Rights are not truly "free," they come at a price--responsibility. This is why animals cannot have "rights"; they are incapable of culpability or responsibility.
Can a computer or other human creation possess responsibility for its actions and thus held to answer to society?
Is there a difference between "reprogramming" [a computer] and "rehabilitating" [a person]?
If we reprogram the sentient computer, do we infringe in its right to be who/what it is? Are we usurping its heritage/culture?
If a sentient computer commits murder, how do we punish it? If it has no soul/spirit (does it?), why would death matter to it or its judges/executioners?
I do not claim to know the answers (although I have *opinions* on all these et al), but these are certainly questions that must be answered if the scenario in TFA ever comes to pass.
But where's the Profit? There's gotta be Profit. You can't have a 3-step program without Profit. Profit makes the world go 'round. We like Profit...oh, wait...
Tacit approval of this sort of thing (cracking) paints us all with the same unsavory brush. If we do not start policing our own, the "geek/nerd" stigma will deepen. We are professionals, let's act like it.
"...most 'troubleshooting' steps found in support manual are so amateur that they are useless."
Amen. Nobody makes good manuals anymore, including program language software vendors. Seems most everybody now thinks "Help" is adequate. The only salvation is third-party manuals, which are usually frightfully expensive.
We've got a ditch digger over in Dallas who's been out of work ever since he finished the Panama Canal and then they shut down the Superconducting Super Collider project http://www.hep.net/documents/drell/apendixa.html. I figure it'll take him a couple of days to dig a diversion ditch to channel the flow into the Gulf of Mexico, and mayber another week to stack it all up into a peninsula, then another week to collect a crew and build a suburb of Corpus Christi.
Yeah, bring it on. At least one Texan needs the work.
"That is human nature. People act radically whenever dealing with a highly emotional topic. That does not make it a religion."
The invocation of language such as "morals, belief, faith," et al when positing a position, coupled with actions or sincerely expressed desires for actions of a radical nature, indicates a "belief system" far deeper than mere acceptance of argument. One might "believe" in homeopathic medicine, but not to a degree that they wish to force said belief on humanity at large through law, exhortive persuasion, or terror. However, if the beief is so deeply rooted that it becomes part of the individual's sense of "self" or ego (i.e. the belief defines who they are), then it takes on the mantle of religion.
Contextually, someone might say "I am an environmentalist" or "I am a druid," but rare, indeed is the individual who says, "I am a spinach eater." The latter might "believe" in the efficacy of spinach as nutrition, but is does not define them. Religion, however, does.
"Because two topics incite lots of commentary and discussion you think they must both be basically the same thing?"
Not at all, and that is not what I wrote.
Many enviriomentalist positions require "belief"--"faith," if you will--to accept. Belief and faith, when challenged, incite zealousness, emotion, and sometimes extreme behavior (e.g. burning down housing developments http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.j sp?sectionId=46&id=37335 in the name of environmentalism, or flying air liners into buildings in the name of radical Islam, or launching the Crusades in the name of Christianity.
Although environmentalism and religion are clearly not the same thing, the behavior of many "believers" inside both institutions are the same.
"I'll believe in global warming the minute 'scientists' find something to agree on."
You hit on the operative word--"believe."
Environmentalism (as opposed to conservation) has deteriorated into a religion, which by definition mandates belief from followers. If you doubt this, witness two of the topics that generate the most comments and flaming "Flamebait" moderations on/.
Post something questioning religion (mainstream), global warming, or man's impact on the environment, then sit back and watch the zealot fireworks show.
"People who don't give a shit just plain don't know about it."
I recently told a guy who is responsible for IT at a public school about Firefox. He had not heard of it.
Analyze a few spam messages. Multiple versions of the *same* message come from multiple sources. Whoever hires the spammers supplies a pre-written message containing all that sneaky code, probably written by a disgruntled or greedy geek.
