In Norway you cannot publish photo/ video of people in the public when they are clearly identifiable. Any person in said photo/ video can ask for its removal.
The minute was, of course, the time a chore had been done minus the time the chore was stated as going to be executed 'in a minute'.
For thousands of years then, the minute varied from 30 seconds to 60 days, but as the convention of marriage became written in stone we've seen a stern narrowing of the time window accepted to be within a minute, until the advent of the digital wristwatch which settled the matter once and for all.
Today we don't say 'in a minute' as often, but instead "I'll get right on it", "it's got full priority" and "why don't you send me an email about it?".
Exactly. If you can't get by on ads, maybe a different strategy is needed.
If your content isn't unique enough, then perhaps a membership is worth something. Not a pay wall but a subscription to get to comment, backstage access etc. For non members the articles are read-only, this way you don't lose the surface area.
I hate the notion of ads being perceived as necessary or an elegant solution when they most often are not.
I call BS. This has nothing to do with piracy, except as an excuse.
Game companies can't admit that piracy increases sales because it's the perfect scapegoat for additional profits (artificial expiration date, micro sales, targeted advertising, no secondhand market etc).
Look, if 3 people pirate a game (and it's a good game) they will recommend it to their peers, say 5 people each = 15 people. Of those 15, some will buy the game, talk to more peers etc. Eminem is rich because MP3 existed, not because of his talents alone.
Boycotts last 1-2 weeks. Bad PR sticks, but you must get critical mass of bitchin', and be fair and balanced (DRM is insane and unwarranted so shouldn't be a problem). Submit to paper and e-zines, link to these in Wikipedia etc.
As a Scandinavian I got the joke, and found articles on the fake routing. I'm not sure, but I read most comments that didn't read like an 11-year old as playing along with the joke.
If you only call 1 person you don't need G+ (I don't have it). But get the Google video plugin from Google.com/chat/video and sign into chat at the left pane in Gmail under the folders.
Have made/received 10+ calls, and though getting through may be an issue (the gf gets script errors in Firefox on Ubuntu) you'll find it works once its going.
You are correct, of course, but not entirely. The independent disciplines carry out the very fieldwork philosophy in turn responds to and absorb, and is also instrumental to change how we understand the world which may again change or create new disciplines. When there is a meeting point of a controversial philosophical claim and new evidence or discovery in another field, it is hardly coincidental.
Anthropology is very interesting to philosophers because its detailed study of the specifics illuminates the things we take for granted and things we must rule out, in addition to the things that (still) seem universal. Kant's Weltanschauung, for example, would have to take into account the alternative way some peoples view time - and if it proved to collapse into the existing account his point would be further strengthened. (His views has other significant problems but that was an example of a test anthropology could provide.)
That aside, an expert in anthropology would make a poor expert in ethics and vice versa because the former's object of interest is the concrete culture or production of culture while the latter's object is the investigation of how and why any culture or production thereof is possible in the first place (and what that entails -- often an _ought_); and the fruits of discussing the perspective, the entailments or the entailing, etc.
Your remarks are intriguing and I will reply to it, just not typing on the phone right now.
And the Andamans (?) would be just as applicable to serve as the basis of a test because their peculiar particulars would strengthen the case of universality. Indeed Kant himself wrote his maxims would be followed by non-humans, angels specifically, but by extension and imagination aliens and AI alike -- a strong claim indeed.
PS . I read v little anthropology per se, but a lot of archeology and history, so I am very much aware of the challenge of huge differences.
PS2. Whether or not all evidence will be taken into account is sort of moot. Two weeks ago I read an article on perception where the author made common-sensical claims about hallucinations that I found unreasonable, and I found a great psychiatric article which empirical evidence confidently put the argument to rest. An appeal to common sense is problematic in philosophy, as it is in anthropology and all other fields alike.
Doing a MA in ethics and political philosophy here.
I wrote a comment above so I will be brief. Philosophers in my field deal with ethics qua an endeavour to discover the truth of humanity. Politicians and public offices paradigmatically deal with ethics (today) qua Christian Protestant morality or praxis (limited to Western world and international relations).
