Lets just say this: Human is not the same as Homo sapiens. There are many members of our species that I would not classify as human beings - primarily for their lack of humanity.
Members of Homo sapiens are persons (biological into legal) and under American terminology, natural persons.
It is not sufficient for two organism types to be able to breed to be the same species, only that they have viable offspring. A mule is sterile, as is a liger.
These "hobbits" and Neanderthals, if alive today, would almost certainly be considered persons under the law. They would probably be viewed as human, but they would not be considered Homo Sapiens.
Technical and precise terms are required. Generalized words, like human, cannot be precise. Use the right tool for the job. Someone with far more brains and artistic skill could probably produce a Venn diagram highlighting this discussion
This is why folks without any knowledge of biology should not engage in technical discussions about biology. Your quasi-theological response to such a question just shows that you shouldn't be at the adults table.
FFS I guess you didn't actually understand what was written. The first crew, when the project leaves in about 20 years, will be made up of folks that are currently in middle school or high school. No agency will be sending minors. Miners possibly, but not minors.
The article states that applicants should be "experts in their fields' and "in peak physical condition". We can all agree that they need to be technically competent in several technical areas, but I don't believe they need to be "experts". Also, while I can agree that the crew need to be in good shape, the important thing would be to ensure that the crew are in a physical condition best suited to minimize the chances of ill-health considering their environment. I do not believe that being of "peak physical condition" is necessarily required or desired.
So based on the above, it seems clear that you are 100% behind the concept that man evolved like all other organisms. There is nothing special about man, evolutionarily speaking. Yes, we have evolved and through that process have obtained language, arts, intelligence, etc. However, there is nothing to suggest that we are the end-product of evolution. Nothing to suggest that man is 'above' all other species, or precepts like he alone of all the things to evolve on earth has a soul.
Posted intentionally to lampoon typical responses.
I am not surprised that requests are not followed up on when a female calls for them, nor am I surprised that their responses are more often responded to when the gender is hidden/neutral. What I am surprised is that female pull requests are "larger and less likely to serve an immediate project need". Does this mean that female developers are concentrating on "big picture features" more often ?
My son is 12. He is teaching himself Python. So far, he's figured out how to replicate a board game in Python. I'm not sure how useful Python will be for him, but its the concept of programming that I think will be the of most use for him
I do not agree with your statement's overall claim.
However, in order to make you feel better, you can think of these space ventures simply as income redistribution. The "rich guys with a fantasy for space" and "wealthy people" you refer too spend money doing this. Lots of money. This money goes to high-tech jobs that pay well, that in themselves allow money to be distributed. If more of the 1% spent their money this way, there would be even more money distributed around, driving the economy that you and I derive our incomes from.
So rather than being negative on this, you should be banging the drum to make more and more of the 1% interested in this. Make those 1%ers prefer to spend their resources acquiring expensive services that feed the highest paying technical staff, We don't want those folks spending their money on things or on low-value services, we want them to spend them on services that can only be provided at great cost by technical people. Get those bank accounts spending money on high tech services provided by your neighbours !
But if you are really done having kids, I really recommend the traditional approach and forget the reversible part.
Yup. Of course, the traditional part is having the wife get her tubes tied during the 2nd birth procedure. That way you even get to avoid the "relatively painless" procedure.
Mind you, monogamy is still required. If that's not in your cards, then by all means, have your nipper nicked. I'll make a vast difference
Uber does not represent progress. Say it with me, Uber does not represent progress. Uber is regressive for drivers. Repeating the drivel that Uber is progressive or or represents progress is deceiving. Are they a disruptive technology? YES. we can agree on that. Does it better the world ? On the assumption that Uber is always cheaper, the drive to shot term cost savings for long term pain, transfer of risk, lowering of quality of both service and life for the service providers has never worked well. Look at many department stores and small city downtown cores since Wal-mart started its march across north america. Are you better served? Are the staff? Are you the prices you are paying actually lower, or are they lower only until any competition has been driven away ?
Driving labour rates down to export profit from the country does nothing positive. The transfer of insurance and health risk onto the driver instead of the taxi company is insane.
While I will agree that taxi drivers decades are diminishing, it won't be Uber that takes them out, it will be driverless cars.
The author only died in 2009, so yes, the copyright is still valid. It seems a relatively simple case that CBS obtained rights from the a company that published the songbook. The case revolves around whether or not that music company had the legal authority to grant those rights to CBS. The copyright holder of the lyrics has stated that the music company did not have the right to do so.
As for what is the appropriate duration of copyright, I will gladly agree that the duration is too long.
