All GUIs are fundmentally menuing systems. Limitied choice. You can only run whatever has been configured. If you can find it. My $PATH has 2823 possibilities.
Yes, but your 2823 possibilites are all things that have been configured, and so are limited choice like menu items. I won't contest scripting which you mention; it's a clear advantage of CLI.
A very crowded menu system might have 100. Forcing additional layers and complexity. Text meuing systems have the same disadvantage... GUIs abandon that great IT invention of 7000 years ago -- the alphabet! Icons are cryptic pictographs.
Menuing systems provide hints about what functions are available. Pictographs are useful because they take up less space than text and are easier to recognize once you've established their meaning. A GUI forces you to traverse a heirarchy of commands, but should present common options closer to the root of the hierarchy - this means that clueless users can muddle through without knowing exactly what commands are available.
CLIs let you pick one item from a huge number very quickly, if you know exactly what you want.
GUIs are not useful to well trained users, who tend to use keyboard shortcuts if they are available. GUIs are useful to noobs with no idea what they are doing. One could draw conclusions about why GUIs have dominated the business world, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader;)
As a sibling said, it's redirected because 'anthropomorphic principle' is a common thinko for 'anthropic principle'. From the Wiki article, in case you doubt:
The Anthropic Principle is sometimes misspelled or pronounced 'Anthropomorphic'. Anthropomorphism is the assigning of human characteristics to non-human beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena. Anthropomorphic Principle is redirected to this page to aid searchers in finding the correct spelling.
OT, but I want to point out that this is why I love the UN. With 192 voting members and 5 vetoes, you can't achieve anything that is controversial. People complain that the UN is a bad idea because it is ineffectual. I reply that the UN is a great idea, because it is inaffectual.
How is the US pressuring Canada to get rid of fair use, when the US still has it?
I haven't read the article, but it's not uncommon for the US to pressure other countries into doing things they won't do themselves. Removing tariffs is a common example. The US government doesn't have any interest in dealing fairly with other countries, which is the origin of most anti-american sentiment - particularly among foreigners who can't be bothered distinguishing between the american government and the american people.
Ah, thanks for that. The usual anti-global-warming trolls don't mention that the concern was reflective particles, which I understand is still recognized as an important factor in climate models. They're usually more set on the "Scientists Flip-Flop! Vote Republican!" line (apologies to any sane Republicans who are reading).
With regard to the 30% contribution of solar variation; now that I read the Wikipedia article more thoroughly I see it does mention figures in that ballpark. I can't quite figure out if that means that a 0.1% variation in solar output can contribute 30% of measured global warming, or if the two numbers come from conflicting sources. The conclusion is clear: I should shut the hell up;)
After your last post I followed a few links to sites discussing the koran, and was reminded that I really, really hate arguing religions issues;)
After having read some of the quotes in context, I have to agree that they certainly promote violence against unbelievers. I think I should drop the position that religions are basically good; I never had much support for it but I never tested it properly either. I was looking for a way to reconcile the fact that while I highly respect people who interpret their religions as non-violent, religious institutions are prone to violence and corruption just like any other political body.
I'm sorry to hear that you had religions people pestering you for 15 years! My grandparents were very religious, but only in the very best way, and I think they raised my expecations of other religious people. Their basic stance was that the bible shouldn't be read literally, because that makes pretty much no sense (water covered the whole world for 40 days? please). They believed in a personal relationhsip with God, and that he was more interested in whether you acted with compassion and justice than whether you went to church on a Sunday. They never tried to convert me, but they did manage to convince me by example that compassion and justice is a good way to live a life. I guess I'm looking for excuses to believe that more people are like that!
No contest there. My main concern is that anti-religious zealots often tar everybody with religious beliefs with the same brush. All of the religious people I've known personally have been considerate, kind, and thoughtful - as they feel their religion demands. On the other hand, I'm well aware of the nutters who wait in the street, accosting passers-by with pamphlets and threats of eternal damnation. I may be completely wrong about most religions being basically non-violent. The people I respect read them that way, but they could be selectively reading in a way that I agree with.
Thanks, that was an interesting link. And to prove I actually read it:
If you do a percentage comparision then Bible has 2.74% violent passages and Quran has 5.4%. Now does that make quran more violent than Bible? In fact trying to find out answers like this is useless.