This is simplified, but I wanted to point out that an ethical project must take empirical evidence into account (I find Neuroscience very interesting these days, as they deal with questions Aristotle or Hegel dealt with too) or perish; whereas political and public bodies will do what's convenient (Protestant morality is perfect because it's politically correct today) without much concern for truth.
Put it like this: ethics is the study of the human being. With that in mind, and a hypothetical ultimate morality as a goal, the truth of what we are must guide us. The endeavour must be scientific, which entails that some ethical theories are empirically false (Hobbes and children are inherently flawed, for instance) while appeals to religion is cultural and will often prove moot (understood as early attempts at the same task).
How will a discussion about the "ultimate morality" come about with any hope of success? So far my money's on Habermas' Formal Pragmatics. It is an extremely important contribution but not easily understood.
Please ask if you want clarification.
When official institutions today talk about "ethics", however, it is paradigmatically Christian Protestant morality and not ethics proper.
He didn't use common sense. He used his 65 years of experience, knowledge of materials and methods, and trial and error. Which is his expertise.
Which of his neighbours could do the same?
The reason I am pointing out the obvious, is because the general term of common sense more often than not implies a tacit denouncement of expert knowledge, and is usually pulled out to justify a particular ignorance and save face. In this case, I expect it's good old modesty however.
I am a philosopher, but two years back I had to dress an uneven beam with electricity tubes running along the top with plaster. I solved the puzzle by creating 9 U-shaped parts with 23mm thick wood pieces, angles and holed coins (1 NOK for the right spacing), and with adjustable screws the beam is now 99% even. I didn't use common sense. I used creativity.
Slashdot Mirror
Different countries different laws.
In Norway you cannot publish photo/ video of people in the public when they are clearly identifiable. Any person in said photo/ video can ask for its removal.
Or, let's hope, shy away from the entire prospect.
"The standardization of the second took place 46 years ago."
Whoa there! You still haven't explained how we settled on the first!
The minute was, of course, the time a chore had been done minus the time the chore was stated as going to be executed 'in a minute'.
For thousands of years then, the minute varied from 30 seconds to 60 days, but as the convention of marriage became written in stone we've seen a stern narrowing of the time window accepted to be within a minute, until the advent of the digital wristwatch which settled the matter once and for all.
Today we don't say 'in a minute' as often, but instead "I'll get right on it", "it's got full priority" and "why don't you send me an email about it?".
AFAIK the only smartphone people use in Africa, at least around SA, is blackberry.
Makes more sense to have buttons instead of touch, less power consumption and the free messaging system the blackberry provides.
Apart from that it's good old feature phones.
You assume he was pulled over by the road police.
Washahable condoms. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Family loves me.
Exactly. If you can't get by on ads, maybe a different strategy is needed.
If your content isn't unique enough, then perhaps a membership is worth something. Not a pay wall but a subscription to get to comment, backstage access etc. For non members the articles are read-only, this way you don't lose the surface area.
I hate the notion of ads being perceived as necessary or an elegant solution when they most often are not.
Lutefisk is OPTIONAL, because only half the population can keep it down. Every Norwegian knows this.
For the rest of us, there's smalahove.
I can vouch for this. I'm Scandinavian and nourish myself by wrapping bacon around my naked body and just let it seep in overnight.
Sorry, cardboard and flagellation are out as well! It's all church wafers and pinching yourself from here on.
I call BS. This has nothing to do with piracy, except as an excuse.
Game companies can't admit that piracy increases sales because it's the perfect scapegoat for additional profits (artificial expiration date, micro sales, targeted advertising, no secondhand market etc).
Look, if 3 people pirate a game (and it's a good game) they will recommend it to their peers, say 5 people each = 15 people. Of those 15, some will buy the game, talk to more peers etc. Eminem is rich because MP3 existed, not because of his talents alone.
Or the baby!
Or F/OSS. I can recommend Nexuiz / Xonotic and AssaultCube if you like FPS. Or Emacs if you're into RPGs.
Boycotts last 1-2 weeks. Bad PR sticks, but you must get critical mass of bitchin', and be fair and balanced (DRM is insane and unwarranted so shouldn't be a problem). Submit to paper and e-zines, link to these in Wikipedia etc.
I read your subject as "EAt it again".
You genius!
As a Scandinavian I got the joke, and found articles on the fake routing. I'm not sure, but I read most comments that didn't read like an 11-year old as playing along with the joke.
