FYI, the artistic value is ostensibly meant to derive from a connection with the contents and themes of the music in the album: the way the modern world is destroying innocence, or something to that effect.
If supplying meat to that many people at current market prices is really unsustainable, then, in the long run, the price of meat will rise until you get to the point where they can't afford as much meat anymore (but are still rather well off in other aspects of their life).
Is anyone still subsidizing corn-based ethanol so we can save about 2% on carbon emissions per mile, while we drain those midwestern aquifers even faster than we were before?
In a third-world country? I can see some sympathy, sure, and complaints about the system.
In America? What "fucked up" system are you talking about? The one that didn't give them all the big-screen TVs and pimped out sportscars that they wanted? Those copper thieves are worthless scum who destroy things of value for their own gain.
The basic premise of Capitalism is that if you have some resources, some capital, if you will (like, say, US dollars, or copper pipes) you get to keep them and invest them in something which will (hopefully) bring you something of value in the future (like, say, a small business, or stock of a big business, or the warmth/comfort/enjoyment of your home). The ability to gain rewards from this is what drives investment, and ideally leads to prosperity and a better world. As opposed to theft, which leads to reluctance of investment (why build something if thieves will wreck it?), waste (at a minimum, of the labor for installation/deinstallation of pipes), destruction of value, and misery.
So, you could theoretically be more wrong, but it would take a good chunk of effort.
Most notions of a "Free Market" assume some sort of, oh, how do you call it, property rights and continuity of ownership, a basic hallmark of organized societies. You are confusing capitalism and the free market with Total Anarchy.
In fact, the basic premise of Capitalism is that if you have some resources, some capital, if you will (like, say, US dollars, or copper pipes) you get to keep them and invest them in something which will (hopefully) bring you something of value in the future (like, say, a small business, or stock of a big business, or the warmth/comfort/enjoyment of your home).
The semicolon after $knight => "a1"; is more of an issue for me. And when you fix it, the message about 'Missing argument to Chess::Piece::new() at tour.pl line 4'. That said: what, are you afraid of CPAN?:P
Respectfully, it does compete. Just because the substitute is inferior in several ways doesn't make it any less so. And there's other "in-car entertainment" service/product/things it's competing with as well, such as the iPod.
As opposed to the counter-propaganda propaganda machine?
It doesn't take propaganda to show you that Russia's run by a bunch of corrupt jerks. Their premier is making a big deal about being a big macho tough guy, like shooting tigers and playing at being USSR version II, invading Georgia,
(funny how people around here are all "US imperialism in Iraq! evil! bad!" and won't say a thing about "Russian imperialism in Georgia!"), sending big boats down to Cuba to show off, et cetera. Blah. Whatever. Saber-rattling, at worst, for now, and they're hurting a bit at the moment with the drop in the price of oil.
Grandparent is also right that this is overstated; if it comes to deterioration of relations and war it won't be over some silly little cybersomething; it'll be over something in eastern Europe. And China is an entirely different matter altogether.... but you don't need propaganda to tell they're run by a bunch of jerks, either.:)
So, if they take submersible time from the oil companies they're at risk of spuriously deciding that giant squid cause cancer? Or that they cause global warming?:)
One of our developers put together something similar, except with a little Arduino controller-board hooked up to a few LEDs and a USB cable and mounted on the ceiling with a cheap IKEA fixture. This is hooked up to our integration farm (we do continuous integration) and changes colors to indicate successful test runs, failed test runs (which revert the checkin responsible) and when the test farm is broken (the Red Light of doom).
On any night shortly after sunset or shortly before sunrise, you can see bunches of little dim points of light just barely above the threshold of normal vision zipping through the heavens. It gives me chills to look at them and think that those are actually objects, most not larger than a car, zipping around hundreds if not thousands of miles away.
I live in San Francisco, you insensitive clod.
If the lights of the city aren't enough to drown out stars, there's always the fog....
If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.
And pray that you don't get a serious legal smackdown laid on you if it ever did happen to go to court. There are ways to demonstrate authorship and link pseudonyms to real people when you get down to it; they're not perfect, but are you willing to risk the chance they work?
I am pointing out that there are those who actually believe that embryos are people, and that people using that world view can say that those who are doing embryonic stem cell research are imposing their will upon other people (though admittedly not, as you pointed out in your original post, "through requiring or prohibiting some action", but rather by taking some action).
