"Each electron has a fixed position it is in, it's just in a position you can't measure so it's pointless to know that it has such a position, so you might as well assume it doesn't have a position for all practical purposes."
Wrong, it actually doesn't have a position, it is represented with a wave function. When you do a measurement you don't really measure positions, you "measure" eigenfunctions, of the operator that respresents you measurement, the particle's wavefunction then turns into that eigenfunction. Actually the chance of what you measure is determined by the wave function and the eigenfunction you measure. You can only have a chance of not affecting a measured particle if the particle's wavefunction is in one of the measurement's eigenfunctions.
The impulse and position operators do not commute, which as a consequence means that they don't have the same eigenfunctions. And because of that the you cannot know the impulse for sure if you do know the position, since the eigenfunction for the position only specifies the impulse to the extent of a chance distribution. (it does, however entirely determine the position, but i don't think you can measure position without somehow also measuring impulse a little)
You haven't understood the idea. Its more like throwing a coin in a bag, somehow copying the bag and coin without looking. Bring one bag to the pub, the other is taken home. Now you can not transmit information by looking at the coin from the pub to the house, can you? If you make a measurement, the quantum entanglement is broken. It really isn't that strange, except in quantum theory nature doesn't even know which coin is up or down.
He was talking about medical treatment of soldiers (which should be clear reading parent replies) When i started writing my earlier comment, i just wanted to say that he was totally ignoring the civilian casualties. (of which there are many more)
"most of them DID join to allow you anti-war types to sit behind your keyboard and complain about things" Well for many that is the reason, but a lot of em just say that and have a nice (albeit dangerous) job.. Not fooling me here. btw a bit confusing sentence you made, if you remove "to allow". (bleh i read badly)
"All of you anti-war people and anti-US people are always among the first to want . All of you anti-war people and anti-US people are always among the first to want protection from these types of selfless people.from these types of selfless people." I certainly don't remember wanting protection, maybe in the cold war. (but was too young back then) Since the cold war, the large army of the US may have been good insurance, but hasn't really been needed.
When he signed in, and given the state of America(and prolly any country) he knew he could be send somewhere without just cause. If he just wanted to defend his country, why not just be civilian, and sign in when actually needed, or a similar more official arangement? Ok, this is just an option, I am not actually against military people personally. Why are you so defensive for US army/navy etc. people? Guess they are sacrificing more then you get money for it you did a similar yob. With sacrificing i mean being away from home, dangerous work. It's still their choice, and regardless, i can still critise them for certain things.
Where did you get it that is was the Al-Qaeda the first time? It was the "same kind" of attack, but i don't see reason to think that the Al-Qaeda did it.
Since when does the life of a Iraqi/Afghan cilivian become less then our own? You didn't even mention, certainly many more civilians died then US soldiers. (as is not unusual in conflicts) "I still support my government and would die to defend my home." I don't consider attacking Iraq "defending our home", I am not even sure about Afghanistan.
"People who are so sheltered from the reality that the soldier keeps them safe and somehow they see the destruction wreaked on others and think it evil." Most "others" are just minding their own business, it is evil if we allow to much "colateral damage" to reach our goals. Ofcourse people who think we shouldn't go to Iraq think it's evil, or at least evil in the sense that we should've avoided needing to do such things by not going to Iraq in the first place.
at night: I lost my car keys in the bushes, but i am looking at the sidewalk for it, thats where the light is..
lol, people look where the light is rather then where the object of search is all the time. Religion is an example, i have found the light! Guess in some extent you are forced to do this, but thinking about things you cant see is called speculation, the effectiveness of this is less then moderate. Physics deals with what we can measure, mathematics only with what is doable with the theorems that we have. Ofcourse if you are looking for a person hiding in the dark his trail my still be in the light, but the light is not the goal.
I agree, but how is the exploit really going to be used, what kind of damage is going to be done? I recon its probably less then what i value the freedom to circumvent the firewall for. If we didnt tell the chinese govt now, they could be caught by suprise with the DDoS attacks and need to shut the firewall down for a while. By telling them they may just fix both the DDoS attack and the firewall circumvention method. Much of the important data send over the internet, like financial transactions is send redundantly right? Guess DDoS attacks could only delay those. Maybe DDoS attacks can somehow be used to help promote our view of the Chinese government? Guess blocking govt sites wouldn't be nice, only if it linked directly to some other site. Ofcourse the Chinese govt isn't all bad, freedom of speach missing badly, and better distibution of wealth needed. (hey same story in many countries, especially the latter) Btw the circumvention method sounds very simple, just ignore TCP resets:s? (not that i know much about the subject)
I think some soldiers do just sign up for the money/thrill. And in that way they do kill for money, when they get that kind of assignment. While money/thrill (sh)could be a consideration in joining the army, the morality of what you are going to be ordered to do should be too. So, morally you should only join the army if you trust the army not to order anything immoral from your point of view. Ofcourse in todays world we do need soldiers, but that isn't really a point since the USA got plenty.