I'm not sure if you left that bit out on purpose or not. Your post was relevant and insightful, but it makes me a little suspicious that you snipped the emphasized sentence.
I agree that my original post could be read to imply that the texts are entirely non-violent, but in my defence I was trying for succinctness rather than bulletproofness. It may not be a very good defence;) I also regret referring specifically to the sacred texts. You are correct that there are numerous passages condoning violence as appropriate, and it would be foolish to try and explain them all away as mistranslations and misinterpretations. Thank you for providing examples, I'm not familiar enough with the works in question to pull out examples myself. I intended to refer to the moral guidance of the religion - but specifically the moral framework described by the basic teachings (which I am led to believe are basically non-violent) as opposed to any convenient justifications of the political church (which are motivated by power, and often violent, and bring the religion into disrepute). Consider thou shalt not kill.
For full disclosure I should probably mention that I dislike biblical literalists immensely, it's a insult to an otherwise perfectly servicable religion (flames please queue on the left...).
Although comparative religion is not my area of expertise, I understand that such violent passages are somewhat aberrant taken in light of the spirit of the text, and are also sometimes due to unfavourable translations or drift in meaning (I'm thinking of 'jihad' specifically).
For example, I quote from Non-violence by Mark Kurlansky (my book of the moment):
Mohammed's approach shunned abstract debate and encouraged pragmatic solutions. He always emphasized negotiating solutions, and by tradition there is tremendous emphasis on negotiation in Muslim history. Mohammed's attempt at a perfect society in Mecca enforced a complete ban on violence, which made Mecca prosper as a center of trade.
I understand and accept that those are hardly convincing arguments without more support, and should probably be dismissed as mere opinion. There are so many things we could quibble endlessly over, so I will try to make a definite point which is easy to respond to. Would you say that the teachings of the Bible, taken as a unified body, condone killing? Would you say the same for Judaism or Islam? Would you say that they promote violence short of killing?
I'm sorry if I sound adversarial; it's the nature of message boards. I'm genuinely interested in discussing this and I think this is a subject where my opinions outweigh my knowledge.
According to a quick glance at the wikipedia entry on solar variation (no, I won't link it. Got to wikipedia and type in "solar variation". It's not hard) the variance in solar radiation is about 0.1%. Also, to the best of my knowledge the "new ice age" panic was entirely media driven.
I was going to bitch and moan about the idiots that modded up the parent's eruption of unsupported flamebait, but I see that in the time it took me to check Wikipedia, he's been sent all the way down to -1. Mods, I salute you!
I agree with you, but I would nitpick over terms. Whatever the Bible says is a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. In common usage a theory is usually scientific, but when creatonists start talking about "just a theory" it's time to get serious. There are legitimate reasons for putting more trust in scientific theories than other kinds, and that's the point that rational people need to be making.
As a moderate agnostic I feel I should point out that religion is usually the excuse for, not cause of, intolerance and violence. Churches, particularly state churches, are political institutions and will use whatever excuse is most convenient when they feel violence is called for. The actual sacred texts of mainstream religions tend to promote non-violent solutions, even in the face of violence.
I'm sorry if I overreacted; I'm from New Zealand and the ozone hole is a big deal around here. My memory from school is that because Antarctica (a big freakin' continent), rather than frozen ocean, is at the south pole the winds are stronger, or more stable or something. So although more CFCs were released in the northern hemisphere, most of the mixing between the upper and lower atmospheres happens in Antarctica. I can't find the right query to get google to tell me precisely, but this touches on it:
Is it possible that other processes might start to consume ozone, an Arctic ozone hole for example? We don't know. Periodically, large depletions in ozone (more than 10-20%) have been reported from the high northern latitudes. While the processes that lead to this decrease are similar to those at the Antarctic, the pattern has not been similar. The Arctic polar vortex is weaker than the Antarctic one. Stratospheric temperatures at the Arctic are not as low as those at the Antarctic, hence PSC formation is reduced. However, global warming . may strengthen the Arctic polar vortex. We already know that stratospheric temperatures are falling, so it is possible that an Arctic ozone hole could develop in the future. It would likely be smaller and weaker than the Antarctic hole, but could have serious consequences for Canadians.
Scientists investigating the 2006 ozone hole have used a range of instruments to measure ozone concentrations, including satellites, balloons, and ground-based spectrometers and gas samplers. Measurements showed that the area of the hole was greatest on 24 September, with an area of approximately 29 million square kilometres, more than twice the area of Antarctica.
