Close, but let me fix it for you: If our random uncontrolled acceleration has even a slim chance of being the cause of our crash, we should not be held completely liable for that crash.
I'm not saying that this research proves that the soul does not exist. I'm saying something far stronger than that. I'm saying, this research proves the very concept of the soul as repository of merit and demerit for individual actions is meaningless.
In short, I'm saying that this research proves that God can not fairly judge your soul upon your death. If moral choices can be influenced by the environment, then our own moral choices are unfathomable and random. If a 'bad connection' between the soul and the mind can screw up the best intentions of the soul, the soul is useless.
...or you can just choose to not screw up your moral compass with magnets. Unless someone is forcing them on you there's still a moral choice.
Really this isn't any different than large quanities of alcohol....which can do far more damage to your morality. If someone gets drunk and kills a man he's still responsible for his actions.
What meaning has the term "connected" if there is no causal dependency between the connected things whatsoever? If, as you say, the magnet interferes with the connection between soul and brain, then this connection is demonstrably physical - and by extension, also the soul, which, then, in other words, is just an emergent property of the brain.
Your brain is physically connected to your foot.
Does this make your foot an emergent property of the brain as well?
Better take it out of your mouth and check.
Which sounds good until you realize it makes no provision for the creation and ownership of tools needed to break encryption even if the end result falls under fair use. This has been ruled on already.
http://www.appscout.com/2009/08/realnetworks_and_the_fair_use.php
So... "like a great many voices cried out in terror before being suddenly silenced."
But who is Alderaan here, exactly? Isn't China supposed to be The Empire, that just wants its Order? I thought GOOG was the eViL global empire awhile ago but now the rebels control the Death Star? This all so very confusing.
It confusing because you didn't make a car analogy.
I say you are neither pirate, nor non-paying customer.
Sorry, but no. It's still piracy. You paid for a DRM-laden file, and a DRM-laden file is all you're entitled to. That's not to say that I would find the practice particularly objectionable, but just know, it's not supported by law.
The copyright-holder has the right to close off any distribution avenue they like for their work (to within fair use). You can reason this in terms of finance. Basically it undercuts their ability to sell a cheaper, inferior, DRMed version, and a more expensive DRM-free version.
Nope, that's wrong. The DMCA has no fair use provision. Breaking DRM for any reason is illegal now. God bless America.
It's not "extortion". That's such an ugly word. Clearly, there has been a misunderstanding. Yelp is merely offering "protection". You know, 'cause if youse don' have protection, t'ings coul' happen. You know, "t'ings". Maybe somebody trips and falls. Maybe a bun warmer overheats and there's a fire. Maybe people decide the food sucks and write about it. Like a whole lot'a people. You know?
Then you'll have people screaming that the government ruined their childhood.
Yes, but the question wasn't "how to make everyone happy", which is impossible anyway; it was "how to prevent abuse, as in someone - parents, government, or anyone or thing else in a position of power in relation to his potential victims - reprogramming others to abide by his values".
This would leave someone who wants to change their sexuality without any recourse. How is that any different from making the choice for them?
The other option is to let the state dictate the parental decisions instead. Both systems would be abused but I believe the parents are less likely to screw things up.
The third option would be to simply refuse to make any such changes to anyone under the age of majority. That would prevent any chance of abuse by putting the choice where it belongs: the person in question.
Then you'll have people screaming that the government ruined their childhood.
The moral dilemma is because of the implicit assumption that color-blindness is a fault that should be cured. It's just a societal notion that this is a flaw to be corrected; what if we figured out that there was a way to correct all those faulty brown eyes so that they were perfectly blue instead? Or let's say we could "fix" left handed people to be right handed? In other words, we're assuming a template for human beings the defines what is "correct".
Similarly, there are segments of the deaf population who do not feel that being deaf is a flaw that needs fixing. If you ask "wouldn't you like to be able to hear stuff?" many will respond negatively, possibly suggesting that the better fix would be to alter other people's prejudices. To them the questions is as rude as asking "wouldn't you like to have blue eyes instead?"
Color-blindness is not blindness, one can still see and distinguish colors. They're just distinguished in a different way from the general populace. Of course they can figure out traffic lights - red is on top, green is on the bottom. There is no handicap or disability here. If there's a problem in some configuration of lights or shades, then perhaps the fault lies with design that excluded a significant fraction of the populace. Imagine if someone designed a keyboard/mouse combination where the mouse was fixed to the right side of the keyboard; the left handers would legitimately claim that it was badly designed.
If the color blindness is sever enough that they can't tell a red light from a green light you can't get a piolts license. So they have that going against them.
Actually, that brings up a good point. If you are talking about end users, I believe it becomes silly to ask if it's moral or not. To each their own and all. But what if you are talking about the parents of said 'end user' making that choice?
The other option is to let the state dictate the parental decisions instead. Both systems would be abused but I believe the parents are less likely to screw things up.
"Would you like ultra-wide spectrum super-HD eyes with 60x optical zoom, Internet-connected HUD and complimentary laser cannons, just like everyone else has?"
