You're misunderstanding the use of the word 'stability'. All glasses are thermodynamically unstable. A glass is, essentially, a liquid that has been cooled really quickly past the melting point to a temperature at which the atoms do not have enough energy to re-arrange themselves into the thermodynamically preferred crystalline ordering. This leaves you with a thermodynamically unstable - but kinetically stable - solid that has an amorphous structure (one with no long-range atomic order).
Since this glass is also kinetically unstable, it won't remain a solid at RTP. However, it probably won't explode: it will simply crystallise, melt and evaporate as you heat it up. I suppose if you did this fast enough it might explode, but I think at 'normal' heating rates it's likely to just crack along flaws in the material to relieve internal pressure.
Of course, since you mentioned what would happen when it 'breaks'... this would require it to be at whatever conditions the glass is kinetically stable (from the article) - as I've explained above, the material won't exist as a solid at RTP and therefore cannot be broken. If it's kinetically stable, when it breaks it will just behave like a normal glass: it will fragment.
Religion is really about defining for us what the purpose and meaning of our lives is, or should be.
That might be what you believe, I think that religion has no place in a rational society. So what defines "the purpose and meaning of our lives"? What always has: philosophy. Which is ultimately what 'religion' is offering you - although with the 'advantage' that it doesn't have to be rational, consistent or in any way defensible because its proponents can always play their trump card of "it came from an unknowable divine authority".
In the end we are (though I am atheist, I must use the term) spiritually bankrupting ourselves in the name of present gain.
Again, your belief. If you've already taken the step of rejecting the poison served up as morality by religion, you might want to consider if the philosophy you've adopted in its place (unconsciously, by the sound of it) is at all better - it's rather apparent it's not the "capitalism/materialism" you're so worried about by the way.
Why should I be penalised if my mother is a crack whore? That's not my fault, is it?
No it isn't... but that doesn't mean you're entitled to anything from anyone else because of it. The fallacy in your argument is implied: that somehow everyone should have a "fair" start but, as your example demonstrates this doesn't happen without intervention - and intervention costs money. Money has to come from somewhere and, ultimately, from someone. This imposes a burden on that person due to your condition, arising from a misguided belief that they are somehow obliged to help you.
Some people delight in helping the poor and needy. Great for them. Others would prefer that their money was spent in other methods, as they choose, rather than taken from them forcibly to subsidise the lives of others and meet some arbitrary standard of "fairness".
After the first page the left margin was out of the border of the window so the text was cut off.
A poorly designed website, I believe (either that, or it doesn't like Firefox... which is basically the same thing). However, there's a little link at the bottom right where you can download a.pdf version of the magazine, which reads fine.
Now why didn't Warren Spector just write the damn thing? Close to 75% of it is just quotes directly from him.
Eh? The/. post has "Warren Spector interview" in the first sentence... what were you expecting, three pages of the interviewer's ruminations on the games industry, with one quote per page from Spector? And why didn't he write it? I've yet to see anyone interview themself. Also, I suspect that Warren is being kept busy getting his new studio in order.
Personally, I'd rather see an article reporting the thoughts of someone actually involved in the games industry, rather than some amateurish hack spewing out copy on his own, clearly authoritative and omniscient, views on the state of play (like some commercial mags I could mention).
If they don't do anything then people will accuse them of doing nothing and if they introduce more laws then people will complain about a loss of rights.
Which rather suggests the appropriate course of action lies somewhere between those two extremes...
There's a lot of room in the word "undue". For instance, "I'll sue you if you don't give me back my iPod" isn't exactly extortion. Nor is the policeman who says "Put your hostage or I will shoot you" committing extortion. I'd even hazard to say that the theatre that sells popcorn for $7 isn't committing extortion, but YMMV.
Well, no, none of those examples are extortion, but not for the reason you state. In the first two, the target has clearly committed a crime; in the latter, the key word is "sells" - the theatre's not forcing anyone to buy their popcorn.
(I'd also question whether suing someone for theft would ever be a reasonable course of action...)
Unfortunately, "extortion" is not treated by its exact definition in a Court of Law. If it were, taxation would also be illegal (after all, money is being demanded from you with the threat of imprisonment if you fail to comply).
