that doesn't promote some sort of socialist mindset? Yes, of course, the innovator is no one. He owes the work of his mind to the society and other people who made his innovation possible. Sure, sure. The individual is nothing and contributing to society is the only noble reason for living. What a bunch of nonsense! Innovation comes from two sources: wondering of the curious and gradually developed vision of forward-planning. The first is instant the latter is painstaking and slow. It is Mozart vs Salieri, if you will. And while the Salieri's make innovation useful, without the Mozarts it would never be possible. Standing on the shoulders of giants is important, but to say that it is all that matters when it comes to innovation is to refuse to acknowledge that innovation takes standing taller than anyone has stood before.
He is about as isolationist as Germany, Japan, France, Italy, etc. He doesn't want to police the world. He never gave a speech in which he didn't mention that he wants to have an active and open trade with the rest of the world. If it works for the rest of the industrialized world, why is it isolationist if we propose that we do it as well?
I am participating already, but thank you for your kind invitation. The invitation was to leave us the people of reason alone and go back to the woods which you so much espouse. We use mother nature as a row material. We mend it according to our will as we see fit. If you don't like what we create, you, again, are invite not to participate in the products of our creation. You can start by abandoning the utility of all platics.... your keyboard, for instance.
We cannot defy mother nature, and if we do it will kill us (YOU), like it would have unless we learn how to COPE with it. Nope, I refuse to. And so do you. You just don't want to admit it. It is "natural" to let your body fight a disease or let the disease best you. And yet we use our reason to build chemicals that don't naturally occur to fight the disease. It is just as natural to freeze when it is cold, and yet we cover our bodies with cloth and builds caves which do not occur naturally. We heat and cool them to suit our comforts. We build communication devices that let convey information at speeds we could convey through the means which mother nature provides. Mother nature is random, arbitrary and therefore unneccessarily cruel. We will continue to best it. You are welcome not to participate.
Internet (DARPA financed, yes, but not government regulated), cars (the government actually fought against them because they "dostroyed jobs" in the horse breeding industry), etc. More specifically, look at the evolution of technologies used on the internet itself. It started out with plain html, but the market forces produced CGI fairly quickly, and then the client side vs server side processing got hashed and rehashed by the utility vs availability again in the market place. If the government was on the case, we'd have standards bodies regulating what percentage of a sight must be in jsp and what percentage must be in ajax. Same is true for non-prescription drugs (yes, drugs are a technology). The most effective cold medicines and allergy medicines are used because they work -- not because they've been tested and approved to work by the FDA. Now look at the DRM vs copyright vs freely available mp3s. The only ones benefitting from a government beaurcracy overseeing the rules by which the music can be copied are the other beuracrats. Artists only make money on concerts (studios make most of the money on CDs). And the best way to promote your concerts? Let your fans share your mp3s. Speaking of technology, NYC subway system was first developed privately and in secret because the government was against it. Of course, it went bancrupt when all trains did -- when the government subsidized the car industry by creating the free interstate system. Segways (probably the single most effective way to improve quality of life in NYC) are still illegal in NYC. Why? I would say cronyism, but who am I to make a statement that doesn't shill against big business and sing "kumbaya" while trying to help the poor. Go ahead, hit troll -- I know you hate me. Just remember that it is your hate that forces your decision -- not your reason.
It's Ron Paul. But his supporters are so commonly demonized that people are afraid to say publicly now that they support him. Well, he is. Like it or not. He is the only one with hands off approach to government. And the best technologies emerge and evolve just so.
Since when is human reproduction about strengthening the gene pool, and since when are your "gay friends" inherently unable to reproduce naturally? Better question is "since when is natural a good thing"? History of human progress is the history of defying mother nature to make life more convenient than she would have it.
They are probably causing cellular damage traveling everywhere in the body. FUD=Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. "Probably causing" qualifies as all three. "Maybe causing" is probably what you meant to say.
