely not being legislated against).
"Says whom?"
The Constitution of the United States of America.
'As near as I can tell there are only a few things you can't have in the privacy of your own home.'
Television, Radio, and Internet are all things that are viewed in the privacy of your own home. Unlike the billboard that you have to cover your childs eyes from, you or your child have to request the content in some form.
'I have no problem with this in public spaces over public transports, etc... When I think we need to worry about it is when they do it in the home which is where those things belong and should be allowed.'
I do. The right to free speech overrides the 'moral majority' and what YOU like. That said, we are talking about content that is viewed in the home, not public content. Internet access is just the road, the website is a private establishment like an adult club or a bookstore. You aren't talking about not allowing me to flash children as I drive by, you are talking about preventing me from using public roads to go to private clubs.
'Those would be laws, those would be censored, and the moral majority has decided that's the way they like it.'
Any law in violation of the Constitution is neither legal nor applicable. The Constitution is the HIGHEST law of the land. Any enforcement of a law that breaks it is a crime in itself.
FF3 is a dramatic improvement over FF2. The memory leak issues are finally fixed entirely. The browser is stable and extremely fast.
I'm an on-site tech and install FF3 on varied configurations and systems dozens of times a day. Whatever you experienced it was local to your machine.
'Your accountant doesn't tell you to fix your own damn tax problem, the mechanic doesn't derisively laugh because you don't know how to re-gap your own spark plugs,'
If I were an accountant or a mechanic and you didn't pay me you best your arse I'd tell you where you can stick your tax problem and spark plugs.
In the commercial software world, the interface is being designed for you with the intention of making it appealing to you. In the FOSS world the interface is being designed for the developer, who is writing the software for their own use. Not for random other people who are freeloading on the project.
If you don't like something about the project, you are welcome to A) Try to convince someone on the project of your point (and they still might not be willing to do the work for you) B) Write a patch and fork your change if those working on the project don't agree or C) Pay someone to do B for you, maybe even the developers.
Beggars can't be choosers.
That would be feature that adds function not aesthetics. If anything OO.org's interface is MORE functional than MS Office. Especially the new 'improved' office interface.
How many morons were actually using wifi on business networks anyway?
First they find the monogomy gene and then they find the baldness gene. How much longer before women insist on genetic pre-screening before they put out?
Someone else made the same claim that laws exist to enforce morality. That is a misconception. The constitutional laws (as opposed to unconstitutional statutes made by the FCC, some by the IRS, etc) that appear to exist to enforce a moral code actually exist to protect members of society from one another.
Although the choice to do so is a moral one, that choice is the basis for having a society at all. Without that and only that moral choice you have chosen anarchy which is fine. Unfortunately in anarchy the strongest imposes his rule upon the weaker and Mr. Society is stronger than Mr. Anarchist.
I answered someone else on the same issue here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=992943&cid=25347479
'But if you're advocating that books containing images of sodomized midgets should be available in public elementary schools I think you're going to find that not too many people outside of a small set of individuals is going to agree with you.'
If you mean do I suggest said books should be in the library then of course not. Unless there were some sort of education value no book should be in the library at school. That doesn't mean books should be banned in schools either.
For example, while attending Effingham High School in Illinois I brought a copy of the Satanic Bible by Anton Levy to study hall to read. Prior to that it was the Koran, and prior to that it was the King James Bible. I was sent to the office and book was confiscated and I was advised that it was inappropriate. Naturally, the following day I returned with a copy. Again, I found myself in the Vice Principal's office. I explained that this was my religion and the school had no right to prevent me from studying and practicing it. Again the book was confiscated.
The third time, it was the principal and not the vp that I spoke to. I advised the principal that so long as the school library contained christian bibles I was not about to allow anyone to prevent me from bringing the religious materials of any religion to school. I was expelled from school. The justification was that the Satanic Bible is on the states list of banned books. Christian Bibles remain in the school library to this day and are the only religious books in the collection.
'I think you're going to find that not too many people outside of a small set of individuals is going to agree with you.''
There is another way to say majority rule, it is mob rule.
That is the reason we have both a house and a senate, to ensure the will of the majority of the population is not the definition of law. The majority are ignorant, poorly educated, I dare say stupid, and as a rule are not qualified to have opinions on most matters.
Of course the senate just helps to secure the position of the wealthy elite rather than the competent elite but that is another debate altogether ;)
'That and, well, I don't really see this as censorship as one can get HBO, Cinemax, etc and we certainly have the chance to get internet at home which is still mostly unfiltered.'
The existence of uncensored content does not justify government censorship.
'Its illegal to kill someone in this country. '
It's not illegal to kill someone in this country. It's illegal to kill someone in states that have laws against murder.
'Why? Its morally wrong.'
Where states have passed laws against murder it is because they have an obligation to protect the citizens. Not due to someones code of morality.
'Its illegal to scam someone of money. Why?'
Again because it is the duty of the government to protect citizens from each other.
'When subject ourselves to a government and desire laws that help provide a common morality for us to live in.'
False. We subject ourselves to a government to pool our resources and strength in order to protect the weaker members of society from the stronger. Morality is not at play beyond the moral choice of a society over anarchy. Even the anarchists are allowed, they simply aren't strong enough to oppose the society.
'Should the government help provide control over what people can do and can't do. They have to!!!'
That is the duty of state and local governments not the federal government. The federal government exists to disputes between states and negotiate with foreign powers.
Even the state and local governments should impose upon the population to no greater extent than is needed to protect it. And by protection I mean financial and physical protection only, not moral, or protection of 'sensibilities'.