"The 'Lego Thing' is that you have a limited set of basic, standardized componants. Everyone's legos are the same but they can be used to make a nearly infinite set of creations. And with a little knowledge of good engineering practices you can create suprisingly solid constructions."
The test pages says: "Use the first link if you have a pop-up blocker enabled, or the second link if you do not have a pop-up blocker enabled."
Using Firefox 1.0 with popup blocking enabled, I selected the first link and the test "worked." When I selected the second link, it didn't work.
Does "pop-up blocker enabled" mean an external third-party blocker?
In any event, this seems odd. A malicious highjacker could not know who did and did not have a popup blocker. Ergo, doesn't the "test" directing to two different links--one for with, one for without--sort of invalidate the whole thing?
If you are implying I should configure my client to thread email messages, again that is a crock. That I like my emails displayed chronologically is sufficient reason to not do this just to accommodate AOL users. Add that the nature of my work makes chronolgical display mandatory, and AOL is even farther out on its ear.
Yeah, I have to do that, too. Usually, though, I only do rewrites when deadline precludes rejection for rewrite by the (freelance) author. Fortunately, I do have autonomy to fire writer for incompetency, and have exercised that a few times.
Slashdot Mirror
Rights are not truly "free," they come at a price--responsibility. This is why animals cannot have "rights"; they are incapable of culpability or responsibility.
Can a computer or other human creation possess responsibility for its actions and thus held to answer to society?
Is there a difference between "reprogramming" [a computer] and "rehabilitating" [a person]?
If we reprogram the sentient computer, do we infringe in its right to be who/what it is? Are we usurping its heritage/culture?
If a sentient computer commits murder, how do we punish it? If it has no soul/spirit (does it?), why would death matter to it or its judges/executioners?
I do not claim to know the answers (although I have *opinions* on all these et al), but these are certainly questions that must be answered if the scenario in TFA ever comes to pass.
Well, they are paid with money the government extorts from me--isn't that enough?
But where's the Profit? There's gotta be Profit. You can't have a 3-step program without Profit. Profit makes the world go 'round. We like Profit...oh, wait...
Tacit approval of this sort of thing (cracking) paints us all with the same unsavory brush. If we do not start policing our own, the "geek/nerd" stigma will deepen. We are professionals, let's act like it.
"...most 'troubleshooting' steps found in support manual are so amateur that they are useless."
Amen. Nobody makes good manuals anymore, including program language software vendors. Seems most everybody now thinks "Help" is adequate. The only salvation is third-party manuals, which are usually frightfully expensive.
My kingdom for a good tech manual!
"I believe under the CAN-SPAM act, you cannot anyway."
The CAN-SPAM Act is a shining example of what you get when legislators do not have *one* clue what is going on, but make laws anyway.
You ought to have to pass a test to be a legislator, judge, or even a damn dog catcher.
We've got a ditch digger over in Dallas who's been out of work ever since he finished the Panama Canal and then they shut down the Superconducting Super Collider project http://www.hep.net/documents/drell/apendixa.html. I figure it'll take him a couple of days to dig a diversion ditch to channel the flow into the Gulf of Mexico, and mayber another week to stack it all up into a peninsula, then another week to collect a crew and build a suburb of Corpus Christi.
Yeah, bring it on. At least one Texan needs the work.
"That is human nature. People act radically whenever dealing with a highly emotional topic. That does not make it a religion."
/. Whooda think it?)
The invocation of language such as "morals, belief, faith," et al when positing a position, coupled with actions or sincerely expressed desires for actions of a radical nature, indicates a "belief system" far deeper than mere acceptance of argument. One might "believe" in homeopathic medicine, but not to a degree that they wish to force said belief on humanity at large through law, exhortive persuasion, or terror. However, if the beief is so deeply rooted that it becomes part of the individual's sense of "self" or ego (i.e. the belief defines who they are), then it takes on the mantle of religion.