I Seriously doubt wether its moral to join the USA's army/navy/airforce, simply because it uses 50% of the budget! This is a ridiculous amount. Not to even speak about the intrusive recruitment methods i've heard about the army uses, its relations with corporations. government ->army -> contracts with corperations -> lobyists, money for political campaigns->politics ->government How i wonder how the militairy budget got to 50% ?? (bleh this is old news)
I am from the Netherlands and i wish the dutch army was "joinable" (not that i would), but they just send a division for some bunker-sitting in Afghanistan, which is totally useless. I am not sure, maybe we should go there despite the fact that its hard to change things there. (try anyway)
I played a little civ4, and i didnt like it much. The religion idea was interesting. It also was 3D... ??WHY?? wtf does it have to be 3d for?? It adds absolutely no gameplay value. Also the little movies add little value. (though the expectation of watching does a bit when you see it for the first time) I liked civ2 also, that one did add a lot, at least in civ2 On the down side the damn militia cant kill the battleship. civ2 had a ridiculous problem with corruption being unmanagable sometimes.
(GPL-like) Alternatives are FreeCiv, and C-evo of which i personnally liked the second one best. FreeCiv seemed not to have a good AI and even magically apearing cities, while C-evo has several AI's, which are made using *.dll's, the default one is pretty good, and there is a manual for making AI's yourself. (making AI's is usually hard) I haven't played/looked into these that much, but if you want a civ-like game, feel free to judge for yourself.
I agree, Microsoft is definitely aquiring these companies to remove the competition and get some bucks out of it. I hope all the Mythic developers quit and start Mythic_haha_buy_us_again nextdoor (or Mythic_unbuyable, if possible). And hope they won't get a lawsuit because the content in their brains they stole from EA. Ok, they have a lot of work ahead if they need to start again, but at least they have the knowhow.
Why is it interesting how much it adds up to for the entire country? Determine how much energy it costs for you, and how much you would save spending it differently.
20$ a year for the Xbox360 not too bad, depending on how long you use the thing. You will still spend a lot more energy if you were to go drive somewhere instead of play. Also a whole lot of other places then you gaming console are using energy for you, air conditioning (big bad one, take the heat plz), house heating(wear a sweater), the fridge, diskwasher, clothes washer and dryer, lights. Better to compare power consumption with these. For house heating, also isolation is important. Also think of all the energy used for products you use, services you use. Saying the obvious thing above..
Also i think energy consumption doesn't matter if its cold enough outside anyway to need a heater to keep your house up to acceptable temperature, since the used energy of appliances just becomes heat anyway. Ofcourse if you gas-heat your house its more efficient then the electricity your appliances use.
Well, I "believe" in evolution but i think the talk about is silly. For one are seriously handycapped because there is only limited fossil evidence. More importantly: We don't have a definition of a species. We don't even know whether a reasonable definition is possible. When people are talking about evolution they think about how the species evolve, while in reality there are only a whole lot of interacting organisms. The model people form in their head is far from reality, and we have no idea how to even specify how relevant it is to reality.(but, hey, let em dream) Well, the model is relevant to the point that mice and flies can't breed to form a hybrid naturally, but i think the model is totally says nothing about how the mice themselves are evolving. I think people that find fossils are deluding themselves that they have a useable model. It's a kind of hindsight hey i can explain that model. So basically i don't believe in all that "transitional fossil" shit. Mathematics using DNA probably have a much better chance of saying usefull things.
It may just be possible to try model some properties of "organism-design-dynamics" using less variables then exist in the actual process of evolution, but the task of finding it sounds more then dounting. I should try illustrate what i mean. With variables of a system i mean every thing that describes a system at a given time. For example, in a case of a gas/liquid the variables are all the speeds and position/masses, charges etc. of a gas. And macroscopically "most" variables are irrelevant, the "remaining" variables are things like temperature, (energy, particle, impulse)densities, -flows. (btw impulseflow == pressuretensor:D) In kinetic gas theory and the like, the macroscopic relations can be derived from the microscopic relations using methods of eliminating irrelevant variables and approximation.
Now theory of gasses/liquids can be complicated, imagine "theory of organism-design-dynamics"! If your "pro-evolution" you should not get yourself pushed into the actual mechanisms of evolution discussion. What else? There is little else to argue for evolution, so maybe you shouldn't. So where i stand is that i will not say i believe in evolution, i believe in the current state of the universe is a result of the natural way the universe behaves, and our understanding of it is limited. Let them prove god suddenly appeared and created everything, that is the silly-est explanation possible anyway. Maybe i effectively say nothing, but i am pretty sure i am not saying nonsense either, as i would in getting in the evolution-discussion mess.