However, the post was not meant to be an argument in support of that point of view (although it contained an argument for that point of view).
As for your own language, though you stay away from any explicit attacks, your characterization of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research as "imposing their will on the entire planet" and "cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion" seems hard to take in any way other than a negative one. The snarky tone of the "Oh, that's right, I don't even have to wait" comment reinforces this. This characterization is the focus of my criticism of your post as an attempt to position one side as "morally superior" independent of the moral question of the question of embryonic stem cells themselves. It is an appeal to some vague standard outside the conflict, presenting one side as in compliance, the other not, and it leaves the vague suggestion that one is righter than the other because of this.
In another way, the very language used is an attack, specially with regards to your characterization of the movement you criticize. You say "they cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion", which paints a picture of one side chaining the whole world in shackles. Suppose, however, that someone were to call for an end to death by stoning - which is still practiced in some parts of the world. To characterize this as "one side cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion" might technically be true, but it is a characterization that presupposes that the rest of the world would be acting within normal rights to be engaging in stoning, and that this prohibition would be some sort of fence upon the behavior of the world's populace at large. Likewise, applying such claims the hardcore PETA vegans (whose views I do not share) who claim that animals are people and that exploiting them and eating meat/dairy/etc would be to neglect the nature of their quest - some manner of liberation, or at least protection, of something, and would be disrespectful to them and to their cause, whether or not their moral philosophy is justified, or their proposed measures are desirable.
Further notable characterizations of a similar nature (though more overt and extreme) which one may encounter include that of anti-abortion groups as backwards anti-feminist woman-haters (or similar) and that of pro-abortion groups as evil baby-hating monsters. While rhetorically powerful, they miss (often deliberately) the reality of the views generally held by such groups, and are intellectually dishonest.
You may, of course, disagree with the anti-embryonic-stem-cell movement, criticize them as wrong and misguided, accuse them of holding back the progress of science and improvements to medical technology and living standards around the world for a trifling artifact of a religious philosophy which ought to be discarded, or any number of things to that effect. But presenting their feelings as a desire for some special constraints to be placed upon every individual on the planet and exact some form of Compliance is simply untrue, and to claim that you are holding yourself off in some "neutral" territory while making such a claim is some form of falsehood.
Right. The infants in question have already been Imposed Upon and foully murdered, obviously.
...
...
(Disclaimer: This post is not meant to serve as a real criticism of the use of embryonic stem cells by equating them to murder. It is instead intended to point out that the notion of "imposing your opinion upon someone else" works both ways, the outstanding issue tracing itself back to the "is this a human with rights" question which is so fantastically controversial, and that as such attempting to paint one's self or one's side as morally superior through this mechanism does not work except insofar as one has already accepted that the cells in question are not human beings with rights, at which point the matter is moot.)
That sounds dangerous. I, for one, am not willing to welcome our new robotic overlords! (Or regular human overlords with robot armies). Intel would need to come up with a scheme to keep the robots from harming people. Some sort of set of axioms... rules... laws, even... that would apply to all the robots they made, in order to keep them in line. Otherwise it would never work.
Methinks a lot of them are college students with fast Internet connections and little or no budget of their own. Or high-school students. (Myself, I got out of the computer-game piracy business after I started making several tens of thousands of dollars a year. I've gone out of my way to buy most of the games I spent any significant amount of time with, as well.)
Nanotech grey goo is doomed to impossibility. Why? Power. You can't extract energy from your environment by chewing up concrete and dirt and stuff. Notice how you don't see very many organisms eating dirt and rock? If you want real energy from the environment around you, you're stuck competing with bacteria, algae, fungi, plants, and what-not.
Real nanotech dangers are like "a bunch of small particles get in the environment and it's like some hybrid of mercury and asbestos" (in terms of accumulation of mercury and the damaging properties of asbestos).
IBM does pay pretty decently. I got $18.75/hr on an IBM internship as a rising junior in college, and more than that the year after (twenty-something-odd) with as much overtime as I felt like working. This was in 2005/2006. They base your pay off of a standard scale of how much progress you've made towards your major. And, if you're a senior and you're not incompetent, they will almost certainly want to hire you the next year (they have a "recruit once hire twice" strategy), perhaps even in the current economy. That's a fine thing to be able to say to another company later. If you're not a rising senior, you'll probably be able to land yet another internship the next year.
