That's true. The wing bit I can live with. But some of the other ones are a more interesting. Even 2001: Space Odyssey got the "no sound in space" part in 1968. Explosions in space is another issue. Or what about apparent gravity in X-Wings and Tie-Fighters? They didn't look particularly "floating" to me as they duke it out in space. Etc...
I understand it's fiction and understand it's obviously not realistic and completely believable, but it does seem that a lot of authors in general... don't seem to think things completely through these days. Action has taken place of thought? Due partially, of course, to the readership. Most modern readers, it seems, can't handle something by Hugo, Dickens, or a number of 19th (and before) century writers because it's "long" and "boring" and there's no "action," etc.
Are you bettering society? I think so. Kids learn a lot from TV. Why should they not be instructed that you don't need wings in space? You can't hear sound in space? Light goes much faster? Etc.
On slashdot, of all places, I would have thought debunking scientific fiction that is not at all "scientific" or even "logical"/"good thinking" would be encouraged:)
Hardly unrelated. So related, in fact, that it would have been nice if the summary made mention of the fact that it only affects
It'd be like me saying "New Linux Kernel released! Also, Linux has a security hole that allows arbitrary code execution!" And then, in small print, "Oh, by the way, it only affects
At the top of the list is a Maine law that would require e-commerce sites to get parental approval before collecting minors' personal information.
Considering the fact that they are (1) a minor and (2) probably have much of the same "personal information" as the parents do, I fail to see how this is bad, actually. Theoretically, the parents are still somewhat responsible for their kids when they are minors. I don't see how enforcing that on the internet as well as in other things (such as getting your ears pierced) is a bad thing. Maybe you want to argue about the parental control in the first place, but it doesn't help to just have inconsistent laws...
In light of recent elections (yes, I'm conservative; no, I am not only referring to democrats) and politics in general, it would seem that "charisma" is actually a byproduct of "saying the correct things to the correct people no matter what your actual plans are." Also known as lying to get votes. Campaign "promises."
People can be quite addicted to tv dramas, sports, and news.
You've never noticed the people that just HAVE to get home to watch their favorite tv show? Talk about it incessantly? Miss other social engagements to watch it if they aren't able to record it and it won't be available online until *gasp* TOMORROW (and they can't bear to be the last person on earth to see the latest drama)?
People get addicted. To a lot of things. It's just always just a "simple way" to pass the time. It becomes a "need," according to them.
Not everyone does get addicted, but certainly many do.
I think that very much entirely depends on what you consider "intrinsic value." You have based it on business, costs saved, etc. Some people base intrinsic value on other things, like enjoyment or satisfaction. Does any given food have intrinsic value? Lettuce? It's not necessary. You can live on rice and beans. So, I argue that lettuce has no intrinsic value. I should be able to take as much of it as I want for free. Right?
IMO, music does have intrinsic value. It's just hard to give it a dollar value. But a dollar value could be given if only based on how much time it would take to pay someone to produce it again.... but that doesn't take into account things like... maybe NOBODY could produce it again. If nothing else, the original copy has intrinsic value. And it's generally assumed that in order to continue producing "unnecessary" luxuries, the producer should be paid so he can concentrate on it...
Now, this may not be an argument for the current state of affairs, but it's an argument against having no copyright available whatsoever for music.
I know you're joking, but that's actually an interesting train of thought... the rich are getting the good mileage and the poor can't afford good mileage cars. When the "rich" get something the "poor" can't have in other areas, usually people get upset. The "green" (and "organic") fad (I call it a fad because I actually think there is something to be said for no pesticides, etc, but people still get into it because it's a fad) is sort of a rich-person thing..
That depends on what you're looking at. Sort of like "electric cars" are not "just electric." Something produces the electricity. Like coal. (or hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, of course..)
I agree, I think certain things are definitely the fault (whether good or bad) of parties. And some the fault of both, and some the fault of neither.
