In the context of running for office, this makes no sense. It doesn't matter if the candidate doesn't give a shit, or if they are not ashamed. What matters is if the people voting (or the people who decide who will be running, which, depending on where you are, may not be the same thing) think you should be ashamed or embarassed or whatever.
I don't know about your corner of the world, but from what I see of the US, there are enough people who care about things that don't matter that the distinction matters.
Considering that pharmaceutical companies spend 2 to 3 times as much on advertising than they do on research, I'm sure there are other ways to make the calculation you are proposing.
Making a free choice that gets you into a situation where you are being coerced does not mean that you are not being coerced, or that you are continuing to make free choices.
If there is something in the EULA that prevents me from using the service on multiple devices, then I reject the EULA and they can keep the service. It's barely worth what I pay for it in the first place.
That ties it to the device. Not the person. I am the Account Owner on a Netflix account. I watch on at least 3 different devices. The three people I share it with watch it on more than one device as well.
The freedom of sexual expression implies the freedom to be sexually exploited.
They're not mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure that it's possible to be both exploited and be free. If the woman acted on her own free choices, then it isn't exploitation. If it's exploitation, then the choices weren't made freely.
This is the only solution that might actually work.
This was already tried, and there is a TED talk on the topic which I am too lazy/busy to look up. I don't recall what country this happened in, but non-lethal weapons were handed out to a particular peace force with the intent that they would be used instead of guns, thus resulting in fewer instances of violence. The actual results were that the non-lethal instrument was used something like 10 times more often than guns were, and there was no real reduction in gun usage during police operations.
We can already do brain scans, and map all the synapses in a small part of brain tissue, so mapping an entire brain is just the same thing with some performance enhancements. And since we can already simulate small neural networks, simulating an entire brain is just the same thing with some scale improvements.
What was your point again, exactly?
Brain scans and neural networks have so far achieved zero when it comes to figuring out what causes consciousness. If you scale that up, it's still zero.
For instance, one incremental improvement we will soon see is speech recognition that is better than a human listener.
What does this even mean? The purpose of speech is to convey information. Will new speech recognition software be able to extract more information than a human listener can? Will it extract more information than the speaker intended? If so, how do you decide whether that information is true and accurate?
This will take significant increases in computing power, natural language processing algorithms, and other advances. The difference between today's Siri / Cortana and this new speech recognition technology will be relatively minor compared to where the technology was 30 years ago, but the science behind the advancement will be light-years ahead.
You can burn the U.S. flag and nobody can throw you in jail. The "speech" is protected, even it means you're an asshole.
You just called the US Marines and the Army assholes. Nice going.
From the Marine Corps Flag Manual, MCO P10520.3B,: "Flags determined not to have historical value will be destroyed by the parent organization, privately by burning,"
Army Regulation is AR840-10. Section 2-12, paragraph c, states that if the flag has no historic value, "it should be destroyed privately, preferably by burning,"
At what point does a group of people, perhaps thinking they're working to create something good, but that actually results in something that maybe isn't so good, become a "conspiracy"?
I would very much welcome the coining of a word to denote an unintentional conspiracy, as I think they happen more often than people realize.
This is not one of those cases. Suppose a group of people decided among themselves that robbing a bank would be a good thing. Because they believe it's a good thing, does that mean their planning of the robbery is not a conspiracy?
When an action is known to be illegal, and one or more people make plans to engage in it, that's pretty much the textbook definition of conspiracy.
We need 3 missions to Pluto, the first mission we send a man around Pluto and back home. The second mission we send a different man to Charon as practice for the Pluto mission
Let me guess... the third mission gets halfway there, but has to turn around because they run out of fuel.
I had a few semesters of Chemistry a fairly long time ago (Organic, a semester of PhysChem) and I understood it well enough. I guess it's a matter of specialization of knowledge.
It's just an approach I haven't heard discussed before as far as locally produced propellants are concerned.
A fair bet: The number of people who have heard any discussions at all about locally produced propellants on a planet that nobody has ever been to is pretty close to zero.
"a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US"
False. Marijuana is very rarely laced with anything. That would be bad for business.
You just claimed a statement was false and then claimed as true a statement which means essentially the same thing. You're high right now, aren't you?
I see no evidence that he is and you say nothing about what this "very specific location" is. Here's the quote:
It's right there in the third paragraph of the article linked. Specifics to the location are mentioned multiple times in later paragraphs as well. Did you think each paragraph was completely independent and unrelated?
Slashdot Mirror
In the context of running for office, this makes no sense. It doesn't matter if the candidate doesn't give a shit, or if they are not ashamed. What matters is if the people voting (or the people who decide who will be running, which, depending on where you are, may not be the same thing) think you should be ashamed or embarassed or whatever.
I don't know about your corner of the world, but from what I see of the US, there are enough people who care about things that don't matter that the distinction matters.
I don't think it's possible to know this based on the information given in the article. Do you have another source?
OTOH, it's already well known what happens when bacteria populations are driven too low in the mouth. Fungi take advantage of the lack of competition.
Considering that pharmaceutical companies spend 2 to 3 times as much on advertising than they do on research, I'm sure there are other ways to make the calculation you are proposing.