For those who are interested, Wikipedia tells me that the area of the United States is a tad under 10 million square miles - so the Antarctic ozone hole is three times the size of the US.
Humans absolutely can and have effected the environment on a global scale, as I pointed out when I (fairly comprehensively, I think) replied to the parent. Everybody knows that climate change occurs on a geological time scale, but now it's fairly clearly happening on a human scale, for human-caused reasons.
Your post is a classic climate-change-denier appeal to apathy and fatalism, in the style of talking down to poor benighted eco-loonies who don't know any better. The position that 'we humans are so mere and lowly that we couldn't possibly harm Mother Nature, and Mother Nature probably likes it warmer anyway' is the standard line from apologists for polluting industries who would have their business model damaged by emissions standards. The fear-mongering of causing an ice age is specious - pollution controls stop making the situation worse, they don't push it back in the other direction.
It would be somewhat unfair to say that many people [slashdotters included] are biased; rather I'd say that they doesn't fully examine all the major candidates for the cause of the [now evident] warming. Remember, there was a planet and a climate and [most important] wide-scale climate changes before the U.S., industry or humanity ever existed;
Troll. No legitimate climate scientist thinks that climate change is solely man-made.
what's the reason for them to go away and never occur again? Just because they're scaring us? C'mon...
Troll. Climate change on a geological time scale and climate change on a human time scale are not the same thing, but I think you already know that.
All of this is not to say that we do not harming the environment - we certainly do, and sometimes in irreversible [in the terms of our lifetimes] proportions. However we should fully understand the difference between chemical spills that damage our own food chain and other stuff...
The best arguments for preventing global climate change - regardless of its cause - are that it messes with us and our food supply. So we are all agreed.
... and green eco-activists' fantasies like the one about the Antarctic ozone hole.
Some details on the last statement: a lot of eco-activists say that 1. Ozon is good for environment and should be praised [partially true - stratospheric ozone absorbs solar ultraviolet radiation, but high concentrations of ozone irritate human respiratory system]
Ozone is poisonous. Does it surprise you that chemicals can be both important as a shell for maintaining the biosphere and damaging if inhaled? Again you hold up the 'kooky environmentalist' straw man. Stop it.
2. There are huge ozon holes near the Earth's poles [true]
False. There is an ozone hole at the south pole, and a 'dimple' that occurs over the north pole in spring. The situation is not symmetrical. The Antarctic ozone hole spreads as far north as Australia and New Zealand, which receive 40% more UV radiation than similar latitudes in the northern hemisphere, and have the highest skin cancer rates in the world despite the fact that solar radiation generally increases as you approach the equator.
3. Ozon is known to decay in reactions with CFCs [true] 4. Thus, CFCs are responsible for the antartic ozone hole [not true]
Where did you get that idea from? Read ANY reference on the Antarctic ozone hole and they will tell you that it was formed by the release of CFCs mostly used in aerosol cans and refrigerators. CFCs have no natural source, and they definitely catalyze ozone, and the ozone hole increases with their concentration in the atmosphere (after a delay while they are dispersed into the upper atmosphere by the wind currents in Antarctica).
The main reason that there always was and will be an ozone hole over the Antarctics...
The Ozone hole absolutely did not always exist, and it grew dramatically in the 80's. Due to reduced CFC emissions the ozone is expected to regenerate, but it certainly won't be back to normal until after 2050.
... is that ozone decays in the lack of sunlight, and it's pretty dark half of the year out there.
The north pole has the same day/night profile as the south pole, but no corresponding ozone hole. I shouldn't have to point out that the entire world is 'pretty dark' for half the year. We usually call it 'night', it's just that it doesn't last for six months at a stretch.
P.S. This post has been made with my current understanding of the problem; if a more informed person can correct me wherever I am wrong, I'd be grateful.
Dude, you've heard all the issues, but have them almost completely wrong. I'm guessing that somebody was lying to you about this, at
From the excellent Non-violence: The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Kurlansky (author of Cod, Salt, The Basque History of the World):
Wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be carried out by and all-volunteer professional military
I thoroughly recommend the book. It's short, but packed with information. It's also very much a history of non-violence rather than a preachy promotion of it.