While there cause for caution and prudence on the behalf of the researchers, to try to raise FUD in the uneducated masses is tantamount to demonizing the researchers themselves.
as a matter of fact, I would generally agree with all the claims that they strong arm the competition to win against better products in the marketplace. But, MS (and Bill Gates) in particular has been shilling for Democrats as of lately. He put Gore as his de facto choice of a successful politician in his retirement video. And he talked about the necessity to "contribute to society" by charity rather than by progress -- a traditional Democratic dogma. I don't want to argue politics per se here. I just noticed that he came out in a number of way for the Democrats. So the Republican AG (in the tradition of corruption and vindictiveness that this particular Republican administration continues openly) took a political step against MS. Anyone surprised?
let's see... so FUD actually doesn't stand with "got the facts wrong" or "someone i disagree with vehemently". It stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. All three are perfectly incorporated in the phrase "what could possibly go wrong" when it is used as a knee jerk reaction to research.
So, essentially, a computer is an extension of my body? If you type without ever looking at the keyboard (as most people who took any typing class do), then yes it is.
Now that we are looking for reasons to stereotype people by professions, I think another correlation study is warranted. Do sociologies tend to be more nihilistic? After all, it is common for them to spend their lives among primitive societies and to describe those societies with a sense of awe and admiration. Does that not warrant an investigation into whether or not sociologists are more prone to undervalue the technology that makes modern life possible and the creative process that stems from selfish pursuit of one's dreams? Since people who chose to study sociology specifically emphesize social interraction rather than personal uniqueness of each individual as the more important part of human condition, are they not more prone to be lacklaster students? I am not saying that they are. I am just saying it merits a correlation study. It should also focus on whether or not people who chose to become sociologists by profession (or at least by education) are prone to be hypocritical and manipulative and corrupt (all skills required for successful social self-promotion and social success on a grander scale). I am not saying that the are, I am just asking, what's the correlation?
Of course, the results of the study itself should not be all that surpricing. Successful inventors are part of the creative-destructive class of the society. So those who view their goals for where a society needs to be as being different from where goals towards which the society is progressing might chose more destructive measures.
First, kill all the lawyers. Second, we don't need to kill the lawyers, when the Judges we have refuse to do their jobs. I seroiusly doubt that the judges "refuse" to do their job. What I think happened instead is that the number of judges per capita has grown significantly lower and that has had the effect of lengthening the time it takes to have a case heard. I am assuming, of course, that the number of disagreements or crimes that require court access to be resolved has stayed the same per capita (or at least on the same order of magnitude per capita -- 20% rise is insignificant when you realize that the population has quadrupled since 1913). Of course, justice delayed is justice denied. Btw, this is just a hypothesis. I don't know the actual number of active judges on the bench in the US.
Someone tags this story as obvious. Really? Is it really "obvious" what chemical processes the brain goes through during multi-tasking? Just because someone observed something through their personal experience doesn't mean that they have a scientific explanation for why it happens. This is about as absurd as tagging an article that talks about studies that show how the mechanisms within the Sun emit energy as "obvious" (because "like, oh my god, i already knew Sun was hot... I can't believe they spent money to study that").
The biggest boon to the neuroscience had been WWII. So many people who survived brain damage were available to be researched that a major leap was made. It would appear that this war is actually causing a development in a number of life-comforting as well as life-saving medical technologies. Naom Chomsky is known for arguing that the main reason the society finances scientific research is to advance the efficiency of warfare. But, it's pretty clear that the advances made through the necessity that arises out of war improve everyones lives outside of the context of war. I wish I could take credit for this thought, but Neal Stephenson has already pointed out in Cryptonomican that even though these wars claim millions of lives, that's a drop in a bucket compare to the epidemics and other harshness that is thrown our way by mother nature. Before anyone asks that I point out a direct connection, I'll admit that a direct one is not so clear to see. But chemistry came about because of search for alchemist's stone. Thermodynamics came about because of cannon making. All the advances that are revolutionary come by accident -- not by regulated research. So there. Strife is good. Not for those who pay the price. But without strife we'd all be paying a much higher price. Just look at sheep.
Umm... This will probably distract from all the fun people have trashing the game, but planning ahead would shave months off of grinding. Rep is much easier to gain on earlier levels.
This is the beginning of the end. First, they own your money. Then they monitor your correspondence. Then they call you crazy if you call them on what they are doing. Then ignorance is called strength. And then universal surveillance is called freedom. So how's is Britney Spears doing today? Anyone caught the game?