Contextually, someone might say "I am an environmentalist" or "I am a druid," but rare, indeed is the individual who says, "I am a spinach eater." The latter might "believe" in the efficacy of spinach as nutrition, but is does not define them. Religion, however, does.
(Gawd, polite discourse on
Not at all, and that is not what I wrote.
Many enviriomentalist positions require "belief"--"faith," if you will--to accept. Belief and faith, when challenged, incite zealousness, emotion, and sometimes extreme behavior (e.g. burning down housing developments http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.j sp?sectionId=46&id=37335 in the name of environmentalism, or flying air liners into buildings in the name of radical Islam, or launching the Crusades in the name of Christianity.
Although environmentalism and religion are clearly not the same thing, the behavior of many "believers" inside both institutions are the same.
Conservation http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ion has nothing to do with "conservative" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conservat ive in a political sense--except, perhaps, that there are more politically conservative conservationists than there are politically liberal conservationists.
"Oh and your sig is exactly how I justified my brother in law to my parents." Thanks for the best laugh I've had in days.
"I'll believe in global warming the minute 'scientists' find something to agree on."
/.
You hit on the operative word--"believe."
Environmentalism (as opposed to conservation) has deteriorated into a religion, which by definition mandates belief from followers. If you doubt this, witness two of the topics that generate the most comments and flaming "Flamebait" moderations on
Post something questioning religion (mainstream), global warming, or man's impact on the environment, then sit back and watch the zealot fireworks show.
"People who don't give a shit just plain don't know about it." I recently told a guy who is responsible for IT at a public school about Firefox. He had not heard of it.
Most of the stuff that makes the press is by "scientists" with dubious credentials http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/hea dline/1742 who sell their services to groups with an axe to grind http://www.pcrm.org/
With the right buzzwords, you can dupe most of the public into believing anything http://www.dhmo.org/
" I wanna be handsome geek." That's an oxymoron of which I am reminded every day when I look in the mirror.
Analyze a few spam messages. Multiple versions of the *same* message come from multiple sources. Whoever hires the spammers supplies a pre-written message containing all that sneaky code, probably written by a disgruntled or greedy geek.
Salon.com forces you to read an ad before you can RTFA. They can go to hell.
...the photocopying process (xerography) is named for them http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=xerograph y ...or is it the other way around?
Why is parent modded down?
It's a joke, I say, it's a joke, son!
Lessee, tectonic plates sliding over one another in a subduction zone... ...yeah, that would make a noise, I think.
This concept reminds one of the MIT robotic competition http://web.mit.edu/6.270/www/contestants/ et al. Design teams work with identical parts kits http://web.mit.edu/6.270/www/contestants/handouts/ kit2004.html which, in the 2004 competition, included Legos components.
The teams must create a robot that performs a given task(s), and the 'bots battle it out at the end.
The test pages says: "Use the first link if you have a pop-up blocker enabled, or the second link if you do not have a pop-up blocker enabled."
Using Firefox 1.0 with popup blocking enabled, I selected the first link and the test "worked." When I selected the second link, it didn't work.
Does "pop-up blocker enabled" mean an external third-party blocker?
In any event, this seems odd. A malicious highjacker could not know who did and did not have a popup blocker. Ergo, doesn't the "test" directing to two different links--one for with, one for without--sort of invalidate the whole thing?
If you are implying I should configure my client to thread email messages, again that is a crock. That I like my emails displayed chronologically is sufficient reason to not do this just to accommodate AOL users. Add that the nature of my work makes chronolgical display mandatory, and AOL is even farther out on its ear.
Bull cookies. The only email that has this problem is AOL sourced. The rest of the world functions normally. No, AOL is clearly deficient here.
Yeah, I have to do that, too. Usually, though, I only do rewrites when deadline precludes rejection for rewrite by the (freelance) author. Fortunately, I do have autonomy to fire writer for incompetency, and have exercised that a few times.