It's likely something much simpler. Many parents don't want their children playing "naughty" video games, but at the same time they don't want to be the ones that have to say "no".
The idea solution, from their point of view, would be to pass this responsibility on to some faceless third party like the government. This way, the kids don't see the parents as bad guys, always trying to get in the way of harmless fun. Of course, lazy parents shouldn't be imposing this type of burden on government, but I can definitely see the rationale behind this sort of behavior.
Rationalize it away however you like. One man's "annoying" is another man's cause for road rage.
I'm sure your rhetoric will serve you well after you've been run off the road for only being "annoying".
Which is why I always beep when the guy in front of me shifts into a reverse gear.
I've been reversed into twice. The second time I was laying on my horn, and even myself shifted into reverse as well (not fast enough, however).
Imagine how fun it is to prove that no, you didn't rear-end the car in front of you. They merely reversed into you.
If we ever end up on the same road, it's going to be a very annoying drive for the both of us.
My first car was a 16 year old Ford Thunderbird that lasted a whole three months before the engine seized. During those three fantastic months, the car would stall every few miles. It became second nature to pop it in neutral, hit the ignition again, and back into drive, all without even coming to a stop. Of course, starting from a just-turned-green light was one of the most awkward times for this to happen, and happen frequently it did. If on any of those occasions I would have been rear-ended, I would have felt 100% responsible for the collision, despite the law stating otherwise.
Having this many people on the road, there needs to be a social contract that people subscribe to. You don't just slam your breaks in the middle of the highway, even though the pileup that ensues is not legally your fault. You don't just sit there at a green light, even though anyone hitting you would themselves be at fault. This is a limitation of our legal system, not an endorsement of behavior that breaks this social contract. Yes, the douchebag sitting at a green light texting isn't legally at fault. That doesn't mean that the guy that rear-ends him is the one that's in the wrong. Legally, he may be, but that's not a complete picture.
Living in NJ, where traffic never subsides, I've often fantasized about doing just that.
I swear, if I ever win the lottery (slim odds, as I don't play), I'm getting myself a gigantic truck with bull bars and getting ready to lose my drivers license.
Dodge Ram Super Duty obeys the laws of physics, not the laws of man!
I've seen people get lit up by a cop while stopped at a red light...who then panicked and pulled forward into the intersection to almost cause an accident.
If I was being shot multiple times by a cop, I'd panic too. I'd sure as shit hit the gas, though.
Or, conversely, if I was being intoxicated by a cop, I'd panic too. Mostly because I don't know how that would be physically possible.
Or, lastly, if I was being illuminated by a cop, I'm not sure how I'd react. I guess it would depend on the hue of the illumination. If it was just a bright white light, the searchlight, I'd probably be more angry and blinded than panicked.
I've never heard the expression 'lit up' used in this context, referring to being pulled over. Is this from the LEO lexicon, or merely a regional/cultural expression?
It only takes a couple of seconds to do the texting without removing yourself from the flow of traffic.
Your suggestion, while entirely valid, increases the burden on the texter by an order of magnitude. Don't try to spin it like it's no big inconvenience, or that you can't understand why people would do this. Intellectually honest debate for the win.
People are selfish and would gladly cut the amount of time they waste at the expense of others' safety. News at 10.
As a driver I say pedestrians are hypocrites. People shouldn't be texting or checking their phones while walking. While folks might think it's safe on a sidewalk, I disagree.
I've almost run over a number of pedestrians as they shuffle across a roadway, no crosswalk in sight, when they're totally engrossed in their phones. Or they get in the way of users of non-motorized transportation on the sidewalk. It's super dangerous and incredibly dickheaded.
When the light turns green, any pedestrians still in the crosswalk are jaywalking.
If they're jaywalking, they shouldn't be slow-moving.
If they're jaywalking in a slow-moving manner, the world would be better off if they were to get run over.
My heart goes out to his friends and family.
The world will miss Hiroshi, and I'm concerned that this might be enough for Shigeru Miyamoto to leave the company.
This is a truly sad day.
Robot designers? Robot systems integrators? Robot process engineers? Robot maintenance and field service engineers?
These jobs are already done by computers and robots, mostly.
Consider how many man-hours it takes to design/build/maintain one of these robots.
Now consider how many man-hours it would take to design/build/maintain one of these robots without the aid of modern computers and robots.
Even when it comes to making robots, a majority of the work is already automated.
I agree with your final point though. The long term view is probably just as bright. I don't think, however, that the future will involve people working for a living.