We both know the laser cannons aren't really complimentary. They're just worked into the price.
Will my Obamacare cover it?
to tell the Chinese government how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how Google justifies those beliefs.
So many people from the US seem to forget to see things from China's POV. As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent. Doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal. And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset. East Asian cultures value the stability of society the most, and many people from Confucian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "Society > Individual".
The point being, the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China's motivations behind Internet control. In principle, China is not against freedom. But China is for social stability. Telling China to stop filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of social stability, compared to US people's belief that internet filtering can only be an attack on people's freedom/individuality.
to tell Google how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how China justifies those beliefs.
So many people from China seem to forget to see things from Google's POV. As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent. Not doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal. And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Collectivistic Maximizing mindset. American cultures value the freedom of individuals the most, and many people from Christian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "An injury to one is an injury to all".
The point being, the average Chinese guy has screwed up beliefs concerning Google's motivations behind Internet control. In principle, Google is not against a stable society. But Google is for freedom. Telling Google to keep filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of freedom, compared to the Chinese people's belief that internet filtering is the only way to social stability.
In many ways, there's still nothing else like it. It is a whole universe, created from scratch. Not just an extrapolation of our own, and not just the pieces you need to see for the story. Humans are common, but not special in any particular way..... There are lots of places where a race is shown once, in a background character, and never seen again.
The Chronicles of Narnia did it first, and better. Also, Ringworld, to some extent.
Note, about 95% of the population does not realize the LOTR series was a book for some decades before the recent movies. I've actually heard people refer to the LOTR books as being "novelizations of the movies". Um, no.
Fixed that...etc....etc....
Tolkin only wrote LOTR because he a Lewis flipped a coin to decide what to write next.
Slashdot Mirror
Close, but let me fix it for you: If our random uncontrolled acceleration has even a slim chance of being the cause of our crash, we should not be held completely liable for that crash.
I'm not saying that this research proves that the soul does not exist. I'm saying something far stronger than that. I'm saying, this research proves the very concept of the soul as repository of merit and demerit for individual actions is meaningless.
In short, I'm saying that this research proves that God can not fairly judge your soul upon your death. If moral choices can be influenced by the environment, then our own moral choices are unfathomable and random. If a 'bad connection' between the soul and the mind can screw up the best intentions of the soul, the soul is useless.
...or you can just choose to not screw up your moral compass with magnets. Unless someone is forcing them on you there's still a moral choice.
Really this isn't any different than large quanities of alcohol....which can do far more damage to your morality. If someone gets drunk and kills a man he's still responsible for his actions.
What meaning has the term "connected" if there is no causal dependency between the connected things whatsoever? If, as you say, the magnet interferes with the connection between soul and brain, then this connection is demonstrably physical - and by extension, also the soul, which, then, in other words, is just an emergent property of the brain.
Your brain is physically connected to your foot.
Does this make your foot an emergent property of the brain as well?
Better take it out of your mouth and check.
You may bypass encryption for fair use.
Title 17 Chapter 12 Section 1201
Which sounds good until you realize it makes no provision for the creation and ownership of tools needed to break encryption even if the end result falls under fair use. This has been ruled on already. http://www.appscout.com/2009/08/realnetworks_and_the_fair_use.php
It's been forty-five years. Now why do I remember that?
Some memories just never die
....they just wind up on hulu.com
Really? Then what does Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 of the US Code cover?
According to the text of the law it's "Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"
Fair use exists it just no lonmger applies to anything that's "encrypted"....even broken encryption like DVD's.
Isn't that the award that's both a candy and gum?
Lucky guy.
They have the recourse of waiting until they're legally adult and having it changed.
That's far too late for the senior prom.
So... "like a great many voices cried out in terror before being suddenly silenced."
But who is Alderaan here, exactly? Isn't China supposed to be The Empire, that just wants its Order? I thought GOOG was the eViL global empire awhile ago but now the rebels control the Death Star? This all so very confusing.
It confusing because you didn't make a car analogy.
Sorry, but no. It's still piracy. You paid for a DRM-laden file, and a DRM-laden file is all you're entitled to. That's not to say that I would find the practice particularly objectionable, but just know, it's not supported by law.
The copyright-holder has the right to close off any distribution avenue they like for their work (to within fair use). You can reason this in terms of finance. Basically it undercuts their ability to sell a cheaper, inferior, DRMed version, and a more expensive DRM-free version.
Nope, that's wrong. The DMCA has no fair use provision. Breaking DRM for any reason is illegal now. God bless America.
It's not "extortion". That's such an ugly word. Clearly, there has been a misunderstanding. Yelp is merely offering "protection". You know, 'cause if youse don' have protection, t'ings coul' happen. You know, "t'ings". Maybe somebody trips and falls. Maybe a bun warmer overheats and there's a fire. Maybe people decide the food sucks and write about it. Like a whole lot'a people. You know?
Huh, I wonder what that means?
