It's been mentioned that the study wasn't found. Perhaps you could quit insisting it did and provide some links for verification. Must say, it sounds more like scifi than real.
"...but a self-evolving virus that could fool experts and engage us in a digital war would wake everyone up to the idea that evolution is real."
You need to examine their rhetoric closer. If they won't believe it with actual evolutionary examples before them, an artificial one won't do it either.
"The consumer is torn between the desire for ultra-cheap food right now, this instant, and wanting his childrens and maybe unborn grandchildren to be born with the right number of fingers, toes, eyes and ears."
This shows it. While there may be consumers like this out there, they're idiots. It's based upon the nonsense that the food you eat will do those things to you.
"Or fractals - portions of Mandelbrot set are certainly art."
There we have one of the leading problems with defining art. Many people confuse "pretty" with "art". A Mandelbrot set is just that, a set. It is not art, but an abstraction that existed before mankind discovered its existence.
The act of selecting a randomly generated picture from some generator is no more art that the act of selecting a rock from a stream and calling it art.
Not really. A company has no claim, regardless of contract, to personal accomplishments done on own time. This has been won in court time and again. It's when the individual uses information obtained through company exposure that they face troubles.
Clauses not withstanding. Regardless of what is put in a contract, the state laws are what counts, not the companies interest.
"(such as vaguely worded post-employment non-compete clauses)"
Here in Missouri, they are illegal. I've laughed at them and told them they were unenforcable as I signed them.
As for the rest of the contracts, yes I do read them. And, it's not that friggin' hard to do.
The excuse that "I didn't know it was in the contract" typically is, and should be, laughed out of court.
Bullshit. Many contracts make certain public actions fireable offenses. Being fired from a job does not under any circumstances bear a resemblance to slavery. Perhaps you equate self-control over one's speech equivalent to being whipped, sold, or killed outright?
You may find it an abuse of power against a harmless incident. I may find the employee's actions foolish considering where he/she worked. The real point is, was the firing illegal?
Yet again, there's not a single thing preventing those people from striking out on their own.
A company cannot treat their employees as chattel. Chattel is an article of property or a slave. A company can treat their employees as neither.
You may not appreciate the manner in which a company treats you, but they cannot throw you in the trash or sell you to someone else. You are simply mistaken. Perhaps you should use another word.
If the current state actually considered humanity as a "surplus commodity", would we not have no employment?
"I think that just about everybody here has in some way or another violated a computer law, be it stealing music online, peeking at somebody else's e-mail account, or even using a library machine in a lavicious manner."
So, your take is that since a large number of people in a certain location (here) break computer laws (you presume for the sake of your argument, you don't really know), it's the laws which should be questioned, not the law-breakers?
"But this is slashdot so I expect a bunch of replys saying that it is not the kids fault but it is the schools fault for not securing their computers."
Holy crap! There's *always* an imaginable way to circumvent the most secure of situations. Let's scream hysterically because of that.
Sarcasm aside, that's the gist of the message. You "one offed" a technically tenuous breach. So? That's what movies are made of. Most of which are not truly possible in the real world, by the way.
Perhaps you should compare the possibilities of breaching this system against those of breaching a debit card system. Then choose the least breachable system as the best one to use.
The alternative is, of course, to never use a system that can be breached.
Yeesh. Here we go again. Someone speaking as if the brain were some "neural network". Get a book on bi-psych and read it. Also read the recent article on/. about the differences in brain processing between the sexes. Then you might, just might, be able to understand the inanity of "Lust is a simple reward system".
Your last sentence belies religious belief. It is never incumbent upon someone to disprove your point of view. It is incumbent upon you to prove it. So, what evidence do you have that we are "simply a very complex form of a lusting robot"?
"On that note, I just want to mention that Canadians are rarely seriously offended by Americans. We just think they are good for humor value if nothing else.:)"
Funny. That's kinda how we looked at your relief efforts.:))
You mean, other than correctly pointing out that this is an example of ignoring the copyright of the author, grabbing the author's work unnotified, and sending it to the whole world. Yes, it's the whole world, because once it's on the net, it's always available on the net.
Other than pointing out the fallacious arguments given to justified the practice, he not qualified?
If you mean something concrete, please explain. Otherwise, it looks like he's completely qualified and all you've got is a lame ad hominum attack.
Slashdot Mirror
'...avida was coded by "intelligent design"...'
Hate to burst your bubble, but ID only requires the interference by an intelligent designer. Not continued interference. Your project is ID based.
One argument by ID'rs is that some cauldron was set up by the intelligence and it's been going unaided ever since. Sound familiar?
It's been mentioned that the study wasn't found. Perhaps you could quit insisting it did and provide some links for verification. Must say, it sounds more like scifi than real.
"...but a self-evolving virus that could fool experts and engage us in a digital war would wake everyone up to the idea that evolution is real."
You need to examine their rhetoric closer. If they won't believe it with actual evolutionary examples before them, an artificial one won't do it either.
"For years now, scientists have been doubting that theory."
Unsupported statement. What scientists? My reading indicates the bulk still follow the old train of thought. References please.
"Sexually reproducing organisms do not do any better under most simulation conditions."
The only important thing is that they do better in th real world.