Science currently explains both of these without resorting to supernatural mysticism.
No, it does not. You're clearly confused. Science does not work that way.
Scientific explanation of the origin of the universe and life. Looks like my confusion isn't an issue here, and that science does work that way.
what purpose we have in life
Begging the question. How do you know we have a purpose in life to begin with?
That's completely outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
Indeed, the meaning of life is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. That's a rather pedestrian observation, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Also, that's a bit of a non sequitur argument, since the scope of scientific inquiry has nothing to do with begging the question. Begging the question is a [informal] logical fallacy, and is itself outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Also, let me save you the effort: non sequitur arguments are also outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
what awaits us after death
Usually burial or cremation. Statistics are available.
That's also not a scientific statement. It's a conclusion drawn from a set of metaphysical assumptions. That's not science.
I'm tempted to call you delusional, but I'll stick with "woefully misinformed".
Well, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on characterizing everything as a scientific statement or not. Regardless, this was an objectively verifiable statement. Most people (in western society) are subject to burial or cremation after death. It's a conclusion drawn from a set of empirical observations. That's not science, in that there was no hypothesis, and there was no experiment. It is, however, fact.
Since I'm so "woefully misinformed" (unattributed quote?), I anxiously await the deluge of information you'll no doubt provide to counter any/all of my points. I guess I'll be learning a lot about your opinion on what statements are not scientific. Maybe if I'm really lucky I'll even get you to address any of the points I brought up, sans hand-waving.
Bonus points if you manage to provide context by using slashdot's <quote> tag, and a trophy if you can manage to retain all relevant context instead of just throwing it away again.
I agree with all of your points regarding the ARM SoC issue, but regarding the RdRand issue Linus was spot on.
However, my point wasn't so much about Linus being justified in his actions or not. It was about society becoming emasculated.
The other two replies to my comment really highlight this fact; overly sensitive people whining about how something is "inappropriate" or appealing to "basic human decency" or calling out "mean spirited bullies" or fretting about "dehumanizing people". Our ever-more-comfortable society has led us to become so far removed from natural existence that talk like this has become commonplace. People feel butthurt about Linus calling people names as though it's some crime against humanity, forgetting about the existence of things like sex slavery, wars, or genocide.
All I'm saying is (and this isn't directed towards you, Darinbob): if Linus's rants hurt your feelings, I hope you never have to feel real pain. It would crush you.
I think we've been in an era for a long time where it is inappropriate to wish others dead simply because they design computer hardware in a way that you don't like.
Not all of us are as excited as you about the politically correct world we increasingly find ourselves surrounded by.
There was a time when being mean-spirited towards people based on their religion, their language, or their skin color was deemed socially acceptable. Those days are long gone.
Now we're approaching an era when being mean-spirited towards people based on their incompetence or their ignorance is socially unacceptable. Pretty soon, it won't be acceptable to be mean-spirited towards anyone. Not idiots, not rapists, not murderers.
Some of us dread that day. Some of us see the argument that you set forth and want nothing more than to say "Fuck you, Nancy. Fuck you very much."
I'm tired of society bending those of us who are thick skinned and can handle hearing critical messages to the will of the weak. If you can't grow a pair and brush off offensive language, that's your problem. It's rather inconsiderate for you to burden the rest of us with your weakness.
So now i have some H and some O... but what did i need it for in the first place?
Again, to propel spacecraft.
Why go to the moon?
To get cheap fuel. Aren't you just restating the same question at this point?
Why go to space?
Ah, I dunno. Maybe because it's just a matter of time before mankind sees an extinction level event? Or before the sun goes red giant, wiping out any remaining life in the inner solar system?
What are you, a nihilist? Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos.
even proponents can't come up with a good reason to go there at all.
Sunlight and water.
With the help of ample sunlight, hydrogen and oxygen can be extracted from lunar regolith.
The moon has 1/6 the surface gravity of Earth, and the moon's escape velocity is only 21% that of Earth's.
This means that it takes roughly 22 times as much energy (probably more) to launch a kilogram of water into orbit from Earth as it does from the moon.
This doesn't even take into account that a space elevator could be built on the moon (today, using 1980s technology, something you can't do on Earth) which would make this proposal even more appealing.
Granted that it's much easier to "mine" water on Earth than it is on the moon, water is still worth roughly $10,000 per kilogram in orbit.
You're right, let's fuck over all the researchers at NASA, the DoE, and countless other research agencies that are funded by the government and filled with cleared employees. Yes, NASA researchers are criminals.