You can do even better of course. The Babylonians used base 60, a multiple of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 30. Day to day, most people use 360 degree (6*60) circles (radians are too painful for casual use).
When asked to comment on whether this methodology would be adopted at Microsoft, Steve Ballmer responded "developers developers developers testers testers testers!"
Normally I'd just let that pass, but since it's at +3 and nobody else has replied...
Children/minors are already a great repressed minority. The only way it is better than being black in the 50's is that you can grow out of it. You can't go out in public during the 'curfew' of school hours or late at night without being suspected of wrongdoing. If you go into a shop, the owner will watch you like a hawk because everyone knows kids don't have money so they steal stuff. Large portions of the common culture are off limits (movies, licensed premises) unless you're old enough AND carry ID. Idiots will tell you what you can and can't do, and that it's for your own good.
Does anyone here remember being a child? It's a lot like being an adult, only you've had less practice. Childhood is full of violence, pettiness and toilet humour - just like adulthood and the internet.
slightly OT, but they're still at it. The government was recently ousted by the commander of the military. I think it's been a fairly painless coup though, apart from utter failure of democratic process. Commander Bainimarama promises elections at an unspecified date in the future.
Guess what! Authority figures use the same tricks to get their minions to do their bidding... If Milgram is rigged, then so is life.
I agree entirely. The question is how best to stop people from being duped. I think putting the entire population through a Milgram study (assuming that was feasible) is overkill, akin to teaching a child not to touch a hot element by branding them.
I worded it badly, but when I asked how many would 'kill' again I meant to imply that the subjects only 'killed' the first time because they were confused and didn't have time to think through the situation. Being familiar with the Milgram study or having previously thought about how much pain it is ethical to inflict on another person should be enough to keep a normal person from doing anything too horrific. I think the best solution is a decent education - studying things like ethics and propaganda, so people can tell when they're being bullied or manipulated.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but your 2823 possibilites are all things that have been configured, and so are limited choice like menu items. I won't contest scripting which you mention; it's a clear advantage of CLI.
Menuing systems provide hints about what functions are available. Pictographs are useful because they take up less space than text and are easier to recognize once you've established their meaning. A GUI forces you to traverse a heirarchy of commands, but should present common options closer to the root of the hierarchy - this means that clueless users can muddle through without knowing exactly what commands are available.
CLIs let you pick one item from a huge number very quickly, if you know exactly what you want.
GUIs are not useful to well trained users, who tend to use keyboard shortcuts if they are available. GUIs are useful to noobs with no idea what they are doing. One could draw conclusions about why GUIs have dominated the business world, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader
As a sibling said, it's redirected because 'anthropomorphic principle' is a common thinko for 'anthropic principle'. From the Wiki article, in case you doubt:
The Anthropic Principle is sometimes misspelled or pronounced 'Anthropomorphic'. Anthropomorphism is the assigning of human characteristics to non-human beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena. Anthropomorphic Principle is redirected to this page to aid searchers in finding the correct spelling.
OT, but I want to point out that this is why I love the UN. With 192 voting members and 5 vetoes, you can't achieve anything that is controversial. People complain that the UN is a bad idea because it is ineffectual. I reply that the UN is a great idea, because it is inaffectual.
Wait, who declared war? I must have missed that bit.
How is the US pressuring Canada to get rid of fair use, when the US still has it?
I haven't read the article, but it's not uncommon for the US to pressure other countries into doing things they won't do themselves. Removing tariffs is a common example. The US government doesn't have any interest in dealing fairly with other countries, which is the origin of most anti-american sentiment - particularly among foreigners who can't be bothered distinguishing between the american government and the american people.
Funny you should say that, my mother is giving it to me when she's done reading it :)
Ah, thanks for that. The usual anti-global-warming trolls don't mention that the concern was reflective particles, which I understand is still recognized as an important factor in climate models. They're usually more set on the "Scientists Flip-Flop! Vote Republican!" line (apologies to any sane Republicans who are reading).
