If you can travel close to the speed of light you can explore quite a bit of space, in a normal amount of time. You would also have travelled forward in time at a faster rate than your home world, and so would infact be exploring time, should you decide to return to your point of origin:)
This is a very similar headline to one the BBC were running yesterday:
Japan earthquake: US alarm over nuclear crisis
I'm not sure the content of the article is much better either. The Register's Lewis Page has been running some quite sensible, albeit pro-nuclear reports on this.
I'm with you on this one; it must surely make a "fundamental" psychological difference.
However, I'm not sure there have been many experiments of this type.
I guess it's best to start off "easy" when gathering this kind of data.
They're still heroes, every one of them!:D
I would be interested in seeing the statistics being used by the Swiss Government to support such a proposal.
Intuitively, to me at least, the idea for "Games as a cause for violence" is not based on rational thought.
A more likley explaination is "ape brain as a cause for violence", preceeded by "selfish gene as a cause for violence" coupled with "lack of self control" as a catalyst.
Simply speaking, to make a theory that cites any single activity a cause of violence is going to be woefully inadequate at describing reality.
And the idea that it is a valid approach to seek the removal of the rights of an individual to persue an activity (like reading, or making films, or playing video games), activities which primarily deal with the imagination, and the "internal", well that is abhorrent to me personally.
I would add, that it is my belief, that it is not really the responsibilty of government to protect me from the ideas of others per se, but it for those institutions to protect me from any practical application of ideas that threaten my safety.
Again, the correlation between video games and violence is overshadowed by other factors (such as population density coupled with poverty say [conjecture] ), significantly enough I would argue, so that the argument violent video games are a practical threat, is rediculous.
I'm not sure the terms "redundant", "enoughalready", and "republican" accurately summarise the situation.
Some groups, like mediawatch-uk (a continuation of the Mary Whitehouse created NVLA), still use quotes such as: "If violence is shown as normal on the television screen it will help to create a violent society".
They are neither redundant, as they constantly petition UK Government, and so have the potential at least for having a noticeable effect (and were in fact big movers in actioning / responsible for a number of legislative actions regarding social decency), or Republican.
All be it, I do retract my belief that "enoughalready" is useful in summarising the situation.;)
Thank you,
MrKane.
Although there's not much content to TFA,
it is an interesting subject.
Personally I'm not keen to see a militarisation of "Space", but the technologies that are almost certain to spring from such areas will surely feed back into civilian areas.
Besides, it might just be too expensive and morally difficult (to convince any electorate) in order to make any serious claims to "Space Ownership" by any military power.
ps. I'm not trying to fuel the trolls here, just trying to anticipate them;?)
...I assume dark matter/energy will make more sense if and when we can unify the relativity & quantum theories?
I say this only because dark matter is "seen" by it's effects on other particle due to it's gravitational properties,
not it's electromagnetic properties, ie, light doesn't interact directly with it, hence "dark".
...come on LHC, give us the HiggsBoson damn you!;?)
..in order to draw attention to the actual maths problems for which quantum computational methods are one of many.
Evangelising, one might say?
Sorry haven't RTFA, but I'm guessing it's written as an explaination as to what type of problem
quantum computation aim at solving, and is written for the lay person, and not for those who
already study it, who probably already have a good idea.;?)
I'm personally against tampering with data on-the-fly at the network level.
However, if the service is advertised as part of the package you buy into, then no problem,
you've accepted the terms. And it's perfectly easy to imagine another ISP touting no such modifications to *their* data streams,
using it as a positive Selling Point, for customers of a different ethical mind set.
Who knows, perhaps one day we will have a standard set of TAGS in the headers of packets that categorise
information according to the priority is should have when being routed along the net...oh what? we have, oh...
One view is that an individual has the freedom/right to ingest any chemical,
substance, "dopant", etc, to affect their own mind. (Usually pursuant to the
idea that they do not adversely effect others in the process). One you can assume
I agree with.
However, a number of questions are raised, and not all are to be answered by the
idea of individual moral freedom. The question of fair vs unfair advantage between
competing individuals, might be an example.
Let's consider a contrived example.
A new mind drug called Computex, or CTex for short, is released to the market.
It is found to enhance the ability in humans to perform basic mental arithmetic,
and carries no known side-effects.
Now consider two students, both of whom are just about to start an elementary maths exam.
At the top of the paper it states very clearly that calculators of any kind are prohibited
for the first part of the test.
But let's say Student A does infact use a calculator, whereas Student B does not.
However, Student B *does* use CTex.
Do we count Student A as a cheat? or should we count them both? what if we relax the condition of using a calculator?
etc, etc...
So then, does it come down to the usual questions of natural vs "artificial" advantage (private vs public school debate anyone?),
agreement vs disagreement on what constitutes social contract? the old arguments of centralist theory vs libertarianism?
Slashdot Mirror
hahah. If I had mod points! :)
If you can travel close to the speed of light you can explore quite a bit of space, in a normal amount of time. You would also have travelled forward in time at a faster rate than your home world, and so would infact be exploring time, should you decide to return to your point of origin :)
This is a very similar headline to one the BBC were running yesterday: Japan earthquake: US alarm over nuclear crisis
I'm not sure the content of the article is much better either. The Register's Lewis Page has been running some quite sensible, albeit pro-nuclear reports on this.
I'm with you on this one; it must surely make a "fundamental" psychological difference. :D
However, I'm not sure there have been many experiments of this type.
I guess it's best to start off "easy" when gathering this kind of data.
They're still heroes, every one of them!
Sometimes; but only if you're an idiot.