Fucking idiots. The comments about this article are written by fucking idiots.
The law is the law. If someone jumps out of a plane without a parachute, you still get charged with murder if you stab them to death before they hit the ground, despite the fact that "THEY WERE GONNA DIE ANYWAY!!!".
Not that I think you're being dishonest. I'm familiar with Vermont culture, and fully expect the hippies would be pushing for renewables. I just don't think the hippies are the ones building power plants.
According to the US EIA:
Vermont ranks 48th (out of 50 states) in terms of electrical generation capacity.
Nuclear power accounted for about three-fourths of the electricity generated within Vermont in 2011, a higher share than any other State.
Twenty-one percent of Vermont’s net electricity generation in 2011 was from conventional hydroelectric power.
Vermont has a voluntary goal of generating 25 percent of electricity consumed in the state from renewable energy resources by 2025.
Indeed, it seems that none of Vermont's electrical generation runs on fossil fuels, which is impressive. However, only about 10% comes from renewables. Closing Vermont Yankee will remove roughly 70% of Vermont's generating capacity. Hydroelectric sources are already fully developed in Vermont (and pretty much anywhere else in the US). This means that Vermont will either add generating capacity based on fossil fuels to make up the shortfall (and it would be relatively easy to convert Vermont Yankee from nuclear to coal or gas), or it will expand generation capacity sourced from renewables sevenfold. Sevenfold by 2014! Vermont's own [ambitious] target is to source only 25% of its electrical generation from renewable sources, and that's by 2025.
I think it's much more likely that a nuke plant will be retrofitted to burn coal or gas than renewable capacity seeing a sevenfold in the span of a single year. If you disagree, that's fine. Let's meet up again in a year to see whose prediction falls closer to reality.
Slashdot Mirror
It's likely something much simpler. Many parents don't want their children playing "naughty" video games, but at the same time they don't want to be the ones that have to say "no".
The idea solution, from their point of view, would be to pass this responsibility on to some faceless third party like the government. This way, the kids don't see the parents as bad guys, always trying to get in the way of harmless fun. Of course, lazy parents shouldn't be imposing this type of burden on government, but I can definitely see the rationale behind this sort of behavior.
Rationalize it away however you like. One man's "annoying" is another man's cause for road rage.
I'm sure your rhetoric will serve you well after you've been run off the road for only being "annoying".
Which is why I always beep when the guy in front of me shifts into a reverse gear.
I've been reversed into twice. The second time I was laying on my horn, and even myself shifted into reverse as well (not fast enough, however).
Imagine how fun it is to prove that no, you didn't rear-end the car in front of you. They merely reversed into you.
If we ever end up on the same road, it's going to be a very annoying drive for the both of us.
My first car was a 16 year old Ford Thunderbird that lasted a whole three months before the engine seized. During those three fantastic months, the car would stall every few miles. It became second nature to pop it in neutral, hit the ignition again, and back into drive, all without even coming to a stop. Of course, starting from a just-turned-green light was one of the most awkward times for this to happen, and happen frequently it did. If on any of those occasions I would have been rear-ended, I would have felt 100% responsible for the collision, despite the law stating otherwise.
Having this many people on the road, there needs to be a social contract that people subscribe to. You don't just slam your breaks in the middle of the highway, even though the pileup that ensues is not legally your fault. You don't just sit there at a green light, even though anyone hitting you would themselves be at fault. This is a limitation of our legal system, not an endorsement of behavior that breaks this social contract. Yes, the douchebag sitting at a green light texting isn't legally at fault. That doesn't mean that the guy that rear-ends him is the one that's in the wrong. Legally, he may be, but that's not a complete picture.
Living in NJ, where traffic never subsides, I've often fantasized about doing just that.
I swear, if I ever win the lottery (slim odds, as I don't play), I'm getting myself a gigantic truck with bull bars and getting ready to lose my drivers license.
Dodge Ram Super Duty obeys the laws of physics, not the laws of man!
I've seen people get lit up by a cop while stopped at a red light...who then panicked and pulled forward into the intersection to almost cause an accident.
If I was being shot multiple times by a cop, I'd panic too. I'd sure as shit hit the gas, though.
Or, conversely, if I was being intoxicated by a cop, I'd panic too. Mostly because I don't know how that would be physically possible.
Or, lastly, if I was being illuminated by a cop, I'm not sure how I'd react. I guess it would depend on the hue of the illumination. If it was just a bright white light, the searchlight, I'd probably be more angry and blinded than panicked.