Yes, the money has inflated. And significantly. But this is a good thing. It inflated more for things that lower level characters find. So that lower levels can sell it for more and have more money to spend on equipment that helps them to increase their levels faster. The prices of row materials now more closely correspond to (although are still far away from) the time that it takes to attain them. This helps to cushion the economic standard set up by the game itself, by which the costs of materials that can be attained only by higher levels are exponentially more expensive than the costs of materials that can be obtained by the lower levels.
Yes, and no. Something to be said for doing aldor/scry/aldor or scry/aldor/scry rep switches all the way to exhaulted each way. This can be done faster by purchasing tokens from other players. Also, assuming that one has multiple sets (full protection gear in each school, raid set, and pvp set), getting mats to put top enchantments/kits on all sets would easily run over 100k.
Slashdot Mirror
Google? Because google cache will have all the pertinent information anyway.
that doesn't promote some sort of socialist mindset? Yes, of course, the innovator is no one. He owes the work of his mind to the society and other people who made his innovation possible. Sure, sure. The individual is nothing and contributing to society is the only noble reason for living. What a bunch of nonsense! Innovation comes from two sources: wondering of the curious and gradually developed vision of forward-planning. The first is instant the latter is painstaking and slow. It is Mozart vs Salieri, if you will. And while the Salieri's make innovation useful, without the Mozarts it would never be possible. Standing on the shoulders of giants is important, but to say that it is all that matters when it comes to innovation is to refuse to acknowledge that innovation takes standing taller than anyone has stood before.
He is about as isolationist as Germany, Japan, France, Italy, etc. He doesn't want to police the world. He never gave a speech in which he didn't mention that he wants to have an active and open trade with the rest of the world. If it works for the rest of the industrialized world, why is it isolationist if we propose that we do it as well?
Internet (DARPA financed, yes, but not government regulated), cars (the government actually fought against them because they "dostroyed jobs" in the horse breeding industry), etc. More specifically, look at the evolution of technologies used on the internet itself. It started out with plain html, but the market forces produced CGI fairly quickly, and then the client side vs server side processing got hashed and rehashed by the utility vs availability again in the market place. If the government was on the case, we'd have standards bodies regulating what percentage of a sight must be in jsp and what percentage must be in ajax. Same is true for non-prescription drugs (yes, drugs are a technology). The most effective cold medicines and allergy medicines are used because they work -- not because they've been tested and approved to work by the FDA. Now look at the DRM vs copyright vs freely available mp3s. The only ones benefitting from a government beaurcracy overseeing the rules by which the music can be copied are the other beuracrats. Artists only make money on concerts (studios make most of the money on CDs). And the best way to promote your concerts? Let your fans share your mp3s. Speaking of technology, NYC subway system was first developed privately and in secret because the government was against it. Of course, it went bancrupt when all trains did -- when the government subsidized the car industry by creating the free interstate system. Segways (probably the single most effective way to improve quality of life in NYC) are still illegal in NYC. Why? I would say cronyism, but who am I to make a statement that doesn't shill against big business and sing "kumbaya" while trying to help the poor. Go ahead, hit troll -- I know you hate me. Just remember that it is your hate that forces your decision -- not your reason.
It's Ron Paul. But his supporters are so commonly demonized that people are afraid to say publicly now that they support him. Well, he is. Like it or not. He is the only one with hands off approach to government. And the best technologies emerge and evolve just so.
our new female overlo... never mind... not new.
While there cause for caution and prudence on the behalf of the researchers, to try to raise FUD in the uneducated masses is tantamount to demonizing the researchers themselves.
as a matter of fact, I would generally agree with all the claims that they strong arm the competition to win against better products in the marketplace. But, MS (and Bill Gates) in particular has been shilling for Democrats as of lately. He put Gore as his de facto choice of a successful politician in his retirement video. And he talked about the necessity to "contribute to society" by charity rather than by progress -- a traditional Democratic dogma. I don't want to argue politics per se here. I just noticed that he came out in a number of way for the Democrats. So the Republican AG (in the tradition of corruption and vindictiveness that this particular Republican administration continues openly) took a political step against MS. Anyone surprised?
let's see... so FUD actually doesn't stand with "got the facts wrong" or "someone i disagree with vehemently". It stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. All three are perfectly incorporated in the phrase "what could possibly go wrong" when it is used as a knee jerk reaction to research.
