Late to the party, I know. But in reality, they apparently never needed Interpol to do that anyway. Just read this recent article on the shenanigans that ICE is pulling.
I look forward to your logical proof of your statements especially RE:Who has what right to demand what of whom.
As I mentioned to others here, the starting point of the arguments is with the purpose of society (and thus its governance). Ostensibly the only rational reason to participate is if by participation one can be better off then otherwise. Ergo the societal rules have to be formulated so that all those who are to participate must be better off then otherwise. The rest of the logical argument naturally evolves from here.
You make several assumptions and provide nothing to back them up with. Using this argument it would be just as easy to argue that slavery is just, for the owner betters the life of the slave. And you, once again, fail to show any work (as the school teacher might say) and simply claim the rest of your proof follows naturally.
The fact is there are no factual definitions to how far we must go to 'protect someone from themselves' or even 'to protect the public'.
Huh? You are confused. There is no "factual definition" as to "how far" because no such thing is possible. This however does not prevent one from arriving at logical conclusions as to rational actions that lead to an increase of the level of "protection" of some individuals from others (or themselves). What is important here, and what is keeping your confused, is the definition of "protection". And that definition can be arrived at logically, i.e. protection from physical harm... as opposed from protection from some "moral panic".
Again you wave your hands and claim it is all there but fail to provide any proof. In fact you seem forced to assume things not present in my actual argument simply to make the weak point you've failed to support.
What right do you have to 'protect' anyone from physical harm? From whence does this right flow and how is it defined?
How do you decide what is physical harm?
If wish to pierce my ears, should this be prevented? How about my nipples? My genitals? If I choose to split my tongue? What if I choose to insert titanium knobs under my skin?
What if I choose to drink? Smoke tobacco? Smoke pot? Shoot heroin?
What if I cut myself? Refuse to eat? What if I have a curable but deadly if untreated disease and refuse treatments?
What if I touch myself in inappropriate places? If I engage in risky sexual behavior? What if I have sexual relations with someone with a known STD?
What if I hang out with a 'bad boy'? What if I hang out with a gang? What if I hang out with a group of people known to commit violent felonies? What if I hang out with people who think strapping a bomb on themselves and walking into a mall of crowded people and exploding is an ethical, moral, and reasonable way to make a social statement?
Come now, according to you this all follows rationally and logically, there should be one answer that is true for everyone to the above questions. What are they?
Have you even thought about the arguments you are making or are you simply a troll?
I'm not even going to go into the rest of your 'response' to my comment, your failure to even know what cognitive dissonance is or realize that everyone suffers from it pretty much tells me you are ignorant, misinformed, and weakminded, or a well trained troll, I refuse to waste more effort attempting to discern the difference.
For them to be illogical, it should be easy for you to demonstrate the errors. You have not done so. Instead, what you are stating is simply "I dislike your reasoning and so I am going to pretend it is illogical". A standard operating procedure of all those who prefer to employ the logical fallacy called "an appeal to authority" to replace logic itself in their "arguments".
Actually, that's what you've done, which is why I've called you on it. If you had attempted to make any sort of rational argument supporting your view point, and no waving your hand and stating your opinions as if they were fact isn't an attempt, I'd have simply assumed you were someone who hadn't thought completely through their viewpoint. But rather you are the rare individual who attempts to claim anything that spews forth from their mouth is gospel truth and anyone who disagrees is ignorant vermin.
Well, the truth sometimes hurts. If one cannot logically explain himself/herself, one has no business being an "opponent" in any logical discussions, be it with myself or anybody else. I guess you could call it "poisoning of the well" from the point of view of peddlers of all kinds of illogical woo-woo.
Then sir, I respectfully submit that it is time for you to remove yourself from the discussion. As so far your attempts at logic have mostly been blatantly illogical.
How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" for two men to lie together?
Non sequitur. Sexual conduct is a natural function of human bodies, sexuality is hard-wired into human brains by countless millions of years of evolution and subject to genetic and environmental variations and you nor the frothing-at-the-snout mob nor the power-hungry-lynch-mob-whipping-up-politicians nor the cracked-up religious zealots of the minute have any "moral" business in dictating who can lie together with whom.