I've never heard the expression 'lit up' used in this context, referring to being pulled over. Is this from the LEO lexicon, or merely a regional/cultural expression?
You seem to be implying that the driver's negligence is "worse" than the pedestrian's.
The driver's negligence causes the death of a pedestrian. The pedestrian's negligence causes a driver to kill an innocent person.
As a result of your own negligence, would you rather be killed, or would you rather kill an innocent person?
What's worse, death or guilt?
It only takes a couple of seconds to do the texting without removing yourself from the flow of traffic.
Your suggestion, while entirely valid, increases the burden on the texter by an order of magnitude. Don't try to spin it like it's no big inconvenience, or that you can't understand why people would do this. Intellectually honest debate for the win.
People are selfish and would gladly cut the amount of time they waste at the expense of others' safety. News at 10.
As a driver I say pedestrians are hypocrites. People shouldn't be texting or checking their phones while walking. While folks might think it's safe on a sidewalk, I disagree.
I've almost run over a number of pedestrians as they shuffle across a roadway, no crosswalk in sight, when they're totally engrossed in their phones. Or they get in the way of users of non-motorized transportation on the sidewalk. It's super dangerous and incredibly dickheaded.
When the light turns green, any pedestrians still in the crosswalk are jaywalking.
If they're jaywalking, they shouldn't be slow-moving.
If they're jaywalking in a slow-moving manner, the world would be better off if they were to get run over.
I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
My heart goes out to his friends and family.
The world will miss Hiroshi, and I'm concerned that this might be enough for Shigeru Miyamoto to leave the company.
This is a truly sad day.
Robot designers? Robot systems integrators? Robot process engineers? Robot maintenance and field service engineers?
These jobs are already done by computers and robots, mostly.
Consider how many man-hours it takes to design/build/maintain one of these robots.
Now consider how many man-hours it would take to design/build/maintain one of these robots without the aid of modern computers and robots.
Even when it comes to making robots, a majority of the work is already automated.
I agree with your final point though. The long term view is probably just as bright. I don't think, however, that the future will involve people working for a living.
the origin of the universe and of life
Science currently explains both of these without resorting to supernatural mysticism.
No, it does not. You're clearly confused. Science does not work that way.
Scientific explanation of the origin of the universe and life. Looks like my confusion isn't an issue here, and that science does work that way.
what purpose we have in life
Begging the question. How do you know we have a purpose in life to begin with?
That's completely outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
Indeed, the meaning of life is outside the scope of scientific inquiry. That's a rather pedestrian observation, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Also, that's a bit of a non sequitur argument, since the scope of scientific inquiry has nothing to do with begging the question. Begging the question is a [informal] logical fallacy, and is itself outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Also, let me save you the effort: non sequitur arguments are also outside the scope of scientific inquiry.
what awaits us after death
Usually burial or cremation. Statistics are available.
That's also not a scientific statement. It's a conclusion drawn from a set of metaphysical assumptions. That's not science. I'm tempted to call you delusional, but I'll stick with "woefully misinformed".
Well, I'm not sure why you're so hung up on characterizing everything as a scientific statement or not. Regardless, this was an objectively verifiable statement. Most people (in western society) are subject to burial or cremation after death. It's a conclusion drawn from a set of empirical observations. That's not science, in that there was no hypothesis, and there was no experiment. It is, however, fact.
Since I'm so "woefully misinformed" (unattributed quote?), I anxiously await the deluge of information you'll no doubt provide to counter any/all of my points. I guess I'll be learning a lot about your opinion on what statements are not scientific. Maybe if I'm really lucky I'll even get you to address any of the points I brought up, sans hand-waving.
Bonus points if you manage to provide context by using slashdot's <quote> tag, and a trophy if you can manage to retain all relevant context instead of just throwing it away again.
the origin of the universe and of life
Science currently explains both of these without resorting to supernatural mysticism.
what purpose we have in life
Begging the question. How do you know we have a purpose in life to begin with?
what awaits us after death
Usually burial or cremation. Statistics are available.
I agree with all of your points regarding the ARM SoC issue, but regarding the RdRand issue Linus was spot on.
However, my point wasn't so much about Linus being justified in his actions or not. It was about society becoming emasculated.
The other two replies to my comment really highlight this fact; overly sensitive people whining about how something is "inappropriate" or appealing to "basic human decency" or calling out "mean spirited bullies" or fretting about "dehumanizing people". Our ever-more-comfortable society has led us to become so far removed from natural existence that talk like this has become commonplace. People feel butthurt about Linus calling people names as though it's some crime against humanity, forgetting about the existence of things like sex slavery, wars, or genocide.