Having to deal with Rent off in the real world is something else, though. That's your prime consideration for cost-of-living expenses (and maybe gas, if you can't get a place real close by). You can eat intern food, right? (canned soup, spaghetti, etc; avoid el cheapo ramen and skip the MSG, that stuff ain't natural . ..) Also beware of certain tricky tax situations (the state of New York, for example, will tax your income if you work there even if you're not a real resident).
What could possibly go wrong? I dunno, lots of things. The whole place could catch on fire. Or someone could be electrocuted by equipment on site. Or someone has an accident on a ladder and falls and hurts himself. Or gets in a car crash on the way to work. (That's probably the most dangerous risk right there!)
What, you wanted something exotic? 5,600 degrees C is weak. A lightning bolt can hit 30,000 Kelvin. Somehow the Earth escapes destruction though!
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, the artistic value is ostensibly meant to derive from a connection with the contents and themes of the music in the album: the way the modern world is destroying innocence, or something to that effect.
See? Your motor-memory posting skills are obviously intact!
("Its value grows rapidly, even for small inputs. For example A(4,2) contains 19,729 decimal digits.")
If supplying meat to that many people at current market prices is really unsustainable, then, in the long run, the price of meat will rise until you get to the point where they can't afford as much meat anymore (but are still rather well off in other aspects of their life).
Is anyone still subsidizing corn-based ethanol so we can save about 2% on carbon emissions per mile, while we drain those midwestern aquifers even faster than we were before?
In a third-world country? I can see some sympathy, sure, and complaints about the system. In America? What "fucked up" system are you talking about? The one that didn't give them all the big-screen TVs and pimped out sportscars that they wanted? Those copper thieves are worthless scum who destroy things of value for their own gain.
So, you could theoretically be more wrong, but it would take a good chunk of effort.
In fact, the basic premise of Capitalism is that if you have some resources, some capital, if you will (like, say, US dollars, or copper pipes) you get to keep them and invest them in something which will (hopefully) bring you something of value in the future (like, say, a small business, or stock of a big business, or the warmth/comfort/enjoyment of your home).
The semicolon after $knight => "a1"; is more of an issue for me. And when you fix it, the message about 'Missing argument to Chess::Piece::new() at tour.pl line 4'. That said: what, are you afraid of CPAN? :P
Respectfully, it does compete. Just because the substitute is inferior in several ways doesn't make it any less so. And there's other "in-car entertainment" service/product/things it's competing with as well, such as the iPod.
It doesn't take propaganda to show you that Russia's run by a bunch of corrupt jerks. Their premier is making a big deal about being a big macho tough guy, like shooting tigers and playing at being USSR version II, invading Georgia, (funny how people around here are all "US imperialism in Iraq! evil! bad!" and won't say a thing about "Russian imperialism in Georgia!"), sending big boats down to Cuba to show off, et cetera. Blah. Whatever. Saber-rattling, at worst, for now, and they're hurting a bit at the moment with the drop in the price of oil.
Grandparent is also right that this is overstated; if it comes to deterioration of relations and war it won't be over some silly little cybersomething; it'll be over something in eastern Europe. And China is an entirely different matter altogether.... but you don't need propaganda to tell they're run by a bunch of jerks, either. :)
So, if they take submersible time from the oil companies they're at risk of spuriously deciding that giant squid cause cancer? Or that they cause global warming? :)
One of our developers put together something similar, except with a little Arduino controller-board hooked up to a few LEDs and a USB cable and mounted on the ceiling with a cheap IKEA fixture. This is hooked up to our integration farm (we do continuous integration) and changes colors to indicate successful test runs, failed test runs (which revert the checkin responsible) and when the test farm is broken (the Red Light of doom).
and maybe one of the projects that use it.
Slashdot is fine too; asking can't hurt, but don't neglect your lawyer.
I live in San Francisco, you insensitive clod.
If the lights of the city aren't enough to drown out stars, there's always the fog....
And pray that you don't get a serious legal smackdown laid on you if it ever did happen to go to court. There are ways to demonstrate authorship and link pseudonyms to real people when you get down to it; they're not perfect, but are you willing to risk the chance they work?
