No no no, you can't remove that much meat from a cow. You would have to remove different cuts from two cows and then recombine the cows with their remaining parts so that they can stay alive for 8 years. If the frankencow tests positive then you can't ship either of the two cows' meat after the 8 years is up.
In philosophy, ethics is the branch which is the study of morality. Just as epistemology is the branch of philosophy which is the study of knowledge, and metaphysics is the study of reality in a general sense.
So morality in philosophy is what is right and wrong.
I suppose then that Sergey Brin or Larry Page won't mind me walking onto their property and just sit around for a day taking pictures? And same with all you people defending Google here; why don't you post your addresses and let some of us to do the same?
"As for kids not learning Latin anymore, I think that's just because Latin is not particularly useful to anyone not in a specialized field"
I think learning Latin can make you a better person. I think by learning Latin you not only develop your own mind just by learning the language, which is a very demanding one, you also see how the influential writers in this language developed the universe of thought that is common to us all, by reading their works; you not just getting a clearer picture of their ideas by reading it in the original, you are also seeing how the language itself influenced them. I think you learn significant things by reading poets like Ovid or Lucretius. I don't think you need to know Latin to come to the same knowledge (there are translations, and different writers can you teach you the same things), but a framework in which you learn Latin and read some of these famous works themselves I think is a good framework for personal development.
"Have you ever told an ex something private? There is really no legal recourse for you in that case if s/he turns around and somehow uses it against you(i.e. divorce proceedings)? So do you just live your life without ever allowing any entity to have any access to anything that you consider private information?"
So if I told her I did drugs or something and she used that against me, I would just say she's lying and she's the drug addict. So word against word. That's why it's alright to tell some people private things, because if they're using it against you, then they have a reason to use it against you and that same reason is also a reason to lie about you, and so no one could actually know if they're lying or telling the truth because of their motivation!
I can already choose if my child will, with great certainty, have blue eyes and, well, rather than blond, red hair: By choosing another mate that has blue eyes and red hair. Would it be wrong to do that? Intersexual selection is a part of natural selection.
We're already able to choose to a small extent what our kids will be like cosmetically: by choosing a mate. What's wrong if we let new technologies to augment this ability?
The Liberals may have been for it. The immigration reforms brings us in line with the SPP agreement with the US and Mexico. They are largely to stem concerns about religious fanatics who cause problems but are otherwise well-trained and so the points-system fails. And it's not just the points-system, there's also family-reunion rules. This makes the immigration rules before these new reforms not impartial because it favours some ethnicities over others because some ethnicities have large families and actual will make marriages of convenience to bring more friends in when they already have a so-called foot in the door. Other people don't have this benefit of being able to immigrate on the basis on family-reunion and so they can't get in, and this benefit is not distributed equally among all ethnicities and so the rules were never impartial.
So proprietary software, RIAA music, Hollywood movies and television will be more tightly controlled by the copyright holders. Maybe now people will turn the stuff off and be better off in the long run.
Well now there is a third category and its Unlawful Enemy Combatant. It's like POW except that, rather than having been fighting for a standing army of a nation with the uniforms and chain of command and everything, they fight for some shifty, decentralized army of God. If some transnational group poses just as much threat as a national armed forces, what's wrong with taking them as the equivalent of POWs? Why is it alright to imprison POWs without charge? The same reason for UECs.
2) How can you ethically justify having people die because they can't afford treatment?
Maybe because some people have to die unfairly no matter what system is in place, and the system that allows the people who can't afford treatment to die minimizes the amount of those deaths.
What if I were to propose that "infinitely far back" as a point exists only conceptually but never actually occurred: So prior to any state with some non-zero level of entropy there is another state with non-zero level of entropy. So entropy has existed eternally with the universe? And so there never was perfect coherence and so your problem doesn't occur?
Why couldn't some things simply always have existed? There wouldn't be any spontaneous generation and there wouldn't be a creation by a god in that case.
You guys realize that this Twofo Live link doesn't take you to Goatse but takes you to some "Warwick filesharing" thing. I'm actually not really sure why it is always posted.
But if the decision was made before you were conscious of it, was it really free will on your part? Sounds more like it was the work of something in your brain and then your mind only becomes aware of it, but doesn't make it.