Censorship protects nobody, least of all the children used to justify it in this case.
'If you want the real reaction (I'd suggest you be prepared for violence) instead of asking the parents of the kids there at the store, ask their children while the parents are there within earshot.'
There is something of a difference between exposing the children to the material (not that children aren't already exposed regularly by their friends regardless of the parents wishes) and making the material available to adults who wish to view it.
First of all, all of those things are already censored on cable. Second, of course they don't want to have to expend 10 seconds of effort to program the content blocking on their TV. Why should that equate to ignoring the constitution? If people would rather trade freedom of speech for the time it takes to program the v-chip in their TV then there is a method to amend the constitution.
The sad thing is, if pitched correctly I could see people doing it.
'so unless the FCC head has ties with a particular company that is looking to buy this spectrum'
They do, the FCC board has enjoyed the solicitation of a few major communications companies since the beginning. In many ways, that is the only reason we are still stuck with the FCC.
'Prohibition of a type of content via a single method does not equal censorship. '
Yes, actually prohibition of a type of content via any method does in fact equal censorship. Also your examples are terrible, cable is censored; books are banned in schools; magazines are regulated.
'It equals an implied morality for a public space'
The problem with attempting to do so is that morality is an individual and subjective thing. What is immoral for me may be moral for you and vice versa. There are NO agreed upon codes of morality. What is worse is that morality is often tied to religious values and that is another legislative no no.
'sort of like you can't legally have open sex at a public park even if you think you're doing so equals you saying something important.'
Even if that view were constitutional it still relies upon the fact that others walking through the park have no choice but to view the display. The same is not true of tv where you must buy a device and explicitly tune into a given channel, nor of radio where the same is true (you can't HEAR the airwaves bounced around everywhere without doing so), and is even less true of the internet where there isn't even a dial. You actually have to intentionally pull up content on the internet.
If an adult wants to use to the internet to browse images of sodomizing midgets that is his/her choice and not the FCC's. There is more than adequate censorship software available for parents to install on their family's computers.
'Free broadband is essentially the same as broadcast TV.'
And as with TV and Radio they are a violation of the rights of the citizens. It is neither the pejorative nor the right of government to attempt to legislate morality upon the people. Or to censor what they may say or hear in any fashion.
We have a right to free speech. Nobody is forced to tune to a radio station, a tv, or to pull up a given website.
'Well, we had to push her really hard to get a provisional license, take lessons, and eventually pass her test in her late 40's, but it was almost impossible to get her to drive.'
Apparently we live in entirely different worlds. It is not possible for someone of any age to function independently in the United States without driving outside a few metropolitan exceptions. Things are simply too far apart.
That is the reason the elderly here fight so strongly to retain their drivers license despite the fact that they are dangerous to themselves and others. For them, its about their freedom and independence. Without that drivers license they are forced to use special pay per use shuttles (if they qualify) or ask friends and/or relatives to drive them everywhere they wish to go. Even if there is public transportation of some sort available where they are, the elderly can't typically walk the several miles between the destinations and the stops.
My choice of age 65 was not arbitrary. 65 is the typical retirement age here in the United States. Mostly, people retire at 65 because their bodies don't function well enough to work anymore at this age. I've never seen someone who was mentally or physically impaired below the age of 65 who couldn't manage to physically operate a motor vehicle. By age 70 that level of physical and mental capacity is the exception rather than the rule.
'Oh, you intended to say "everyone BUT ME is a dangerous driver, and needs to be re-tested regularly" ?'
No I said, everyone who is of an age where their age is likely to have impaired their driving ability should be tested regularly. In the same token everyone in a motor vehicle accident should be retested regardless of age. But regardless of how you want to paint the picture there comes an age where age itself is a likely cause of impairment.
'Looking at the ages of successful athletes, probably in the early 20s.'
I'm fairly sure there is a performance level gap between achieving optimum speed in running a marathon and being able to push a peddle.
I do on the other hand feel that driving tests should include reaction and hearing tests the first time you take them as well instead of merely checking vision.
'What part of " I'm referring to true geniuses such as Newton and Einstein, not those who fall into an arbitrary statistical IQ region" did you fail to understand? I was very specific about this, because nobody knows what the IQ of historic geniuses was, so the claim that certain IQ test scores are "genius level" is unscientific balderdash.'
The part where you do not get to define what is or is not a genius. The idea that famous historic figures define genius is ridiculous. I never said anything about IQ level genius, I said there are millions of geniuses in the world.
'I see a straw man emerging here, because _my entire line of argument_ was that intelligence (and genius, which is more than simply intelligence) is something people are born with, and it was you who claimed otherwise.'
It would appear that you are making the strawman. Your argument needs legs to stand on, your legs were faulty. You attempted to prove your points with questions, those questions relied on faulty assumptions about what intelligence is and how it would have to impacted by an environment. Based on those faulty questions you rested your case that intelligence is not based upon environment. Why on earth would I bother attacking your conclusion when it has no foundation?
'I fail to see what relevance this has to intelligence, because there's no evidence to suggest that (for example) a person is more intelligent when they're two years old than at sixteen, so the fact that they learned new things more quickly when they were two is a non-point.'
You aren't making any sense. But of course you can't be because you are wrong. There is plenty of evidence that a person learns more slowly when they are 60 than when they are two (or 16). Learning more slowly by pretty much any definition is less intelligent.
Again, since we all have similar numbers of neurons to work with, it is how efficiently we utilize those neurons that determines intelligence. Neurons are not fixed, but reorganized into chains that can be more or less efficient based on life experience.