And I'm tired of arrogant people who can't respect other people's cultures.
Science is a part of my culture. And I'm tired of people blocking its progress with silly religious objections.
Not the same damn thing. No one is stopping scientific progress here. Its simply a choice between sites. This site is NOT the only one. It may be optimal from a purely technical point of view, but when you take in all considerations it may not be the optional solution. I'm sorry, putting your nuclear research centre downtown isn't a good idea. Find another location, and get on with your work.
This has nothing to do with history and probably not much about culture either. It's (allegedly) about religion which is a mythology. And frankly I cannot see any rational argument that this damages the culture or historical record of anyone. It's a telescope on top of a mountain which is not being used for any other purpose. So long as there is no environmental issue or property rights issue involved then there is nothing to discuss.
Obviously you've never been involved in an Environmental Assessment Process. Cultural considerations, as well as aesthetic considerations can be show stoppers.
Really? You're going to go there and compare scientists to a bunch of religious loonies destroying ancient artifacts? Ok, tell me what is being destroyed here. Aside from the area directly being built upon, what tangible thing is being destroyed? How does this change history or our record of history in any way? Who or what is actually being harmed here?
I don't know exactly what is going on there. I am not an archaeologist, nor an anthropologist specializing in Hawaiian culture. But to discount the beliefs (which MAY be genuine) out of hand is 100% the same as blowing up idols because you believe they are not necessary. What is being destroyed ? Well, the locals, who are better informed that you or I, seem to feel that the construction would constitute a negative impact. The implicit assumption of "I know best" is the same. damn. logic. You don't care about their beliefs. Fine. Learn to respect the fact that others may not feel the way you do. You do not believe there is anything special, but I'm ok with you having that opinion. Let's check with the experts, and if they agree that the location is not suitable for the proposed usage, then you change locations.
I'm tired of people trying to trample valuable research because of their mythology.
Take a deep breath. Cultural or historic factors need to be taken in to consideration. If we simply discount our rich history, then we are no better than the fanatics destroying ancient monuments and statues in the desert.
the TMT should be place in the most advantageous location that it is permitted to be placed. If Maunakea is not available, find the next best location. Fixation on a single optimal solution (from a technical position) does not usually result in the "best" solution. Environmental impacts need to be considered for any such project, including potential impacts to the social and economic environment of the local residents, to the cultural and historical environs, to the political situation, to the flora and fauna, and to also the overall economic validity of the project. A project may "score" very highly, but if it encounters a "show stopper" then the particular solution needs to be dropped, or modified to not run up against a show stopper.
It sounds very much like certain cultural and/or historic factors were either overlooked or downplayed.
damn, didn't notice that I used a lesser than sign and chopped off the middle of my post... with a population of less than 10 million. This'd be like the States taking 3 million refugees, where the US won't even take 3 thousand.
Scandinavia racist? You mean like the country of Sweden that has taken more than 100k Syrian refugees with a population American right wingers throw "socialist" around like its a scourge, without understanding what it actually means.
As an engineer for over 30 years, it has been my experience that we see what we want to see. In my office, some engineers are religious and some are not. Some are conservative, some are not. The two groups overlap, but are not a 1:1 mapping. I would have to say that the majority are not particularly religious, but where I live, there isn't a particularly large religious community.
I would prefer to say that most engineers are determined and intelligent, and tend to succeed. If any of them were to become fundamentalist in a particular religion, I would have no doubt that they would become successful in that activity
Over the not to distant future, socialism will shut down the western producing companies (leaving no production) and space travel will stop.
Socialism will be the end of space travel ?
I'm sorry, but what will kill human space travel will be the fanatics who decry that having taxes pay for such things as NASA when such expenditures do not return immediate benefit. Politicians now (in the US at least) consider the next presidential election cycle as being long-term planning. This ongoing unblinking focus on short term gain for long term pain, will be what stops humanity from space travel.
Consider this: Some of the groups that are doing the most in advancing space exploration include the Chinese and a partnership between European countries. Hardly anti-socialists (from an American perspective). Russia Japan India also have space programs, as well.
The only way human beings may move past Mars is through long term, negative profit,science-based programs. The kind of programs that are shut down by dollar focused, shareholder driven, anti-science political leaders we seem to be stuck with these days.
At least in the depths of the Cold War, the one-upmanship lead to positive gains in human space travel.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a technical description below. Its not a matter of replacing a bit of code. i.e. not just a software issue, its hardware
Lets just say this: Human is not the same as Homo sapiens. There are many members of our species that I would not classify as human beings - primarily for their lack of humanity.