Yes, but the question wasn't "how to make everyone happy", which is impossible anyway; it was "how to prevent abuse, as in someone - parents, government, or anyone or thing else in a position of power in relation to his potential victims - reprogramming others to abide by his values".
This would leave someone who wants to change their sexuality without any recourse. How is that any different from making the choice for them?
That's not a real site! ...I checked.
It is now.
The third option would be to simply refuse to make any such changes to anyone under the age of majority. That would prevent any chance of abuse by putting the choice where it belongs: the person in question.
Then you'll have people screaming that the government ruined their childhood.
The moral dilemma is because of the implicit assumption that color-blindness is a fault that should be cured. It's just a societal notion that this is a flaw to be corrected; what if we figured out that there was a way to correct all those faulty brown eyes so that they were perfectly blue instead? Or let's say we could "fix" left handed people to be right handed? In other words, we're assuming a template for human beings the defines what is "correct". Similarly, there are segments of the deaf population who do not feel that being deaf is a flaw that needs fixing. If you ask "wouldn't you like to be able to hear stuff?" many will respond negatively, possibly suggesting that the better fix would be to alter other people's prejudices. To them the questions is as rude as asking "wouldn't you like to have blue eyes instead?" Color-blindness is not blindness, one can still see and distinguish colors. They're just distinguished in a different way from the general populace. Of course they can figure out traffic lights - red is on top, green is on the bottom. There is no handicap or disability here. If there's a problem in some configuration of lights or shades, then perhaps the fault lies with design that excluded a significant fraction of the populace. Imagine if someone designed a keyboard/mouse combination where the mouse was fixed to the right side of the keyboard; the left handers would legitimately claim that it was badly designed.
If the color blindness is sever enough that they can't tell a red light from a green light you can't get a piolts license. So they have that going against them.
Actually, that brings up a good point. If you are talking about end users, I believe it becomes silly to ask if it's moral or not. To each their own and all. But what if you are talking about the parents of said 'end user' making that choice?
The other option is to let the state dictate the parental decisions instead. Both systems would be abused but I believe the parents are less likely to screw things up.
Ah, but where does it end?
"Would you like ultra-wide spectrum super-HD eyes with 60x optical zoom, Internet-connected HUD and complimentary laser cannons, just like everyone else has?"
We both know the laser cannons aren't really complimentary. They're just worked into the price.
Will my Obamacare cover it?
ULTIMA ONLINE!? One of the greatest video game designers to ever live, and the summary only gives him credit for a lame, abandoned MMORPG?
If you're going to mention only one Richard Garriott game, shouldn't it be Ultima VII?
Ultima Online isn't ababdibed it's still going strong and even though it's been corrupted by EA it's still one of the best.
What a deal. All he has to do is go up there and get it and he can sell it for 10X what he paid for it on Ebay!! Oh, wait a minute...
No he doesn't. He could just sell it for $5.00 + shipping.
to tell the Chinese government how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how Google justifies those beliefs.
So many people from the US seem to forget to see things from China's POV. As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent. Doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal. And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset. East Asian cultures value the stability of society the most, and many people from Confucian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "Society > Individual".
The point being, the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China's motivations behind Internet control. In principle, China is not against freedom. But China is for social stability. Telling China to stop filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of social stability, compared to US people's belief that internet filtering can only be an attack on people's freedom/individuality.
to tell Google how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how China justifies those beliefs.
So many people from China seem to forget to see things from Google's POV. As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent. Not doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal. And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Collectivistic Maximizing mindset. American cultures value the freedom of individuals the most, and many people from Christian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "An injury to one is an injury to all".
The point being, the average Chinese guy has screwed up beliefs concerning Google's motivations behind Internet control. In principle, Google is not against a stable society. But Google is for freedom. Telling Google to keep filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of freedom, compared to the Chinese people's belief that internet filtering is the only way to social stability.
His name is Patrick Stewart!
We are calling him a heretic because he didn't know his name...right?
Wow we're even outsourcing our rich people now.
No wonder our economy sucks.
In many ways, there's still nothing else like it. It is a whole universe, created from scratch. Not just an extrapolation of our own, and not just the pieces you need to see for the story. Humans are common, but not special in any particular way. .... There are lots of places where a race is shown once, in a background character, and never seen again.
The Chronicles of Narnia did it first, and better. Also, Ringworld, to some extent.
Note, about 95% of the population does not realize the LOTR series was a book for some decades before the recent movies. I've actually heard people refer to the LOTR books as being "novelizations of the movies". Um, no.
Fixed that...etc....etc.... Tolkin only wrote LOTR because he a Lewis flipped a coin to decide what to write next.
...is likely to get you flogged and/or hung.
You will surely get hanged. Alas, none of us here are, or ever will be, hung.
I'm hung......of course I'll never get to use it but it's huge.
So, is THIS what Apple was suing HTC over at the International Trade Commission? Does Apple have a patent on preloaded malware on smartphones?
If they do I'm sure Microsoft can claim prior art.
Calling it a disease is wrong. Saying it can be cured is like trying to bleach a black man white or beating a gay man with officially approved porn.
So it's possible then.