;)
With regard to the 30% contribution of solar variation; now that I read the Wikipedia article more thoroughly I see it does mention figures in that ballpark. I can't quite figure out if that means that a 0.1% variation in solar output can contribute 30% of measured global warming, or if the two numbers come from conflicting sources. The conclusion is clear: I should shut the hell up
After your last post I followed a few links to sites discussing the koran, and was reminded that I really, really hate arguing religions issues ;)
After having read some of the quotes in context, I have to agree that they certainly promote violence against unbelievers. I think I should drop the position that religions are basically good; I never had much support for it but I never tested it properly either. I was looking for a way to reconcile the fact that while I highly respect people who interpret their religions as non-violent, religious institutions are prone to violence and corruption just like any other political body.
I'm sorry to hear that you had religions people pestering you for 15 years! My grandparents were very religious, but only in the very best way, and I think they raised my expecations of other religious people. Their basic stance was that the bible shouldn't be read literally, because that makes pretty much no sense (water covered the whole world for 40 days? please). They believed in a personal relationhsip with God, and that he was more interested in whether you acted with compassion and justice than whether you went to church on a Sunday. They never tried to convert me, but they did manage to convince me by example that compassion and justice is a good way to live a life. I guess I'm looking for excuses to believe that more people are like that!
No contest there. My main concern is that anti-religious zealots often tar everybody with religious beliefs with the same brush. All of the religious people I've known personally have been considerate, kind, and thoughtful - as they feel their religion demands. On the other hand, I'm well aware of the nutters who wait in the street, accosting passers-by with pamphlets and threats of eternal damnation. I may be completely wrong about most religions being basically non-violent. The people I respect read them that way, but they could be selectively reading in a way that I agree with.
"CAN YOU HEAR ME KNOW"
;)
I feel your pain. God damn but it pisses me off when someone's shouting on a cell phone and they can't even spell right
I'm not sure if you left that bit out on purpose or not. Your post was relevant and insightful, but it makes me a little suspicious that you snipped the emphasized sentence.
I agree that my original post could be read to imply that the texts are entirely non-violent, but in my defence I was trying for succinctness rather than bulletproofness. It may not be a very good defence
For full disclosure I should probably mention that I dislike biblical literalists immensely, it's a insult to an otherwise perfectly servicable religion (flames please queue on the left...).
Although comparative religion is not my area of expertise, I understand that such violent passages are somewhat aberrant taken in light of the spirit of the text, and are also sometimes due to unfavourable translations or drift in meaning (I'm thinking of 'jihad' specifically).
For example, I quote from Non-violence by Mark Kurlansky (my book of the moment):
I understand and accept that those are hardly convincing arguments without more support, and should probably be dismissed as mere opinion. There are so many things we could quibble endlessly over, so I will try to make a definite point which is easy to respond to. Would you say that the teachings of the Bible, taken as a unified body, condone killing? Would you say the same for Judaism or Islam? Would you say that they promote violence short of killing?
I'm sorry if I sound adversarial; it's the nature of message boards. I'm genuinely interested in discussing this and I think this is a subject where my opinions outweigh my knowledge.
According to a quick glance at the wikipedia entry on solar variation (no, I won't link it. Got to wikipedia and type in "solar variation". It's not hard) the variance in solar radiation is about 0.1%. Also, to the best of my knowledge the "new ice age" panic was entirely media driven.
I was going to bitch and moan about the idiots that modded up the parent's eruption of unsupported flamebait, but I see that in the time it took me to check Wikipedia, he's been sent all the way down to -1. Mods, I salute you!
I agree with you, but I would nitpick over terms. Whatever the Bible says is a theory, but it is not a scientific theory. In common usage a theory is usually scientific, but when creatonists start talking about "just a theory" it's time to get serious. There are legitimate reasons for putting more trust in scientific theories than other kinds, and that's the point that rational people need to be making.
As a moderate agnostic I feel I should point out that religion is usually the excuse for, not cause of, intolerance and violence. Churches, particularly state churches, are political institutions and will use whatever excuse is most convenient when they feel violence is called for. The actual sacred texts of mainstream religions tend to promote non-violent solutions, even in the face of violence.
http://env.chass.utoronto.ca/env200y/know/ozone.h
And to answer your second point:
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=11427
For those who are interested, Wikipedia tells me that the area of the United States is a tad under 10 million square miles - so the Antarctic ozone hole is three times the size of the US.
Humans absolutely can and have effected the environment on a global scale, as I pointed out when I (fairly comprehensively, I think) replied to the parent. Everybody knows that climate change occurs on a geological time scale, but now it's fairly clearly happening on a human scale, for human-caused reasons.