Members of Homo sapiens are persons (biological into legal) and under American terminology, natural persons.
It is not sufficient for two organism types to be able to breed to be the same species, only that they have viable offspring. A mule is sterile, as is a liger.
These "hobbits" and Neanderthals, if alive today, would almost certainly be considered persons under the law. They would probably be viewed as human, but they would not be considered Homo Sapiens.
Technical and precise terms are required. Generalized words, like human, cannot be precise. Use the right tool for the job. Someone with far more brains and artistic skill could probably produce a Venn diagram highlighting this discussion
This is why folks without any knowledge of biology should not engage in technical discussions about biology. Your quasi-theological response to such a question just shows that you shouldn't be at the adults table.
FFS I guess you didn't actually understand what was written. The first crew, when the project leaves in about 20 years, will be made up of folks that are currently in middle school or high school. No agency will be sending minors. Miners possibly, but not minors.
The article states that applicants should be "experts in their fields' and "in peak physical condition". We can all agree that they need to be technically competent in several technical areas, but I don't believe they need to be "experts". Also, while I can agree that the crew need to be in good shape, the important thing would be to ensure that the crew are in a physical condition best suited to minimize the chances of ill-health considering their environment. I do not believe that being of "peak physical condition" is necessarily required or desired.
So based on the above, it seems clear that you are 100% behind the concept that man evolved like all other organisms. There is nothing special about man, evolutionarily speaking. Yes, we have evolved and through that process have obtained language, arts, intelligence, etc. However, there is nothing to suggest that we are the end-product of evolution. Nothing to suggest that man is 'above' all other species, or precepts like he alone of all the things to evolve on earth has a soul.
"pull requests" heh.
Posted intentionally to lampoon typical responses.
I am not surprised that requests are not followed up on when a female calls for them, nor am I surprised that their responses are more often responded to when the gender is hidden/neutral. What I am surprised is that female pull requests are "larger and less likely to serve an immediate project need". Does this mean that female developers are concentrating on "big picture features" more often ?
My son is 12. He is teaching himself Python. So far, he's figured out how to replicate a board game in Python. I'm not sure how useful Python will be for him, but its the concept of programming that I think will be the of most use for him
I do not agree with your statement's overall claim.
However, in order to make you feel better, you can think of these space ventures simply as income redistribution. The "rich guys with a fantasy for space" and "wealthy people" you refer too spend money doing this. Lots of money. This money goes to high-tech jobs that pay well, that in themselves allow money to be distributed. If more of the 1% spent their money this way, there would be even more money distributed around, driving the economy that you and I derive our incomes from.
So rather than being negative on this, you should be banging the drum to make more and more of the 1% interested in this. Make those 1%ers prefer to spend their resources acquiring expensive services that feed the highest paying technical staff, We don't want those folks spending their money on things or on low-value services, we want them to spend them on services that can only be provided at great cost by technical people. Get those bank accounts spending money on high tech services provided by your neighbours !
Hopefully, they bring the house robots back, as they provided a lot of character to the show
But if you are really done having kids, I really recommend the traditional approach and forget the reversible part.
Yup. Of course, the traditional part is having the wife get her tubes tied during the 2nd birth procedure. That way you even get to avoid the "relatively painless" procedure.
Mind you, monogamy is still required. If that's not in your cards, then by all means, have your nipper nicked. I'll make a vast difference
Uber does not represent progress. Say it with me, Uber does not represent progress. Uber is regressive for drivers. Repeating the drivel that Uber is progressive or or represents progress is deceiving. Are they a disruptive technology? YES. we can agree on that. Does it better the world ? On the assumption that Uber is always cheaper, the drive to shot term cost savings for long term pain, transfer of risk, lowering of quality of both service and life for the service providers has never worked well. Look at many department stores and small city downtown cores since Wal-mart started its march across north america. Are you better served? Are the staff? Are you the prices you are paying actually lower, or are they lower only until any competition has been driven away ? Driving labour rates down to export profit from the country does nothing positive. The transfer of insurance and health risk onto the driver instead of the taxi company is insane.
While I will agree that taxi drivers decades are diminishing, it won't be Uber that takes them out, it will be driverless cars.
The author only died in 2009, so yes, the copyright is still valid. It seems a relatively simple case that CBS obtained rights from the a company that published the songbook. The case revolves around whether or not that music company had the legal authority to grant those rights to CBS. The copyright holder of the lyrics has stated that the music company did not have the right to do so.
As for what is the appropriate duration of copyright, I will gladly agree that the duration is too long.
Just, no.