"If the advantage of sexual reproduction is so great, why did giardia give it up?"
Same reasons many other parasites lost functions of and even the appearance of organs.
"No, you're confusing two things."
Nope, you have it confused.
"The consumer is torn between the desire for ultra-cheap food right now, this instant, and wanting his childrens and maybe unborn grandchildren to be born with the right number of fingers, toes, eyes and ears."
This shows it. While there may be consumers like this out there, they're idiots. It's based upon the nonsense that the food you eat will do those things to you.
"If a 17-year-old has a 15-year-old sexual partner, how much trouble will the couple be in if discovered?"
Funny you should mention that. A recent case has put the 17 yr old boy into friggin' jail. You need to rethink your erroneous presumptions.
1. A writer must determine related concepts and break them out into paragraphs.
"or maybe the ones where Bush Sr pats Bin Laden family members in the back..."
Yes, 'cause we all know that the family memebers of Ted Bundy should be ostracized forever because of his actions. Right?
"If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's a duck."
Really? Even if it is constructed of metal and plastic and quacks because of a silicon speaker? So the dinos at Disney parks are really dinos?
Bingo. And just why is it puerile and sterile? Because the executors don't actually have talent or skills, but have connections or find marketing.
Read like a rant (one of mine), not like a troll.
"Or fractals - portions of Mandelbrot set are certainly art."
There we have one of the leading problems with defining art. Many people confuse "pretty" with "art". A Mandelbrot set is just that, a set. It is not art, but an abstraction that existed before mankind discovered its existence.
The act of selecting a randomly generated picture from some generator is no more art that the act of selecting a rock from a stream and calling it art.
Just because people do it doesn't mean it is .
Oh, crap, no. You're being pedandic. 100% control is not the same as "deliberately created in every aspect".
Not really. A company has no claim, regardless of contract, to personal accomplishments done on own time. This has been won in court time and again. It's when the individual uses information obtained through company exposure that they face troubles.
Clauses not withstanding. Regardless of what is put in a contract, the state laws are what counts, not the companies interest.
"(such as vaguely worded post-employment non-compete clauses)"
Here in Missouri, they are illegal. I've laughed at them and told them they were unenforcable as I signed them.
As for the rest of the contracts, yes I do read them. And, it's not that friggin' hard to do.
The excuse that "I didn't know it was in the contract" typically is, and should be, laughed out of court.
Bullshit. Many contracts make certain public actions fireable offenses. Being fired from a job does not under any circumstances bear a resemblance to slavery. Perhaps you equate self-control over one's speech equivalent to being whipped, sold, or killed outright?
You may find it an abuse of power against a harmless incident. I may find the employee's actions foolish considering where he/she worked. The real point is, was the firing illegal?
Yet again, there's not a single thing preventing those people from striking out on their own.
A company cannot treat their employees as chattel. Chattel is an article of property or a slave. A company can treat their employees as neither.
You may not appreciate the manner in which a company treats you, but they cannot throw you in the trash or sell you to someone else. You are simply mistaken. Perhaps you should use another word.
If the current state actually considered humanity as a "surplus commodity", would we not have no employment?
"I think that just about everybody here has in some way or another violated a computer law, be it stealing music online, peeking at somebody else's e-mail account, or even using a library machine in a lavicious manner."
So, your take is that since a large number of people in a certain location (here) break computer laws (you presume for the sake of your argument, you don't really know), it's the laws which should be questioned, not the law-breakers?
And, the answers to the tests are not the teacher's information, how? Be specific.
Other than it's not right to spy on people?
"But this is slashdot so I expect a bunch of replys saying that it is not the kids fault but it is the schools fault for not securing their computers."
See the post above yours for a hint.
Holy crap! There's *always* an imaginable way to circumvent the most secure of situations. Let's scream hysterically because of that.
Sarcasm aside, that's the gist of the message. You "one offed" a technically tenuous breach. So? That's what movies are made of. Most of which are not truly possible in the real world, by the way.
Perhaps you should compare the possibilities of breaching this system against those of breaching a debit card system. Then choose the least breachable system as the best one to use.
The alternative is, of course, to never use a system that can be breached.
Yeesh. Here we go again. Someone speaking as if the brain were some "neural network". Get a book on bi-psych and read it. Also read the recent article on /. about the differences in brain processing between the sexes. Then you might, just might, be able to understand the inanity of "Lust is a simple reward system".
Your last sentence belies religious belief. It is never incumbent upon someone to disprove your point of view. It is incumbent upon you to prove it. So, what evidence do you have that we are "simply a very complex form of a lusting robot"?
"On that note, I just want to mention that Canadians are rarely seriously offended by Americans. We just think they are good for humor value if nothing else. :)"
:))
Funny. That's kinda how we looked at your relief efforts.
You mean, other than correctly pointing out that this is an example of ignoring the copyright of the author, grabbing the author's work unnotified, and sending it to the whole world. Yes, it's the whole world, because once it's on the net, it's always available on the net.
Other than pointing out the fallacious arguments given to justified the practice, he not qualified?
If you mean something concrete, please explain. Otherwise, it looks like he's completely qualified and all you've got is a lame ad hominum attack.