I look forward to your logical proof of your statements especially RE:Who has what right to demand what of whom.
However so far all you've stated in response to this and the other questions I presented are opinions, not facts.
The fact is there is no factual definition of who has what rights in this world. You can just as easily argue logically that all men are free as you can that dominance is a natural result of life and thus the stronger should naturally and logically rule the weaker. It depends solely on the opinions/assumptions you begin your argument on.
The fact is there are no factual definitions to how far we must go to 'protect someone from themselves' or even 'to protect the public'. You can just as easily argue that people should be allowed to off themselves at a whim as you can argue that we should all be forced to live in monitored cells to prevent any impure thoughts or actions to corrupt us.
The fact is that logic itself is useless without starting with a foundation of pre-existing assumptions (axioms), things which can not be proven using the logic based upon them, as by definition any attempt do so would result in a tautology. Even something as simple as the math you presented in your opening argument is bound by this, for math is an axiomatic system.
What matters in the end is how consistent are the axioms we base out world view on. Do we claim to believe that all men should be free while keeping slaves? Do we count men and women as equal while denying women the ability to do the same things as men? Do we claim to follow a higher being while simultaneously ignoring the commandments attributed to said being?
In this, you have a point. People are far more willing to live with a conflicting set of axioms than to actually confront said conflicts and resolve them. But that has nothing to do with mindlessness or lack of intelligence and in fact, the people I've known in life who've exhibited the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance in their life were all highly intelligent, individualized people who simply weren't willing to give up believing in a set group of axioms no matter how much it conflicted with the rest of their lives and the reality as they knew it.
In fact, I would go so far as to postulate that the better one is able to comprehend the world around them, the more likely they are to be subject to cognitive dissonance as their ability to form a concrete framework describing their understanding is outpaced by it.
Logic does not answer questions of morality. Logic does not answer questions of ethics. Logic does not answer questions of aesthetics.
How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" for two men to lie together? How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" to deprive another of freedom? How many apples must be added together to determine if something is "Porn" or "Art". And how many more to determine if there is an actual difference?
To date, the only way people have found a way to 'answer' those questions that logic can not answer is to rely on someone's authority. Be that the authority of the majority or minority, the "rule" of any is seen as the only way for more than two people to live in this world without being constantly at each others throats.
Perhaps, or, to me, the 80 second start up implies that it's not the receiver that's moving...
No real knowledge here, but if you have to know where the satellites are to a reasonable degree of accuracy already, and you are doing it the 'traditional' method of looking them up in a large almanac type database that stores their orbits, then knowing where they are in a few seconds (in relation to you) should tell you your heading.
If you read any of the links that have been provided, they explain how it works. Hint: 'True North' is the 'top' of the axis that the Earth itself spins on.
Mostly correct, as long as the device has only one antenna. However a device with two can.
Assume you have a spherical cow with antennas attached to it's head (A) and tail (B).
As long as the distance between A&B is greater than twice the error margin for your GPS receiver, taking a reading from both gives you your orientation. More antenna or a greater distance between A&B equals more accuracy.
Granted, as the commenter previous to my original comment indicated, you need a large cow for this, it's not going to be implemented in your hiking/hand held GPS. But it is something that's used in vessels (ships, aircraft, and I wouldn't be surprised if some types of commercial or military vehicles used this method).
I do apologize though, I made a poor attempt at explaining that previously.
You are the one who controls whether you go through life in Combative mode or not, not the entertainment. There are people in this world, and while you may not be one of them you should at least learn to recognize they exist, who are capable of having a something presented to them that doesn't agree 100% with their worldview and still be able enjoy it.
Was Avatar a perfect movie? No. But the majority of the complaints I'm reading here are complaints that people don't want to 'hear a message' rather than anything that actually has to do with the merits of the movie itself.
Whats particularly sad here is that it doesn't seem like we can even come to a consensus WHAT exactly that message was. Meaning it's likely that the majority of what sticks in peoples caws isn't actually in the movie and is just being conveniently projected onto it by the view.
Was Avatar anti-science? Not likely, it wasn't science that was causing the problems.
Was Avatar anti-military? At best they were anti-mercs since that's all the military you saw on Pandora, mercs hired to work for the 'Company'.