But the knee-jerk reaction for any "bad" thing is "It was the previous President"/"It was the other party"/"It was the previous Congress.".. presuming, of course, your party is not the one in control previously:)
That's only an epic win if you have ten things. Plus, wouldn't all ten things be drawing from the same rather small power supply? That sounds like it's going to be pretty slow. Maybe I don't understand how it works, could be.:)
True, they require something to compare to. In a world with only one entity, it'd hard to be selfish. However, they do not necessarily actually have to interact with anyone else. I can simply see someone else, or even a picture or drawing of someone else, and be proud. No harm to the object I am comparing myself to, is there?
Bringsjord's definition has some interesting presuppositions about human nature, apparently.
It kinda sounds like he thinks "evil" can only be born out of "incoherence" (reasons to commit the morally wrong action) or "misunderstanding" (regarded the harm as a good thing).
It also is interesting that he doesn't define what a morally wrong action is, or what is morally wrong. It seems that is more to the point in defining "evil." If I define "morally wrong" as that which only applies to interactions with others as opposed to being "morally wrong" with interactions that have only to do with myself (say... pride, selfishness, etc., which do not require "others" to exist), my definition of "evil" will be significantly different.
But muscle activity is not related to brain garbage collection, is it? Being physically tired is different. I guess that's more "rest" and not "sleep" though.
Slashdot Mirror
Millions of servers cost (individually) a whole lot more than an XBox. Go find a $300 (or whatever an XBox costs) server and see how long it lasts.
That's true. The wing bit I can live with. But some of the other ones are a more interesting. Even 2001: Space Odyssey got the "no sound in space" part in 1968. Explosions in space is another issue. Or what about apparent gravity in X-Wings and Tie-Fighters? They didn't look particularly "floating" to me as they duke it out in space. Etc...
I understand it's fiction and understand it's obviously not realistic and completely believable, but it does seem that a lot of authors in general ... don't seem to think things completely through these days. Action has taken place of thought? Due partially, of course, to the readership. Most modern readers, it seems, can't handle something by Hugo, Dickens, or a number of 19th (and before) century writers because it's "long" and "boring" and there's no "action," etc.
Same with movies, music, etc.
[/rant :)]
Are you bettering society? I think so. Kids learn a lot from TV. Why should they not be instructed that you don't need wings in space? You can't hear sound in space? Light goes much faster? Etc.
On slashdot, of all places, I would have thought debunking scientific fiction that is not at all "scientific" or even "logical"/"good thinking" would be encouraged :)
I see nothing wrong with the statement. Most kernel developers are single. The group of them, as a whole, are all single!
Hardly unrelated. So related, in fact, that it would have been nice if the summary made mention of the fact that it only affects
It'd be like me saying "New Linux Kernel released! Also, Linux has a security hole that allows arbitrary code execution!" And then, in small print, "Oh, by the way, it only affects
At the top of the list is a Maine law that would require e-commerce sites to get parental approval before collecting minors' personal information.
Considering the fact that they are (1) a minor and (2) probably have much of the same "personal information" as the parents do, I fail to see how this is bad, actually. Theoretically, the parents are still somewhat responsible for their kids when they are minors. I don't see how enforcing that on the internet as well as in other things (such as getting your ears pierced) is a bad thing. Maybe you want to argue about the parental control in the first place, but it doesn't help to just have inconsistent laws...
Obama just has more charisma.
In light of recent elections (yes, I'm conservative; no, I am not only referring to democrats) and politics in general, it would seem that "charisma" is actually a byproduct of "saying the correct things to the correct people no matter what your actual plans are." Also known as lying to get votes. Campaign "promises."
I know if it had happened to Bush, the neocons would have had pitchforks in hand.
If? We all know that when Bush was in office, no negative pictures or parodies of him circulated the internet. *blinks*
People can be quite addicted to tv dramas, sports, and news.