Nope.
This post has absolutely *nothing* to do with the topic.
I'm sure this has never happened before.
And I'm tired of arrogant people who can't respect other people's cultures.
Science is a part of my culture. And I'm tired of people blocking its progress with silly religious objections.
Not the same damn thing. No one is stopping scientific progress here. Its simply a choice between sites. This site is NOT the only one. It may be optimal from a purely technical point of view, but when you take in all considerations it may not be the optional solution. I'm sorry, putting your nuclear research centre downtown isn't a good idea. Find another location, and get on with your work.
This has nothing to do with history and probably not much about culture either. It's (allegedly) about religion which is a mythology. And frankly I cannot see any rational argument that this damages the culture or historical record of anyone. It's a telescope on top of a mountain which is not being used for any other purpose. So long as there is no environmental issue or property rights issue involved then there is nothing to discuss.
Obviously you've never been involved in an Environmental Assessment Process. Cultural considerations, as well as aesthetic considerations can be show stoppers.
Really? You're going to go there and compare scientists to a bunch of religious loonies destroying ancient artifacts? Ok, tell me what is being destroyed here. Aside from the area directly being built upon, what tangible thing is being destroyed? How does this change history or our record of history in any way? Who or what is actually being harmed here?
I don't know exactly what is going on there. I am not an archaeologist, nor an anthropologist specializing in Hawaiian culture. But to discount the beliefs (which MAY be genuine) out of hand is 100% the same as blowing up idols because you believe they are not necessary. What is being destroyed ? Well, the locals, who are better informed that you or I, seem to feel that the construction would constitute a negative impact. The implicit assumption of "I know best" is the same. damn. logic. You don't care about their beliefs. Fine. Learn to respect the fact that others may not feel the way you do. You do not believe there is anything special, but I'm ok with you having that opinion. Let's check with the experts, and if they agree that the location is not suitable for the proposed usage, then you change locations.
I'm tired of people trying to trample valuable research because of their mythology.
Take a deep breath. Cultural or historic factors need to be taken in to consideration. If we simply discount our rich history, then we are no better than the fanatics destroying ancient monuments and statues in the desert.
the TMT should be place in the most advantageous location that it is permitted to be placed. If Maunakea is not available, find the next best location. Fixation on a single optimal solution (from a technical position) does not usually result in the "best" solution. Environmental impacts need to be considered for any such project, including potential impacts to the social and economic environment of the local residents, to the cultural and historical environs, to the political situation, to the flora and fauna, and to also the overall economic validity of the project. A project may "score" very highly, but if it encounters a "show stopper" then the particular solution needs to be dropped, or modified to not run up against a show stopper.
It sounds very much like certain cultural and/or historic factors were either overlooked or downplayed.
damn, didn't notice that I used a lesser than sign and chopped off the middle of my post. .. with a population of less than 10 million. This'd be like the States taking 3 million refugees, where the US won't even take 3 thousand.
Scandinavia racist? You mean like the country of Sweden that has taken more than 100k Syrian refugees with a population
American right wingers throw "socialist" around like its a scourge, without understanding what it actually means.
As an engineer for over 30 years, it has been my experience that we see what we want to see. In my office, some engineers are religious and some are not. Some are conservative, some are not. The two groups overlap, but are not a 1:1 mapping. I would have to say that the majority are not particularly religious, but where I live, there isn't a particularly large religious community.
I would prefer to say that most engineers are determined and intelligent, and tend to succeed. If any of them were to become fundamentalist in a particular religion, I would have no doubt that they would become successful in that activity
D'uh. They're too hot to live on. Now those planets spinning around those stars . . .
Over the not to distant future, socialism will shut down the western producing companies (leaving no production) and space travel will stop.
Socialism will be the end of space travel ?
I'm sorry, but what will kill human space travel will be the fanatics who decry that having taxes pay for such things as NASA when such expenditures do not return immediate benefit. Politicians now (in the US at least) consider the next presidential election cycle as being long-term planning. This ongoing unblinking focus on short term gain for long term pain, will be what stops humanity from space travel.
Consider this: Some of the groups that are doing the most in advancing space exploration include the Chinese and a partnership between European countries. Hardly anti-socialists (from an American perspective). Russia Japan India also have space programs, as well.
The only way human beings may move past Mars is through long term, negative profit,science-based programs. The kind of programs that are shut down by dollar focused, shareholder driven, anti-science political leaders we seem to be stuck with these days.
At least in the depths of the Cold War, the one-upmanship lead to positive gains in human space travel.
WTF - You've got a weird sense of duty, pal.