Making a free choice that gets you into a situation where you are being coerced does not mean that you are not being coerced, or that you are continuing to make free choices.
If there is something in the EULA that prevents me from using the service on multiple devices, then I reject the EULA and they can keep the service. It's barely worth what I pay for it in the first place.
That ties it to the device. Not the person. I am the Account Owner on a Netflix account. I watch on at least 3 different devices. The three people I share it with watch it on more than one device as well.
The freedom of sexual expression implies the freedom to be sexually exploited.
They're not mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure that it's possible to be both exploited and be free. If the woman acted on her own free choices, then it isn't exploitation. If it's exploitation, then the choices weren't made freely.
Nope. See link provided above. Australia, and OC (pepper) Spray.
Replying to add link to the actual Ted Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/step...
Specifically, 8:00 to 9:30.
This is the only solution that might actually work.
This was already tried, and there is a TED talk on the topic which I am too lazy/busy to look up. I don't recall what country this happened in, but non-lethal weapons were handed out to a particular peace force with the intent that they would be used instead of guns, thus resulting in fewer instances of violence. The actual results were that the non-lethal instrument was used something like 10 times more often than guns were, and there was no real reduction in gun usage during police operations.
Locality of self.
... without a loss of continuity of consciousness.
For most humans, this is a daily experience. Why exactly does it pose a problem in this particular context?
We can already do brain scans, and map all the synapses in a small part of brain tissue, so mapping an entire brain is just the same thing with some performance enhancements. And since we can already simulate small neural networks, simulating an entire brain is just the same thing with some scale improvements.
What was your point again, exactly?
Brain scans and neural networks have so far achieved zero when it comes to figuring out what causes consciousness. If you scale that up, it's still zero.
For instance, one incremental improvement we will soon see is speech recognition that is better than a human listener.
What does this even mean? The purpose of speech is to convey information. Will new speech recognition software be able to extract more information than a human listener can? Will it extract more information than the speaker intended? If so, how do you decide whether that information is true and accurate?
This will take significant increases in computing power, natural language processing algorithms, and other advances. The difference between today's Siri / Cortana and this new speech recognition technology will be relatively minor compared to where the technology was 30 years ago, but the science behind the advancement will be light-years ahead.
This is a distinction without a difference.
You can burn the U.S. flag and nobody can throw you in jail. The "speech" is protected, even it means you're an asshole.
You just called the US Marines and the Army assholes. Nice going.
From the Marine Corps Flag Manual, MCO P10520.3B,: "Flags determined not to have historical value will be destroyed by the parent organization, privately by burning,"
Army Regulation is AR840-10. Section 2-12, paragraph c, states that if the flag has no historic value, "it should be destroyed privately, preferably by burning,"
So....Your criticism of an award usually given for fiction is that the work it was awarded to couldn't possibly be true?
The editor of this story, inspired by the map he was writing about, decided to take an inactive approach.
At what point does a group of people, perhaps thinking they're working to create something good, but that actually results in something that maybe isn't so good, become a "conspiracy"?
I would very much welcome the coining of a word to denote an unintentional conspiracy, as I think they happen more often than people realize.
This is not one of those cases. Suppose a group of people decided among themselves that robbing a bank would be a good thing. Because they believe it's a good thing, does that mean their planning of the robbery is not a conspiracy?
When an action is known to be illegal, and one or more people make plans to engage in it, that's pretty much the textbook definition of conspiracy.
We need 3 missions to Pluto, the first mission we send a man around Pluto and back home.
The second mission we send a different man to Charon as practice for the Pluto mission
Let me guess... the third mission gets halfway there, but has to turn around because they run out of fuel.
I had a few semesters of Chemistry a fairly long time ago (Organic, a semester of PhysChem) and I understood it well enough. I guess it's a matter of specialization of knowledge.
It's just an approach I haven't heard discussed before as far as locally produced propellants are concerned.
A fair bet: The number of people who have heard any discussions at all about locally produced propellants on a planet that nobody has ever been to is pretty close to zero.
Because unless you only use office, Microsoft updates constantly break things.
Why would only using Office help? Office updates break things plenty often in my experience.
"a great deal of street grade marijuna is very poor quality, may be pesticide or herbicide contaminated, and is very occasionally still laced with PCP in the US"
False. Marijuana is very rarely laced with anything. That would be bad for business.
You just claimed a statement was false and then claimed as true a statement which means essentially the same thing. You're high right now, aren't you?
Viner is talking about a very specific location.
I see no evidence that he is and you say nothing about what this "very specific location" is. Here's the quote:
It's right there in the third paragraph of the article linked. Specifics to the location are mentioned multiple times in later paragraphs as well. Did you think each paragraph was completely independent and unrelated?
Plus you seem to be arguing that humans don't enjoy killing each other? It's what we do best.
A world population that has doubled in my lifetime says there must be at least one thing we do better.
Did you see my list of American wars of the 20th century?
List away. The percentage of human deaths which were a result of violence was lower in the 20th century than in any century prior.
People will forgive your mistakes. What you do intentionally is another matter.
Interesting theory with one flaw. Ethnicity is not related to genetics.