If anyone wants some interesting stuff to read about irrational choices that humans have near-pathologies in that they constantly make them across the board, read some Tversky and Kahneman, or Robyn Dawes. Here's an example about a Tversky and Kahneman experiment characterised by Dawes in Rational Choice in an Uncertain World:
"...Tversky and Kahneman offered each subject a bet. They would roll a fair die with four green (G) and two red (R) ones, and the subject made a choice between betting that the sequence RGRRR or the sequence GRGRRR would occur. This bet cost the subject nothing, and if the chosen sequence occurred the subject received $25.... When subjects were asked to make a hypothetical choice for the $25 payoff, two-thirds choice the second sequence. When Kahneman and Tversky actually rolled the die and offered to pay the $25 in hard cash, two-thirds [the same proportion] chose the second."
So two-thirds of people will choose the option that is necessarily less likely, and can easily seen upon simple reflection to be less likely, because RGRRR occurs in GRGRRR, but GRGRRR also has an additional G, which has a 1/3 chance of not showing up there. The reason people choose this way is because they simple don't think straight: They know that G's are more likely than R's in the example, so they just choose the sequence with more G's. This is the compound probability fallacy as psychologists call it: People decide between options by comparing something like the averages of the possibilities of the individual events in the sequence([P1 + P2... + Pn]/n versus [P'1 + P'2... + P'n]/n), instead of comparing the actual probabilities of the sequences themselves ([P1 * P2... * Pn] versus [P'1 * P'2... * P'n]). This fallacy occurs constantly in people.
The same work I quoted has a nice bit about Bertrand Russell and how he wrote in his journal how his doctor gave him advice on another sort irrational-reasoning pathology people have: That of confusing inverse probabilities: "But [my doctor] didn't say what proportion of the total population are insane and drunken respectively, so that his argument is formally worthless." Dawes writes after this account: "As head of a department with a clinical psychology program, one of my goals was to help students learn to think like Russell."
Anyway, to note, Robin Dawes, psychologist: Probably knows math, then again he has a "Doctorate in Mathematical Psychology" as it's called.
They have the right to choose how photons movie in my house? I think it's reasonable to allow people to broadcast whatever frequencies they want in the range of their own property...
Slashdot Mirror
Man that's almost a haiku, retry:
You've got to be kidding!
Have you never stepped in crap?
Not funny now, eh?
No no no, you can't remove that much meat from a cow. You would have to remove different cuts from two cows and then recombine the cows with their remaining parts so that they can stay alive for 8 years. If the frankencow tests positive then you can't ship either of the two cows' meat after the 8 years is up.
Still living and breathing and eating and using the world's resources? Free Gaia!!! BlahsahashdhasdhahH!~HJ!~HJ!~!
In philosophy, ethics is the branch which is the study of morality. Just as epistemology is the branch of philosophy which is the study of knowledge, and metaphysics is the study of reality in a general sense.
So morality in philosophy is what is right and wrong.
No, he meant he would get you back encased in the body of a Rromani person.
Oh, I'm sure they won't care, when they searched for expectation of privacy on Google, they found out there was none.
So that's Google's argument?
I suppose then that Sergey Brin or Larry Page won't mind me walking onto their property and just sit around for a day taking pictures? And same with all you people defending Google here; why don't you post your addresses and let some of us to do the same?
Most universities everywhere have more women than men. In Canada I believe every university has a higher number of women than men.
"As for kids not learning Latin anymore, I think that's just because Latin is not particularly useful to anyone not in a specialized field"
I think learning Latin can make you a better person. I think by learning Latin you not only develop your own mind just by learning the language, which is a very demanding one, you also see how the influential writers in this language developed the universe of thought that is common to us all, by reading their works; you not just getting a clearer picture of their ideas by reading it in the original, you are also seeing how the language itself influenced them. I think you learn significant things by reading poets like Ovid or Lucretius. I don't think you need to know Latin to come to the same knowledge (there are translations, and different writers can you teach you the same things), but a framework in which you learn Latin and read some of these famous works themselves I think is a good framework for personal development.
"Have you ever told an ex something private? There is really no legal recourse for you in that case if s/he turns around and somehow uses it against you(i.e. divorce proceedings)? So do you just live your life without ever allowing any entity to have any access to anything that you consider private information?"
So if I told her I did drugs or something and she used that against me, I would just say she's lying and she's the drug addict. So word against word. That's why it's alright to tell some people private things, because if they're using it against you, then they have a reason to use it against you and that same reason is also a reason to lie about you, and so no one could actually know if they're lying or telling the truth because of their motivation!
It's a normal contraction for him, he's from the Elizabethan era.
I can already choose if my child will, with great certainty, have blue eyes and, well, rather than blond, red hair: By choosing another mate that has blue eyes and red hair. Would it be wrong to do that? Intersexual selection is a part of natural selection.
We're already able to choose to a small extent what our kids will be like cosmetically: by choosing a mate. What's wrong if we let new technologies to augment this ability?