Case in point: The linked to reviewer is so full of disdain for 'infantile liberal's that he assumes the whole thing must be about how we all must die in the eyes of the environmentalists. Was he around for the Aliens movies? Did he not notice the exact same treatment of the 'Company' and mercs in those moives? Are the Alien movies environmentalist movies now?
People need to back up and try getting just a tad bit of perspective here. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Again, your brain is one vast chemical machine. ANYTHING you experience, ANYTHING, is the result of a chemical process occurring in your brain. The same defenses that 'work' (and honestly, if they really worked, drugs wouldn't) for drugs are going to work for an embedded stim.
The SOLE point of the electrical signals flowing in your brain is to convey signals between it's parts. All a stim can do is 'hijack' the channel and send it's own signals. At least with drugs, the chemicals introduced do some of the heavy lifting for you by mimicking the hormones naturally present in your body. All a stim is going to be able to do is induce your own glands to produce what they can.
Second Trivia Fact: I've read (don't ask why) a few AgSci studies that have shown that while a dairy cow can be milked year round, you have a higher output if you milk them for a set number of months, then let them lay 'fallow' for a number of months before starting back up again. The reason for this is the mammary gland can not cope with constant usage. It has to have time to 'rest and recharge' in order to be at it's top production level.
The same thing that happens with a mammary gland occurs with the glands that are responsible for the hormones that run your brain. Only unlike the mammary gland, something 'designed' for high volume use, they aren't going to last months at max level output. They are going to last at most days.
More importantly, unless this stim is omnipresent in your brain (i.e. a nanomachine within each cell) it's going to be located in a specific portion of you head. And unless it's tuned to a far better degree than we have the ability to tune to today, it's going to be sending out a signal that is far of 'spec' for what your brain cells are used to receiving. Eventually, you are going to burn out those cells and create 'scar tissue' around the stim. Especially if you are attempting to do a 'eternal nothingness' deal where the dial is set to '11' for 24/7.
Yes, the book describe (which I haven't read) sounds as if presents an interesting sociological look, but it does so in the same sense that Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics did, not by creating something that could realistically happen but by investigating how life would be IF it were possible.
Electricity isn't a magic genie, if you shove a live wire into the wood of your computer desk, it suddenly doesn't start thinking. The ability to carry and act upon those electrical impulses in your head is maintained by the chemicals within and between your brain cells. It is a chemical reaction. And as such, consumes chemicals and requires constant replenishment.
In fact, most of the time, if you've become desensitized to a chemical (for instance caffeine), what has happened is that the receptors responsible for handling the signals that chemical is causing have become fatigued and no longer act upon them.
Quick Trivia Fact for you: Your caffeine withdraw headache is believed by some doctors to be caused by the fact that your body keeps replenishing the 'dead' adenosine receptors that have stopped responding due to their over-stimulation. When you stop using caffeine cold turkey, all the sudden you have an over abundance of these receptors, making you overly sensitive to the signals that help control the constriction of your blood vessels. This in turn causes the capillaries in your head to dilate which results in a headache.
So no, there is no guarantee that a stim would 'work till you died'. It's quite possible and even likely that the receptors being targeted by the stim would give out well before any 'neglect' related damage occurred.
The brain is just a giant chemical machine in and of itself.
And eventually the cells being stimulated are going to fatigue and no longer be able to respond to the stimulus. Granted, this possibly could/would happen far later than the equivalent reaction to a drug induced version, but it's an inevitable result of our 'design'.
You nitpick about that and ignore the whole "Begs the question - Raises the question" thing? For Shame!
But honestly, remember that today she's willing to wake you up, but in a decade she's going to be bitching and moaning about how you never do any of the yard work because you are too busy playing those damn games. *removes tongue from cheek*
This is/. the closest anybody on this forum has come to being in a store with a girl was when they walked out with the latest blowup model they just bought.;)
90s called. Wants its stereotype back.
Yes, we use RealDolls now, far superior to the blow up models...
A stupid mechanic can, a smart one knows that the "fub fub fub" sound the owner makes over the phone could mean any sort of things and insist that in order to give a reliable quote, that they get to actually examine the car.