You've never noticed the people that just HAVE to get home to watch their favorite tv show? Talk about it incessantly? Miss other social engagements to watch it if they aren't able to record it and it won't be available online until *gasp* TOMORROW (and they can't bear to be the last person on earth to see the latest drama)?
People get addicted. To a lot of things. It's just always just a "simple way" to pass the time. It becomes a "need," according to them.
Not everyone does get addicted, but certainly many do.
What? There were computers before 1985?
Then accidentally visiting a bad website would kill your computer.. :)
Couldn't you have waited for someone to say "but does it run Linux?" before posting? ;)
Seriously, though, that's rather annoying. I wonder why.
I think that very much entirely depends on what you consider "intrinsic value." You have based it on business, costs saved, etc. Some people base intrinsic value on other things, like enjoyment or satisfaction. Does any given food have intrinsic value? Lettuce? It's not necessary. You can live on rice and beans. So, I argue that lettuce has no intrinsic value. I should be able to take as much of it as I want for free. Right?
IMO, music does have intrinsic value. It's just hard to give it a dollar value. But a dollar value could be given if only based on how much time it would take to pay someone to produce it again. ... but that doesn't take into account things like ... maybe NOBODY could produce it again. If nothing else, the original copy has intrinsic value. And it's generally assumed that in order to continue producing "unnecessary" luxuries, the producer should be paid so he can concentrate on it...
Now, this may not be an argument for the current state of affairs, but it's an argument against having no copyright available whatsoever for music.
I know you're joking, but that's actually an interesting train of thought... the rich are getting the good mileage and the poor can't afford good mileage cars. When the "rich" get something the "poor" can't have in other areas, usually people get upset. The "green" (and "organic") fad (I call it a fad because I actually think there is something to be said for no pesticides, etc, but people still get into it because it's a fad) is sort of a rich-person thing..
That depends on what you're looking at. Sort of like "electric cars" are not "just electric." Something produces the electricity. Like coal. (or hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, of course..)
I agree, I think certain things are definitely the fault (whether good or bad) of parties. And some the fault of both, and some the fault of neither.
But the knee-jerk reaction for any "bad" thing is "It was the previous President"/"It was the other party"/"It was the previous Congress." .. presuming, of course, your party is not the one in control previously :)
That's only an epic win if you have ten things. Plus, wouldn't all ten things be drawing from the same rather small power supply? That sounds like it's going to be pretty slow. Maybe I don't understand how it works, could be. :)
Hm... but just imagine what a beowulf cluster of cloud-based goop computing systems could do?
it sounds like a +5 Funny Mod Comment at any rate. ;)
Because it is always the other party's fault, no matter what the problem is, when it started, or who started it.
That just means the no-bid contracts will be going to their friends instead of those of the GOP.
I do believe that that would fall under the definition of change.
True, they require something to compare to. In a world with only one entity, it'd hard to be selfish. However, they do not necessarily actually have to interact with anyone else. I can simply see someone else, or even a picture or drawing of someone else, and be proud. No harm to the object I am comparing myself to, is there?
Bringsjord's definition has some interesting presuppositions about human nature, apparently.
It kinda sounds like he thinks "evil" can only be born out of "incoherence" (reasons to commit the morally wrong action) or "misunderstanding" (regarded the harm as a good thing).
It also is interesting that he doesn't define what a morally wrong action is, or what is morally wrong. It seems that is more to the point in defining "evil." If I define "morally wrong" as that which only applies to interactions with others as opposed to being "morally wrong" with interactions that have only to do with myself (say... pride, selfishness, etc., which do not require "others" to exist), my definition of "evil" will be significantly different.
How old is he now? Who knows how his body will react when he's 50 or 60?
Regarding the commute, anyone can do that, more or less. Just need to go to bed 4 hours earlier. ;)
But muscle activity is not related to brain garbage collection, is it? Being physically tired is different. I guess that's more "rest" and not "sleep" though.
Briefly, yes. Hehe.