I don't know really.
The Liberals may have been for it. The immigration reforms brings us in line with the SPP agreement with the US and Mexico. They are largely to stem concerns about religious fanatics who cause problems but are otherwise well-trained and so the points-system fails. And it's not just the points-system, there's also family-reunion rules. This makes the immigration rules before these new reforms not impartial because it favours some ethnicities over others because some ethnicities have large families and actual will make marriages of convenience to bring more friends in when they already have a so-called foot in the door. Other people don't have this benefit of being able to immigrate on the basis on family-reunion and so they can't get in, and this benefit is not distributed equally among all ethnicities and so the rules were never impartial.
So proprietary software, RIAA music, Hollywood movies and television will be more tightly controlled by the copyright holders. Maybe now people will turn the stuff off and be better off in the long run.
Well now there is a third category and its Unlawful Enemy Combatant. It's like POW except that, rather than having been fighting for a standing army of a nation with the uniforms and chain of command and everything, they fight for some shifty, decentralized army of God. If some transnational group poses just as much threat as a national armed forces, what's wrong with taking them as the equivalent of POWs? Why is it alright to imprison POWs without charge? The same reason for UECs.
2) How can you ethically justify having people die because they can't afford treatment?
Maybe because some people have to die unfairly no matter what system is in place, and the system that allows the people who can't afford treatment to die minimizes the amount of those deaths.
What if I were to propose that "infinitely far back" as a point exists only conceptually but never actually occurred: So prior to any state with some non-zero level of entropy there is another state with non-zero level of entropy. So entropy has existed eternally with the universe? And so there never was perfect coherence and so your problem doesn't occur?
Why couldn't some things simply always have existed? There wouldn't be any spontaneous generation and there wouldn't be a creation by a god in that case.
You guys realize that this Twofo Live link doesn't take you to Goatse but takes you to some "Warwick filesharing" thing. I'm actually not really sure why it is always posted.
Prions incubated in industrial-scale cattle operations?
But if the decision was made before you were conscious of it, was it really free will on your part? Sounds more like it was the work of something in your brain and then your mind only becomes aware of it, but doesn't make it.
If anyone wants some interesting stuff to read about irrational choices that humans have near-pathologies in that they constantly make them across the board, read some Tversky and Kahneman, or Robyn Dawes. Here's an example about a Tversky and Kahneman experiment characterised by Dawes in Rational Choice in an Uncertain World:
... When subjects were asked to make a hypothetical choice for the $25 payoff, two-thirds choice the second sequence. When Kahneman and Tversky actually rolled the die and offered to pay the $25 in hard cash, two-thirds [the same proportion] chose the second."
... + Pn]/n versus [P'1 + P'2 ... + P'n]/n), instead of comparing the actual probabilities of the sequences themselves ([P1 * P2 ... * Pn] versus [P'1 * P'2 ... * P'n]). This fallacy occurs constantly in people.
"...Tversky and Kahneman offered each subject a bet. They would roll a fair die with four green (G) and two red (R) ones, and the subject made a choice between betting that the sequence RGRRR or the sequence GRGRRR would occur. This bet cost the subject nothing, and if the chosen sequence occurred the subject received $25.
So two-thirds of people will choose the option that is necessarily less likely, and can easily seen upon simple reflection to be less likely, because RGRRR occurs in GRGRRR, but GRGRRR also has an additional G, which has a 1/3 chance of not showing up there. The reason people choose this way is because they simple don't think straight: They know that G's are more likely than R's in the example, so they just choose the sequence with more G's. This is the compound probability fallacy as psychologists call it: People decide between options by comparing something like the averages of the possibilities of the individual events in the sequence([P1 + P2
The same work I quoted has a nice bit about Bertrand Russell and how he wrote in his journal how his doctor gave him advice on another sort irrational-reasoning pathology people have: That of confusing inverse probabilities: "But [my doctor] didn't say what proportion of the total population are insane and drunken respectively, so that his argument is formally worthless." Dawes writes after this account: "As head of a department with a clinical psychology program, one of my goals was to help students learn to think like Russell."
Anyway, to note, Robin Dawes, psychologist: Probably knows math, then again he has a "Doctorate in Mathematical Psychology" as it's called.
They have the right to choose how photons movie in my house? I think it's reasonable to allow people to broadcast whatever frequencies they want in the range of their own property...
Oh God, Hellgate was the most buggy and just generally bad game I've played since Shadow of the Beast II on Sega Genesis.
Again, how was I trolling? Stating a line from the movie? It wasn't a spoiler.