So at the moment, certain forms of "extortion" are legal. Not *Just*, mind, only legal. Until a paradigm shift occurs in the mindset of the general population ("hey, it can't be one law for some people and another for everyone else - that's unjust!", "can a legal system that upholds contradictory practices ever be just?", etc.) this sort of argument will continue to carry little weight.
After all, if it's happening to lots of people, it's got to be legal, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the BBC.
You're misunderstanding the use of the word 'stability'. All glasses are thermodynamically unstable. A glass is, essentially, a liquid that has been cooled really quickly past the melting point to a temperature at which the atoms do not have enough energy to re-arrange themselves into the thermodynamically preferred crystalline ordering. This leaves you with a thermodynamically unstable - but kinetically stable - solid that has an amorphous structure (one with no long-range atomic order).
Since this glass is also kinetically unstable, it won't remain a solid at RTP. However, it probably won't explode: it will simply crystallise, melt and evaporate as you heat it up. I suppose if you did this fast enough it might explode, but I think at 'normal' heating rates it's likely to just crack along flaws in the material to relieve internal pressure.
Of course, since you mentioned what would happen when it 'breaks'... this would require it to be at whatever conditions the glass is kinetically stable (from the article) - as I've explained above, the material won't exist as a solid at RTP and therefore cannot be broken. If it's kinetically stable, when it breaks it will just behave like a normal glass: it will fragment.
(And, yes, I am a glass scientist!)
That might be what you believe, I think that religion has no place in a rational society. So what defines "the purpose and meaning of our lives"? What always has: philosophy. Which is ultimately what 'religion' is offering you - although with the 'advantage' that it doesn't have to be rational, consistent or in any way defensible because its proponents can always play their trump card of "it came from an unknowable divine authority".
In the end we are (though I am atheist, I must use the term) spiritually bankrupting ourselves in the name of present gain.
Again, your belief. If you've already taken the step of rejecting the poison served up as morality by religion, you might want to consider if the philosophy you've adopted in its place (unconsciously, by the sound of it) is at all better - it's rather apparent it's not the "capitalism/materialism" you're so worried about by the way.
No it isn't... but that doesn't mean you're entitled to anything from anyone else because of it. The fallacy in your argument is implied: that somehow everyone should have a "fair" start but, as your example demonstrates this doesn't happen without intervention - and intervention costs money. Money has to come from somewhere and, ultimately, from someone. This imposes a burden on that person due to your condition, arising from a misguided belief that they are somehow obliged to help you.
Some people delight in helping the poor and needy. Great for them. Others would prefer that their money was spent in other methods, as they choose, rather than taken from them forcibly to subsidise the lives of others and meet some arbitrary standard of "fairness".
A poorly designed website, I believe (either that, or it doesn't like Firefox... which is basically the same thing). However, there's a little link at the bottom right where you can download a .pdf version of the magazine, which reads fine.
Eh? The /. post has "Warren Spector interview" in the first sentence... what were you expecting, three pages of the interviewer's ruminations on the games industry, with one quote per page from Spector? And why didn't he write it? I've yet to see anyone interview themself. Also, I suspect that Warren is being kept busy getting his new studio in order.
Personally, I'd rather see an article reporting the thoughts of someone actually involved in the games industry, rather than some amateurish hack spewing out copy on his own, clearly authoritative and omniscient, views on the state of play (like some commercial mags I could mention).
Which rather suggests the appropriate course of action lies somewhere between those two extremes...
Well, no, none of those examples are extortion, but not for the reason you state. In the first two, the target has clearly committed a crime; in the latter, the key word is "sells" - the theatre's not forcing anyone to buy their popcorn.
(I'd also question whether suing someone for theft would ever be a reasonable course of action...)
But I fear we're drifting off-topic.
So at the moment, certain forms of "extortion" are legal. Not *Just*, mind, only legal. Until a paradigm shift occurs in the mindset of the general population ("hey, it can't be one law for some people and another for everyone else - that's unjust!", "can a legal system that upholds contradictory practices ever be just?", etc.) this sort of argument will continue to carry little weight.
After all, if it's happening to lots of people, it's got to be legal, right?