It's a very big question. I am not a creationist but I think a creationist would say that teaching children that God didn't create the universe cripples their spiritual well-being, and could be construed as abuse.
So I think the argument comes down to whether their opinions matter in a democracy. Does the government have a right to silence people who are just plain wrong?
The first world societies have to understand real soon that they need to figure out what to do with the jobless masses with IQs under 110 in fifty years.
Well, the problem of "masses" is taking care of itself. No need for government policy there; market forces are driving population growth down.
As to the "IQ under 110," there are lots of productive and necessary jobs that can't easily be automated. It's going to be a long time before a robot can cook a gourmet meal or repair a leaky faucet or give me a good haircut.
One doesn't need to be educated or even terribly smart to be a productive member of society. One just needs a work ethic.
TFS says he doesn't want to spend a lot of time and doesn't want to start from a blank slate. So just saying "drupal" doesn't really answer the question.
Bob Dylan is a living artist, born a few years before George Lucas. His voice is not for everyone, but he is far more influential than Lucas and IMHO several of his songs rise to the level of "fine art". There are probably quite a few other musicians who are equally important. (BB King is still alive.)
So yeah, TFA is trolling and Paglia didn't spend five minutes thinking about who are the great living artists.
When it comes to visual arts, I admit I am at a loss to name someone alive today who is as great as, say, Jackson Pollock or Georgia O'Keefe. That is not to say George Lucas is the cream of the crop!
In the marketplace, it seems that consumers generally prefer the convenience of proprietary devices like the iPhone and the Kindle over free alternatives like a GNU/Linux laptop. Freedom does not seem to be winning in the marketplace. Why do you think that is?
That probably came across as nastier than I wanted to be.:-( You probably haven't thought through the same scenarios I have -- for example, a group of pedestrians is crossing the street illegally and your choice is to plow through them or smash into a parked car at low speed which probably won't hurt you. For most people, that's an easy choice to make.
I think your statistics on accidents are informative but you're missing an important point. With automated cars, we expect accident rates to go down significantly (so saith the summary). So the likelihood an _automated_ car will be _at fault_ in an accident is probably a lot lower than the 25% you presume. (The manufacturer does not care about accidents where the machine is not at fault, beyond complying with crash-safety requirements.)
As far as I can see science has done many things to make our lives better in recent years where as religion has just stood in the way of the progress of science.
And when was the last time you saw a church from the inside? Do you have any idea what churches actually do?
Hiring the male equivalent -- an abusive, spoiled, narcissistic dick -- to lead your company is also a horrible idea, but companies do it all the time. And fail. It's not about gender, it's about being an asshat.
Seriously, what happened to the rebel spirit and legacy of your forefathers?
It's still there. It's just that we've set up a Federal court system so we express our discontent using lawyers instead of guns. It takes longer and makes fewer headlines.
If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."
Slashdot Mirror
It's a very big question. I am not a creationist but I think a creationist would say that teaching children that God didn't create the universe cripples their spiritual well-being, and could be construed as abuse.
So I think the argument comes down to whether their opinions matter in a democracy. Does the government have a right to silence people who are just plain wrong?
Well, the problem of "masses" is taking care of itself. No need for government policy there; market forces are driving population growth down.
As to the "IQ under 110," there are lots of productive and necessary jobs that can't easily be automated. It's going to be a long time before a robot can cook a gourmet meal or repair a leaky faucet or give me a good haircut.
One doesn't need to be educated or even terribly smart to be a productive member of society. One just needs a work ethic.
Being outcast from American society is definitely a perk. :-)
TFS says he doesn't want to spend a lot of time and doesn't want to start from a blank slate. So just saying "drupal" doesn't really answer the question.
Bob Dylan is a living artist, born a few years before George Lucas. His voice is not for everyone, but he is far more influential than Lucas and IMHO several of his songs rise to the level of "fine art". There are probably quite a few other musicians who are equally important. (BB King is still alive.)
So yeah, TFA is trolling and Paglia didn't spend five minutes thinking about who are the great living artists.
When it comes to visual arts, I admit I am at a loss to name someone alive today who is as great as, say, Jackson Pollock or Georgia O'Keefe. That is not to say George Lucas is the cream of the crop!
Or maybe she's just saying all the other art of this generation is complete garbage that's even worse than Revenge of the Sith.
I've lost my will to let innocents die so I can live.
Maybe the reason old people don't work in Silicon Valley is because they have the wisdom to walk away from the table when the game is rigged.
Who, other than yourself and the FSF, do you consider to be effective advocates for software freedom? Please name individuals if you can.
In the marketplace, it seems that consumers generally prefer the convenience of proprietary devices like the iPhone and the Kindle over free alternatives like a GNU/Linux laptop. Freedom does not seem to be winning in the marketplace. Why do you think that is?
That probably came across as nastier than I wanted to be. :-( You probably haven't thought through the same scenarios I have -- for example, a group of pedestrians is crossing the street illegally and your choice is to plow through them or smash into a parked car at low speed which probably won't hurt you. For most people, that's an easy choice to make.
You, sir, are a good example of why driverless cars will make me safer.
I think your statistics on accidents are informative but you're missing an important point. With automated cars, we expect accident rates to go down significantly (so saith the summary). So the likelihood an _automated_ car will be _at fault_ in an accident is probably a lot lower than the 25% you presume. (The manufacturer does not care about accidents where the machine is not at fault, beyond complying with crash-safety requirements.)
This is an especially interesting question because reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes the best ethical framework.
Intro to Philosophy the college class I am most glad I took, 20+ years later. Will the people who program the robot cars have taken it, as well?
If you actually read Asimov's [i]I, Robot[/i], every story in it is about how the Three Laws can be problematic in certain situations.
And when was the last time you saw a church from the inside? Do you have any idea what churches actually do?
But we will *see* the reprisals, thanks to this ruling.
Apparently, there will never be enough data to convince some people of that. (See also "Evolution, teaching in US schools.")
Step 3. Money is something you don't have to sell.
Sure, if you have an extraordinarily loose definition of "money."
Hiring the male equivalent -- an abusive, spoiled, narcissistic dick -- to lead your company is also a horrible idea, but companies do it all the time. And fail. It's not about gender, it's about being an asshat.
Way to go, Grotzinger. You've just totally undermined NASA's effort to keep their mouths shut until they've carefully checked the data.
It's still there. It's just that we've set up a Federal court system so we express our discontent using lawyers instead of guns. It takes longer and makes fewer headlines.
Yes. Key management is surprising difficult, and does not scale.
If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."