And if what you said was true, it'd be a reasonable thing to say. But since what you said isn't just bull, it's the pre-packaged standardized bullshit that people spew without any critical thinking applied to what they are saying, all you've really done is point out that you don't like Google because you don't like Google.
I am not speaking from authority but simply 'lay knowledge' but if you use the THX optimizer using the correct color filters, then you should (in theory) be doing exactly what you were wishing. It shouldn't matter your own color sensitivity as the issue is how well the colors onscreen match the color filters of the glasses. If not the THX optimizer, there are at least a few 'stand alone' testing systems that should ensure the colors match as close as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Late to the party, I know. But in reality, they apparently never needed Interpol to do that anyway. Just read this recent article on the shenanigans that ICE is pulling.
You make several assumptions and provide nothing to back them up with. Using this argument it would be just as easy to argue that slavery is just, for the owner betters the life of the slave. And you, once again, fail to show any work (as the school teacher might say) and simply claim the rest of your proof follows naturally.
Again you wave your hands and claim it is all there but fail to provide any proof. In fact you seem forced to assume things not present in my actual argument simply to make the weak point you've failed to support.
What right do you have to 'protect' anyone from physical harm? From whence does this right flow and how is it defined?
How do you decide what is physical harm?
If wish to pierce my ears, should this be prevented? How about my nipples? My genitals? If I choose to split my tongue? What if I choose to insert titanium knobs under my skin?
What if I choose to drink? Smoke tobacco? Smoke pot? Shoot heroin?
What if I cut myself? Refuse to eat? What if I have a curable but deadly if untreated disease and refuse treatments?
What if I touch myself in inappropriate places? If I engage in risky sexual behavior? What if I have sexual relations with someone with a known STD?
What if I hang out with a 'bad boy'? What if I hang out with a gang? What if I hang out with a group of people known to commit violent felonies? What if I hang out with people who think strapping a bomb on themselves and walking into a mall of crowded people and exploding is an ethical, moral, and reasonable way to make a social statement?
Come now, according to you this all follows rationally and logically, there should be one answer that is true for everyone to the above questions. What are they?
Have you even thought about the arguments you are making or are you simply a troll?
I'm not even going to go into the rest of your 'response' to my comment, your failure to even know what cognitive dissonance is or realize that everyone suffers from it pretty much tells me you are ignorant, misinformed, and weakminded, or a well trained troll, I refuse to waste more effort attempting to discern the difference.
Actually, that's what you've done, which is why I've called you on it. If you had attempted to make any sort of rational argument supporting your view point, and no waving your hand and stating your opinions as if they were fact isn't an attempt, I'd have simply assumed you were someone who hadn't thought completely through their viewpoint. But rather you are the rare individual who attempts to claim anything that spews forth from their mouth is gospel truth and anyone who disagrees is ignorant vermin.
Then sir, I respectfully submit that it is time for you to remove yourself from the discussion. As so far your attempts at logic have mostly been blatantly illogical.
I look forward to your logical proof of your statements especially RE:Who has what right to demand what of whom.
However so far all you've stated in response to this and the other questions I presented are opinions, not facts.
The fact is there is no factual definition of who has what rights in this world. You can just as easily argue logically that all men are free as you can that dominance is a natural result of life and thus the stronger should naturally and logically rule the weaker. It depends solely on the opinions/assumptions you begin your argument on.
The fact is there are no factual definitions to how far we must go to 'protect someone from themselves' or even 'to protect the public'. You can just as easily argue that people should be allowed to off themselves at a whim as you can argue that we should all be forced to live in monitored cells to prevent any impure thoughts or actions to corrupt us.
The fact is that logic itself is useless without starting with a foundation of pre-existing assumptions (axioms), things which can not be proven using the logic based upon them, as by definition any attempt do so would result in a tautology. Even something as simple as the math you presented in your opening argument is bound by this, for math is an axiomatic system.
What matters in the end is how consistent are the axioms we base out world view on. Do we claim to believe that all men should be free while keeping slaves? Do we count men and women as equal while denying women the ability to do the same things as men? Do we claim to follow a higher being while simultaneously ignoring the commandments attributed to said being?