Your post is a classic climate-change-denier appeal to apathy and fatalism, in the style of talking down to poor benighted eco-loonies who don't know any better. The position that 'we humans are so mere and lowly that we couldn't possibly harm Mother Nature, and Mother Nature probably likes it warmer anyway' is the standard line from apologists for polluting industries who would have their business model damaged by emissions standards. The fear-mongering of causing an ice age is specious - pollution controls stop making the situation worse, they don't push it back in the other direction.
Troll. No legitimate climate scientist thinks that climate change is solely man-made.
Troll. Climate change on a geological time scale and climate change on a human time scale are not the same thing, but I think you already know that.
The best arguments for preventing global climate change - regardless of its cause - are that it messes with us and our food supply. So we are all agreed.
Ozone is poisonous. Does it surprise you that chemicals can be both important as a shell for maintaining the biosphere and damaging if inhaled? Again you hold up the 'kooky environmentalist' straw man. Stop it.
False. There is an ozone hole at the south pole, and a 'dimple' that occurs over the north pole in spring. The situation is not symmetrical. The Antarctic ozone hole spreads as far north as Australia and New Zealand, which receive 40% more UV radiation than similar latitudes in the northern hemisphere, and have the highest skin cancer rates in the world despite the fact that solar radiation generally increases as you approach the equator.
Where did you get that idea from? Read ANY reference on the Antarctic ozone hole and they will tell you that it was formed by the release of CFCs mostly used in aerosol cans and refrigerators. CFCs have no natural source, and they definitely catalyze ozone, and the ozone hole increases with their concentration in the atmosphere (after a delay while they are dispersed into the upper atmosphere by the wind currents in Antarctica).
The Ozone hole absolutely did not always exist, and it grew dramatically in the 80's. Due to reduced CFC emissions the ozone is expected to regenerate, but it certainly won't be back to normal until after 2050.
The north pole has the same day/night profile as the south pole, but no corresponding ozone hole. I shouldn't have to point out that the entire world is 'pretty dark' for half the year. We usually call it 'night', it's just that it doesn't last for six months at a stretch.
Dude, you've heard all the issues, but have them almost completely wrong. I'm guessing that somebody was lying to you about this, at
I thoroughly recommend the book. It's short, but packed with information. It's also very much a history of non-violence rather than a preachy promotion of it.
Aha! You mean an A5 page!
Question: are non-US paper sizes related to SI, or are they just conveniently sized so that 1/2 A(N) = A(N+1)?
You can do even better of course. The Babylonians used base 60, a multiple of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 30. Day to day, most people use 360 degree (6*60) circles (radians are too painful for casual use).
When asked to comment on whether this methodology would be adopted at Microsoft, Steve Ballmer responded "developers developers developers testers testers testers!"
Normally I'd just let that pass, but since it's at +3 and nobody else has replied...
Children/minors are already a great repressed minority. The only way it is better than being black in the 50's is that you can grow out of it. You can't go out in public during the 'curfew' of school hours or late at night without being suspected of wrongdoing. If you go into a shop, the owner will watch you like a hawk because everyone knows kids don't have money so they steal stuff. Large portions of the common culture are off limits (movies, licensed premises) unless you're old enough AND carry ID. Idiots will tell you what you can and can't do, and that it's for your own good.
Does anyone here remember being a child? It's a lot like being an adult, only you've had less practice. Childhood is full of violence, pettiness and toilet humour - just like adulthood and the internet.
slightly OT, but they're still at it. The government was recently ousted by the commander of the military. I think it's been a fairly painless coup though, apart from utter failure of democratic process. Commander Bainimarama promises elections at an unspecified date in the future.
Those who would give up Essential Desktop to purchase a little Temporary Server, deserve neither Desktop nor Server?
I agree entirely. The question is how best to stop people from being duped. I think putting the entire population through a Milgram study (assuming that was feasible) is overkill, akin to teaching a child not to touch a hot element by branding them.
I worded it badly, but when I asked how many would 'kill' again I meant to imply that the subjects only 'killed' the first time because they were confused and didn't have time to think through the situation. Being familiar with the Milgram study or having previously thought about how much pain it is ethical to inflict on another person should be enough to keep a normal person from doing anything too horrific. I think the best solution is a decent education - studying things like ethics and propaganda, so people can tell when they're being bullied or manipulated.