Now that we are looking for reasons to stereotype people by professions, I think another correlation study is warranted. Do sociologies tend to be more nihilistic? After all, it is common for them to spend their lives among primitive societies and to describe those societies with a sense of awe and admiration. Does that not warrant an investigation into whether or not sociologists are more prone to undervalue the technology that makes modern life possible and the creative process that stems from selfish pursuit of one's dreams? Since people who chose to study sociology specifically emphesize social interraction rather than personal uniqueness of each individual as the more important part of human condition, are they not more prone to be lacklaster students? I am not saying that they are. I am just saying it merits a correlation study. It should also focus on whether or not people who chose to become sociologists by profession (or at least by education) are prone to be hypocritical and manipulative and corrupt (all skills required for successful social self-promotion and social success on a grander scale). I am not saying that the are, I am just asking, what's the correlation?
Of course, the results of the study itself should not be all that surpricing. Successful inventors are part of the creative-destructive class of the society. So those who view their goals for where a society needs to be as being different from where goals towards which the society is progressing might chose more destructive measures.
is read Shakespeare.
Someone tags this story as obvious. Really? Is it really "obvious" what chemical processes the brain goes through during multi-tasking? Just because someone observed something through their personal experience doesn't mean that they have a scientific explanation for why it happens. This is about as absurd as tagging an article that talks about studies that show how the mechanisms within the Sun emit energy as "obvious" (because "like, oh my god, i already knew Sun was hot... I can't believe they spent money to study that").
The biggest boon to the neuroscience had been WWII. So many people who survived brain damage were available to be researched that a major leap was made. It would appear that this war is actually causing a development in a number of life-comforting as well as life-saving medical technologies. Naom Chomsky is known for arguing that the main reason the society finances scientific research is to advance the efficiency of warfare. But, it's pretty clear that the advances made through the necessity that arises out of war improve everyones lives outside of the context of war. I wish I could take credit for this thought, but Neal Stephenson has already pointed out in Cryptonomican that even though these wars claim millions of lives, that's a drop in a bucket compare to the epidemics and other harshness that is thrown our way by mother nature. Before anyone asks that I point out a direct connection, I'll admit that a direct one is not so clear to see. But chemistry came about because of search for alchemist's stone. Thermodynamics came about because of cannon making. All the advances that are revolutionary come by accident -- not by regulated research. So there. Strife is good. Not for those who pay the price. But without strife we'd all be paying a much higher price. Just look at sheep.
I am sure it's made of nontoxic materials. So if it breaks, it won't get digested and you'll see it back in a few days. So why all the fear?
They could. But who would keep paying for the same content? People get bored of doing the same thing very quickly. People do leave. Many people leave.
Umm... This will probably distract from all the fun people have trashing the game, but planning ahead would shave months off of grinding. Rep is much easier to gain on earlier levels.
This is the beginning of the end. First, they own your money. Then they monitor your correspondence. Then they call you crazy if you call them on what they are doing. Then ignorance is called strength. And then universal surveillance is called freedom. So how's is Britney Spears doing today? Anyone caught the game?
Yes, the money has inflated. And significantly. But this is a good thing. It inflated more for things that lower level characters find. So that lower levels can sell it for more and have more money to spend on equipment that helps them to increase their levels faster. The prices of row materials now more closely correspond to (although are still far away from) the time that it takes to attain them. This helps to cushion the economic standard set up by the game itself, by which the costs of materials that can be attained only by higher levels are exponentially more expensive than the costs of materials that can be obtained by the lower levels.
Yes, and no. Something to be said for doing aldor/scry/aldor or scry/aldor/scry rep switches all the way to exhaulted each way. This can be done faster by purchasing tokens from other players. Also, assuming that one has multiple sets (full protection gear in each school, raid set, and pvp set), getting mats to put top enchantments/kits on all sets would easily run over 100k.