In this, you have a point. People are far more willing to live with a conflicting set of axioms than to actually confront said conflicts and resolve them. But that has nothing to do with mindlessness or lack of intelligence and in fact, the people I've known in life who've exhibited the greatest amount of cognitive dissonance in their life were all highly intelligent, individualized people who simply weren't willing to give up believing in a set group of axioms no matter how much it conflicted with the rest of their lives and the reality as they knew it.
In fact, I would go so far as to postulate that the better one is able to comprehend the world around them, the more likely they are to be subject to cognitive dissonance as their ability to form a concrete framework describing their understanding is outpaced by it.
Logic is the answer only to questions of fact.
Logic does not answer questions of morality.
Logic does not answer questions of ethics.
Logic does not answer questions of aesthetics.
How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" for two men to lie together?
How many apples must be added together to find out if it's "OK" to deprive another of freedom?
How many apples must be added together to determine if something is "Porn" or "Art". And how many more to determine if there is an actual difference?
To date, the only way people have found a way to 'answer' those questions that logic can not answer is to rely on someone's authority. Be that the authority of the majority or minority, the "rule" of any is seen as the only way for more than two people to live in this world without being constantly at each others throats.
Perhaps, or, to me, the 80 second start up implies that it's not the receiver that's moving...
No real knowledge here, but if you have to know where the satellites are to a reasonable degree of accuracy already, and you are doing it the 'traditional' method of looking them up in a large almanac type database that stores their orbits, then knowing where they are in a few seconds (in relation to you) should tell you your heading.
Hmm. perhaps we have a units issue with our cow? Or have I missed something?
*woosh*?
If you read any of the links that have been provided, they explain how it works. Hint: 'True North' is the 'top' of the axis that the Earth itself spins on.
Mostly correct, as long as the device has only one antenna. However a device with two can.
Assume you have a spherical cow with antennas attached to it's head (A) and tail (B).
As long as the distance between A&B is greater than twice the error margin for your GPS receiver, taking a reading from both gives you your orientation. More antenna or a greater distance between A&B equals more accuracy.
Granted, as the commenter previous to my original comment indicated, you need a large cow for this, it's not going to be implemented in your hiking/hand held GPS. But it is something that's used in vessels (ships, aircraft, and I wouldn't be surprised if some types of commercial or military vehicles used this method).
I do apologize though, I made a poor attempt at explaining that previously.
Triangulation based on the fact that the position of the satellites it's getting it's signal from are known.
On the other hand, even if we didn't have GPS, we've had gyrocompasses for a long long time now. And they don't rely on magnetic fields whatsoever.
Think the "Government" would let the "Company" have nukes? That'd be asking for a coup.
I thought it was a rather clever nod to exactly what it was.
I always saw them as PSA's for children, warning them not to stray too far from home and of "Stranger Danger".
You are the one who controls whether you go through life in Combative mode or not, not the entertainment. There are people in this world, and while you may not be one of them you should at least learn to recognize they exist, who are capable of having a something presented to them that doesn't agree 100% with their worldview and still be able enjoy it.
Was Avatar a perfect movie? No. But the majority of the complaints I'm reading here are complaints that people don't want to 'hear a message' rather than anything that actually has to do with the merits of the movie itself.
Whats particularly sad here is that it doesn't seem like we can even come to a consensus WHAT exactly that message was. Meaning it's likely that the majority of what sticks in peoples caws isn't actually in the movie and is just being conveniently projected onto it by the view.
Was Avatar anti-science? Not likely, it wasn't science that was causing the problems.
Was Avatar anti-military? At best they were anti-mercs since that's all the military you saw on Pandora, mercs hired to work for the 'Company'.
Case in point: The linked to reviewer is so full of disdain for 'infantile liberal's that he assumes the whole thing must be about how we all must die in the eyes of the environmentalists. Was he around for the Aliens movies? Did he not notice the exact same treatment of the 'Company' and mercs in those moives? Are the Alien movies environmentalist movies now?
People need to back up and try getting just a tad bit of perspective here. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Again, your brain is one vast chemical machine. ANYTHING you experience, ANYTHING, is the result of a chemical process occurring in your brain. The same defenses that 'work' (and honestly, if they really worked, drugs wouldn't) for drugs are going to work for an embedded stim.