As for your own language, though you stay away from any explicit attacks, your characterization of the opponents of embryonic stem cell research as "imposing their will on the entire planet" and "cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion" seems hard to take in any way other than a negative one. The snarky tone of the "Oh, that's right, I don't even have to wait" comment reinforces this. This characterization is the focus of my criticism of your post as an attempt to position one side as "morally superior" independent of the moral question of the question of embryonic stem cells themselves. It is an appeal to some vague standard outside the conflict, presenting one side as in compliance, the other not, and it leaves the vague suggestion that one is righter than the other because of this.
In another way, the very language used is an attack, specially with regards to your characterization of the movement you criticize. You say "they cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion", which paints a picture of one side chaining the whole world in shackles. Suppose, however, that someone were to call for an end to death by stoning - which is still practiced in some parts of the world. To characterize this as "one side cannot allow anyone at all to act contrary to their opinion" might technically be true, but it is a characterization that presupposes that the rest of the world would be acting within normal rights to be engaging in stoning, and that this prohibition would be some sort of fence upon the behavior of the world's populace at large. Likewise, applying such claims the hardcore PETA vegans (whose views I do not share) who claim that animals are people and that exploiting them and eating meat/dairy/etc would be to neglect the nature of their quest - some manner of liberation, or at least protection, of something, and would be disrespectful to them and to their cause, whether or not their moral philosophy is justified, or their proposed measures are desirable. Further notable characterizations of a similar nature (though more overt and extreme) which one may encounter include that of anti-abortion groups as backwards anti-feminist woman-haters (or similar) and that of pro-abortion groups as evil baby-hating monsters. While rhetorically powerful, they miss (often deliberately) the reality of the views generally held by such groups, and are intellectually dishonest.
You may, of course, disagree with the anti-embryonic-stem-cell movement, criticize them as wrong and misguided, accuse them of holding back the progress of science and improvements to medical technology and living standards around the world for a trifling artifact of a religious philosophy which ought to be discarded, or any number of things to that effect. But presenting their feelings as a desire for some special constraints to be placed upon every individual on the planet and exact some form of Compliance is simply untrue, and to claim that you are holding yourself off in some "neutral" territory while making such a claim is some form of falsehood.
Right. The infants in question have already been Imposed Upon and foully murdered, obviously.
...
...
(Disclaimer: This post is not meant to serve as a real criticism of the use of embryonic stem cells by equating them to murder. It is instead intended to point out that the notion of "imposing your opinion upon someone else" works both ways, the outstanding issue tracing itself back to the "is this a human with rights" question which is so fantastically controversial, and that as such attempting to paint one's self or one's side as morally superior through this mechanism does not work except insofar as one has already accepted that the cells in question are not human beings with rights, at which point the matter is moot.)
That sounds dangerous. I, for one, am not willing to welcome our new robotic overlords! (Or regular human overlords with robot armies). Intel would need to come up with a scheme to keep the robots from harming people. Some sort of set of axioms... rules... laws, even... that would apply to all the robots they made, in order to keep them in line. Otherwise it would never work.
Maybe they'd visit, and learn to shave or something....
Methinks a lot of them are college students with fast Internet connections and little or no budget of their own. Or high-school students. (Myself, I got out of the computer-game piracy business after I started making several tens of thousands of dollars a year. I've gone out of my way to buy most of the games I spent any significant amount of time with, as well.)
Real nanotech dangers are like "a bunch of small particles get in the environment and it's like some hybrid of mercury and asbestos" (in terms of accumulation of mercury and the damaging properties of asbestos).
Having to deal with Rent off in the real world is something else, though. That's your prime consideration for cost-of-living expenses (and maybe gas, if you can't get a place real close by). You can eat intern food, right? (canned soup, spaghetti, etc; avoid el cheapo ramen and skip the MSG, that stuff ain't natural . . .) Also beware of certain tricky tax situations (the state of New York, for example, will tax your income if you work there even if you're not a real resident).
What could possibly go wrong? I dunno, lots of things. The whole place could catch on fire. Or someone could be electrocuted by equipment on site. Or someone has an accident on a ladder and falls and hurts himself. Or gets in a car crash on the way to work. (That's probably the most dangerous risk right there!)
What, you wanted something exotic? 5,600 degrees C is weak. A lightning bolt can hit 30,000 Kelvin. Somehow the Earth escapes destruction though!