All I'm saying is (and this isn't directed towards you, Darinbob): if Linus's rants hurt your feelings, I hope you never have to feel real pain. It would crush you.
There is absolutely no reason to be "mean spirited" to any person at any time.
Die in a fire.
I think we've been in an era for a long time where it is inappropriate to wish others dead simply because they design computer hardware in a way that you don't like.
Die in a fire.
Yes, it was:
Quoting Linus: "I'm an egotistical bastard, and I name all my projects after myself. First 'Linux', now 'Git'".
Not all of us are as excited as you about the politically correct world we increasingly find ourselves surrounded by.
There was a time when being mean-spirited towards people based on their religion, their language, or their skin color was deemed socially acceptable. Those days are long gone.
Now we're approaching an era when being mean-spirited towards people based on their incompetence or their ignorance is socially unacceptable. Pretty soon, it won't be acceptable to be mean-spirited towards anyone. Not idiots, not rapists, not murderers.
Some of us dread that day. Some of us see the argument that you set forth and want nothing more than to say "Fuck you, Nancy. Fuck you very much."
I'm tired of society bending those of us who are thick skinned and can handle hearing critical messages to the will of the weak. If you can't grow a pair and brush off offensive language, that's your problem. It's rather inconsiderate for you to burden the rest of us with your weakness.
For what?
For fuel.
Do do what?
To propel spacecraft.
So now i have some H and some O... but what did i need it for in the first place?
Again, to propel spacecraft.
Why go to the moon?
To get cheap fuel. Aren't you just restating the same question at this point?
Why go to space?
Ah, I dunno. Maybe because it's just a matter of time before mankind sees an extinction level event? Or before the sun goes red giant, wiping out any remaining life in the inner solar system?
What are you, a nihilist? Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of national socialism, dude, at least it's an ethos.
even proponents can't come up with a good reason to go there at all.
Sunlight and water.
With the help of ample sunlight, hydrogen and oxygen can be extracted from lunar regolith.
The moon has 1/6 the surface gravity of Earth, and the moon's escape velocity is only 21% that of Earth's.
This means that it takes roughly 22 times as much energy (probably more) to launch a kilogram of water into orbit from Earth as it does from the moon.
This doesn't even take into account that a space elevator could be built on the moon (today, using 1980s technology, something you can't do on Earth) which would make this proposal even more appealing.
Granted that it's much easier to "mine" water on Earth than it is on the moon, water is still worth roughly $10,000 per kilogram in orbit.
You're right, let's fuck over all the researchers at NASA, the DoE, and countless other research agencies that are funded by the government and filled with cleared employees. Yes, NASA researchers are criminals.
Fucking idiots. The comments about this article are written by fucking idiots.
The law is the law. If someone jumps out of a plane without a parachute, you still get charged with murder if you stab them to death before they hit the ground, despite the fact that "THEY WERE GONNA DIE ANYWAY!!!".
Citation needed.
Not that I think you're being dishonest. I'm familiar with Vermont culture, and fully expect the hippies would be pushing for renewables. I just don't think the hippies are the ones building power plants.
According to the US EIA:
Vermont ranks 48th (out of 50 states) in terms of electrical generation capacity.
Nuclear power accounted for about three-fourths of the electricity generated within Vermont in 2011, a higher share than any other State.
Twenty-one percent of Vermont’s net electricity generation in 2011 was from conventional hydroelectric power.
Vermont has a voluntary goal of generating 25 percent of electricity consumed in the state from renewable energy resources by 2025.
Indeed, it seems that none of Vermont's electrical generation runs on fossil fuels, which is impressive. However, only about 10% comes from renewables. Closing Vermont Yankee will remove roughly 70% of Vermont's generating capacity. Hydroelectric sources are already fully developed in Vermont (and pretty much anywhere else in the US). This means that Vermont will either add generating capacity based on fossil fuels to make up the shortfall (and it would be relatively easy to convert Vermont Yankee from nuclear to coal or gas), or it will expand generation capacity sourced from renewables sevenfold. Sevenfold by 2014! Vermont's own [ambitious] target is to source only 25% of its electrical generation from renewable sources, and that's by 2025.
I think it's much more likely that a nuke plant will be retrofitted to burn coal or gas than renewable capacity seeing a sevenfold in the span of a single year. If you disagree, that's fine. Let's meet up again in a year to see whose prediction falls closer to reality.