If you only call 1 person you don't need G+ (I don't have it). But get the Google video plugin from Google.com/chat/video and sign into chat at the left pane in Gmail under the folders.
Have made/received 10+ calls, and though getting through may be an issue (the gf gets script errors in Firefox on Ubuntu) you'll find it works once its going.
But now we'll try jitsi!
Ah, so _that's why_ we hear "God bless America" in every public context!
Micropayments are just payments. Let's not let them get away with redefining the boundaries of common practice.
You are correct, of course, but not entirely. The independent disciplines carry out the very fieldwork philosophy in turn responds to and absorb, and is also instrumental to change how we understand the world which may again change or create new disciplines. When there is a meeting point of a controversial philosophical claim and new evidence or discovery in another field, it is hardly coincidental.
Anthropology is very interesting to philosophers because its detailed study of the specifics illuminates the things we take for granted and things we must rule out, in addition to the things that (still) seem universal. Kant's Weltanschauung, for example, would have to take into account the alternative way some peoples view time - and if it proved to collapse into the existing account his point would be further strengthened. (His views has other significant problems but that was an example of a test anthropology could provide.)
That aside, an expert in anthropology would make a poor expert in ethics and vice versa because the former's object of interest is the concrete culture or production of culture while the latter's object is the investigation of how and why any culture or production thereof is possible in the first place (and what that entails -- often an _ought_); and the fruits of discussing the perspective, the entailments or the entailing, etc.
Your remarks are intriguing and I will reply to it, just not typing on the phone right now.
And the Andamans (?) would be just as applicable to serve as the basis of a test because their peculiar particulars would strengthen the case of universality. Indeed Kant himself wrote his maxims would be followed by non-humans, angels specifically, but by extension and imagination aliens and AI alike -- a strong claim indeed.
PS . I read v little anthropology per se, but a lot of archeology and history, so I am very much aware of the challenge of huge differences.
PS2. Whether or not all evidence will be taken into account is sort of moot. Two weeks ago I read an article on perception where the author made common-sensical claims about hallucinations that I found unreasonable, and I found a great psychiatric article which empirical evidence confidently put the argument to rest.
An appeal to common sense is problematic in philosophy, as it is in anthropology and all other fields alike.
Doing a MA in ethics and political philosophy here.
I wrote a comment above so I will be brief. Philosophers in my field deal with ethics qua an endeavour to discover the truth of humanity. Politicians and public offices paradigmatically deal with ethics (today) qua Christian Protestant morality or praxis (limited to Western world and international relations).
This is simplified, but I wanted to point out that an ethical project must take empirical evidence into account (I find Neuroscience very interesting these days, as they deal with questions Aristotle or Hegel dealt with too) or perish; whereas political and public bodies will do what's convenient (Protestant morality is perfect because it's politically correct today) without much concern for truth.
*sigh*
Put it like this: ethics is the study of the human being. With that in mind, and a hypothetical ultimate morality as a goal, the truth of what we are must guide us. The endeavour must be scientific, which entails that some ethical theories are empirically false (Hobbes and children are inherently flawed, for instance) while appeals to religion is cultural and will often prove moot (understood as early attempts at the same task).
How will a discussion about the "ultimate morality" come about with any hope of success? So far my money's on Habermas' Formal Pragmatics. It is an extremely important contribution but not easily understood.
Please ask if you want clarification.
When official institutions today talk about "ethics", however, it is paradigmatically Christian Protestant morality and not ethics proper.
Ubuntu has Canonical and a business plan.
Your common sense is unqualified.
He didn't use common sense. He used his 65 years of experience, knowledge of materials and methods, and trial and error. Which is his expertise.
Which of his neighbours could do the same?
The reason I am pointing out the obvious, is because the general term of common sense more often than not implies a tacit denouncement of expert knowledge, and is usually pulled out to justify a particular ignorance and save face. In this case, I expect it's good old modesty however.
I am a philosopher, but two years back I had to dress an uneven beam with electricity tubes running along the top with plaster. I solved the puzzle by creating 9 U-shaped parts with 23mm thick wood pieces, angles and holed coins (1 NOK for the right spacing), and with adjustable screws the beam is now 99% even. I didn't use common sense. I used creativity.