The SOLE point of the electrical signals flowing in your brain is to convey signals between it's parts. All a stim can do is 'hijack' the channel and send it's own signals. At least with drugs, the chemicals introduced do some of the heavy lifting for you by mimicking the hormones naturally present in your body. All a stim is going to be able to do is induce your own glands to produce what they can.
Second Trivia Fact: I've read (don't ask why) a few AgSci studies that have shown that while a dairy cow can be milked year round, you have a higher output if you milk them for a set number of months, then let them lay 'fallow' for a number of months before starting back up again. The reason for this is the mammary gland can not cope with constant usage. It has to have time to 'rest and recharge' in order to be at it's top production level.
The same thing that happens with a mammary gland occurs with the glands that are responsible for the hormones that run your brain. Only unlike the mammary gland, something 'designed' for high volume use, they aren't going to last months at max level output. They are going to last at most days.
More importantly, unless this stim is omnipresent in your brain (i.e. a nanomachine within each cell) it's going to be located in a specific portion of you head. And unless it's tuned to a far better degree than we have the ability to tune to today, it's going to be sending out a signal that is far of 'spec' for what your brain cells are used to receiving. Eventually, you are going to burn out those cells and create 'scar tissue' around the stim. Especially if you are attempting to do a 'eternal nothingness' deal where the dial is set to '11' for 24/7.
Yes, the book describe (which I haven't read) sounds as if presents an interesting sociological look, but it does so in the same sense that Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics did, not by creating something that could realistically happen but by investigating how life would be IF it were possible.
Electricity isn't a magic genie, if you shove a live wire into the wood of your computer desk, it suddenly doesn't start thinking. The ability to carry and act upon those electrical impulses in your head is maintained by the chemicals within and between your brain cells. It is a chemical reaction. And as such, consumes chemicals and requires constant replenishment.
In fact, most of the time, if you've become desensitized to a chemical (for instance caffeine), what has happened is that the receptors responsible for handling the signals that chemical is causing have become fatigued and no longer act upon them.
Quick Trivia Fact for you: Your caffeine withdraw headache is believed by some doctors to be caused by the fact that your body keeps replenishing the 'dead' adenosine receptors that have stopped responding due to their over-stimulation. When you stop using caffeine cold turkey, all the sudden you have an over abundance of these receptors, making you overly sensitive to the signals that help control the constriction of your blood vessels. This in turn causes the capillaries in your head to dilate which results in a headache.
So no, there is no guarantee that a stim would 'work till you died'. It's quite possible and even likely that the receptors being targeted by the stim would give out well before any 'neglect' related damage occurred.
The brain is just a giant chemical machine in and of itself.
And eventually the cells being stimulated are going to fatigue and no longer be able to respond to the stimulus. Granted, this possibly could/would happen far later than the equivalent reaction to a drug induced version, but it's an inevitable result of our 'design'.
You nitpick about that and ignore the whole "Begs the question - Raises the question" thing? For Shame!
But honestly, remember that today she's willing to wake you up, but in a decade she's going to be bitching and moaning about how you never do any of the yard work because you are too busy playing those damn games. *removes tongue from cheek*
Yes, we use RealDolls now, far superior to the blow up models...
A stupid mechanic can, a smart one knows that the "fub fub fub" sound the owner makes over the phone could mean any sort of things and insist that in order to give a reliable quote, that they get to actually examine the car.
And if what you said was true, it'd be a reasonable thing to say. But since what you said isn't just bull, it's the pre-packaged standardized bullshit that people spew without any critical thinking applied to what they are saying, all you've really done is point out that you don't like Google because you don't like Google.
I am not speaking from authority but simply 'lay knowledge' but if you use the THX optimizer using the correct color filters, then you should (in theory) be doing exactly what you were wishing. It shouldn't matter your own color sensitivity as the issue is how well the colors onscreen match the color filters of the glasses. If not the THX optimizer, there are at least a few 'stand alone' testing systems that should ensure the colors match as close as possible.
Coraline, Up. Possibly Avatar....
Not a market huge enough to warrant a new TV, but there is a market.