...and I think Popper showed that logical induction is not how knowledge grows. Specifically how Hume's problem of induction was not solvable in it's form as expounded by Hume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Problem_of_Induction
I would be interested in seeing the statistics being used by the Swiss Government to support such a proposal.
;)
Intuitively, to me at least, the idea for "Games as a cause for violence" is not based on rational thought.
A more likley explaination is "ape brain as a cause for violence", preceeded by "selfish gene as a cause for violence" coupled with "lack of self control" as a catalyst.
Simply speaking, to make a theory that cites any single activity a cause of violence is going to be woefully inadequate at describing reality.
And the idea that it is a valid approach to seek the removal of the rights of an individual to persue an activity (like reading, or making films, or playing video games), activities
which primarily deal with the imagination, and the "internal", well that is abhorrent to me personally.
I would add, that it is my belief, that it is not really the responsibilty of government to protect me from the ideas of others per se, but it for those institutions to protect me from
any practical application of ideas that threaten my safety.
Again, the correlation between video games and violence is overshadowed by other factors (such as population density coupled with poverty say [conjecture] ), significantly enough I would argue, so that the argument violent video games are a practical threat, is rediculous.
Anyways, you get my point
Wow. I feel more stupider havind done reading that...
I'm not sure the terms "redundant", "enoughalready", and "republican" accurately summarise the situation. Some groups, like mediawatch-uk (a continuation of the Mary Whitehouse created NVLA), still use quotes such as: "If violence is shown as normal on the television screen it will help to create a violent society". They are neither redundant, as they constantly petition UK Government, and so have the potential at least for having a noticeable effect (and were in fact big movers in actioning / responsible for a number of legislative actions regarding social decency), or Republican. All be it, I do retract my belief that "enoughalready" is useful in summarising the situation. ;)
Thank you,
MrKane.
My advice is to step away from the internets, and take a stress pill.
Although there's not much content to TFA,
;?)
it is an interesting subject.
Personally I'm not keen to see a militarisation of "Space",
but the technologies that are almost
certain to spring from such areas will surely
feed back into civilian areas.
Besides, it might just be too expensive and
morally difficult (to convince any electorate)
in order to make any serious claims to "Space Ownership"
by any military power.
ps. I'm not trying to fuel the trolls here, just trying to anticipate them
...an entirely separate datacenter and ip range,
just for the conspiracy theorists.
Isn't that 500GB's?
;?P
Looks like the marketing speak for harddrives is about to change up a gear...
...personally enjoy being able to watch languages evolve, but, "Webinar"?!
It should only be used in the phrase:
"What in the webinar you doing, scumm!?"
I prefer the acronym, OCS: Online Collaborative Seminar.
You're not thinking of the planet! Imagine Google moved all their datacentres to the poles. The ice caps would be gone in a weekend!!!11!!
Heh, you beat me to it!
;?)
Down With Authority!
..has a growing Archimedes collection........I should probably not tell people this.
;?)
I was going to say "think this is great news", but then realised
...Get Your Ass To Mars. See you at the party Richter! Start the reactor. Free Mars. Get ready for a surprise!
...I assume dark matter/energy will make more sense if and when we can unify the relativity & quantum theories?
...come on LHC, give us the HiggsBoson damn you! ;?)
I say this only because dark matter is "seen" by it's effects on other particle due to it's gravitational properties,
not it's electromagnetic properties, ie, light doesn't interact directly with it, hence "dark".
"An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi"
Sorry it's off topic, but...
If everyone takes the Eye of the person next to them,
everyone can still have two eyes (.?)
Unless there's some selfish One-Eye b4stard in the world. heh.
..in order to draw attention to the actual maths problems for which quantum computational methods are one of many.
;?)
Evangelising, one might say?
Sorry haven't RTFA, but I'm guessing it's written as an explaination as to what type of problem quantum computation aim at solving, and is written for the lay person, and not for those who already study it, who probably already have a good idea.
I For One Welcome Our Crustacean Overlords...
...And Their Snapping Claws Of Information Control ;?)
/back to the realm of bad karma blog.
I'm personally against tampering with data on-the-fly at the network level.
However, if the service is advertised as part of the package you buy into, then no problem,
you've accepted the terms. And it's perfectly easy to imagine another ISP touting no such modifications to *their* data streams,
using it as a positive Selling Point, for customers of a different ethical mind set.
Who knows, perhaps one day we will have a standard set of TAGS in the headers of packets that categorise
information according to the priority is should have when being routed along the net...oh what? we have, oh...
One view is that an individual has the freedom/right to ingest any chemical,
....probably ;?)
substance, "dopant", etc, to affect their own mind. (Usually pursuant to the
idea that they do not adversely effect others in the process). One you can assume
I agree with.
However, a number of questions are raised, and not all are to be answered by the
idea of individual moral freedom. The question of fair vs unfair advantage between
competing individuals, might be an example.
Let's consider a contrived example.
A new mind drug called Computex, or CTex for short, is released to the market.
It is found to enhance the ability in humans to perform basic mental arithmetic,
and carries no known side-effects.
Now consider two students, both of whom are just about to start an elementary maths exam.
At the top of the paper it states very clearly that calculators of any kind are prohibited
for the first part of the test.
But let's say Student A does infact use a calculator, whereas Student B does not.
However, Student B *does* use CTex.
Do we count Student A as a cheat? or should we count them both? what if we relax the condition of using a calculator?
etc, etc...
So then, does it come down to the usual questions of natural vs "artificial" advantage (private vs public school debate anyone?),
agreement vs disagreement on what constitutes social contract? the old arguments of centralist theory vs libertarianism?
..what is proportionality? Is it some kind of concept?