Another thing: computer simulations may be able to model organisms. Maybe a simulation with imaginairy physics may be able to create evolution. Ofcourse it will have to be very visual to convince people.
" "Take the time to read Singer's FAQ on the page I linked, you'll find where your line of reasoning ends if taken to it's logical conclusion."I did, this is not at all where my line of reasoning is heading. Just about the only similarity between his thinking and mine is that Singer also believes in determining rights on a creature basis. Also he never said it is right to kill children, he said its less immoral then killing adults. "
Guess I didn't put enough time to read stuff about Singer, sorry. Still, his views about this still aren't totally clear about this: "My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support - which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely"
Basicly he is saying it may be better to actively kill a baby that is disabled, then to let it die slowly and possibly more painfully by taking away treatment, as -he claims- is done now by some doctors. He doesn't explicitely specify how disabled the baby is but "withdrawing life-support" suggests the baby needs life support. (and i agree that a life on life support would suck)
But then when asked "What about a normal baby?" he says this: "But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it." Which seems to me to suggest killing children would be less then wrong(as wrong as killing other animals) if there weren't other couples who would want to take care of it. Maybe he is in denial about where his reasoning headed or something, I would say he is pro-child-killing if i had to chose, but I'd rather know more. Looks like he has put a lot of thought in, written books about it.
I don't think we should enter any of these ideas in law for quite a while. You did convince me on the point that there is the danger of children and mentally ill being considered less-righted because of the creature-based rights. Also you made me think about this some more. Probably discussing more about this topic right now won't be very productive. (I will read any reply though, and if there is something new, or you ask me something, reply)
Damn, i just commented, so i can't mod this guy up.(in this story) I am unsure whether it is true though, maybe people have to be tought blind belief to need it, and only some can escape. A well, i can live with people blindly believing stuff, as long as they don't bother stuff. Also there is a (maybe subtile)difference with blind belief and implict assumption, in that if a person discovers he has the second, he will admit it is an assumption. If he has the first he will continue saying it is true-as-in-true, not as in assumption.
Sorry, I got confused about the sentence about your reply.
"I am suggesting that we define rights by species rather than developement stage, as it is far less susceptible to abuse." Well the current system is being abused to lower (non human)some animal rights for our purposes.(though its prolly improving) Also the current system has been abused many times -redefining what you call human, by the Nazi's one of the worst examples, and many more examples like South America's and India's apartheid, seperation between the poor and rich. We need to be on guard for this in any case.
"Indeed, if you take the view that a creature must "deserve" rights in some way, you are taking a view that is inherently in conflict with the Declaration of Independence (I am assuming you are a US citizen?)" (I am from the Netherlands) Creatures do need to satisfy criteria to get certain rights in your model, for humans, this criterium is being human. Also "all men are created equal" and have "certain unalienable rights" doesn't mean they have entirely the same rights. Children are treated different then adults, having the right to go to school and all.
"Take the time to read Singer's FAQ on the page I linked, you'll find where your line of reasoning ends if taken to it's logical conclusion." I did, this is not at all where my line of reasoning is heading. Just about the only similarity between his thinking and mine is that Singer also believes in determining rights on a creature basis. Also he never said it is right to kill children, he said its less immoral then killing adults. (also i hes vegitarian, so he may have a high regard for life in any form) As i see it Singer adds as value determining the rights of a creature the fact that i can anticipate (and long for) things in the future. Though this is certainly a sign of higher levels of intelligence, i don't think it quite is a good indicator. Again, also i am talking about capacity to intelligence (at a moment in time, not that it still has to grow brain). I have also admitted that i don't know a good function that determines capacity intelligences from arbritrary creature fysiology, we will have to watch them, and judge on a know it when we see it basis. For Braino420, well i don't know what he was thinking, probably not enough.
Really, i think my line of thinking is heading for the same morals, only stated in a different way. The reason i want to state it differently is that the other way seem to put humans on some kind of pedistal, which i think is rather arrogant. It makes it seem that humans are not animals. Maybe the laws shouldn't be changed for now, to keep things stable, but i would like to think they will be changed in the far future to treat all creatures symmetrically.
"Perhaps intelligence resides in the "spirit" and the nervous system is the means by which it is brought into the world and communicated." Well maybe, but since other creatures also have nervous systems, no reason to talk specifically about human rights. (btw this is an arguement for basing the rights on nervous system abilities) Also maybe stones have a spirit and the hardness is the means by which it is brought into the world and communicated when it hits my head. Ofcourse we can't know what stones might be thinking, or what is good or bad for them, (maybe they want to be crushed!) that why i ignore the rights they (possibly) deserve. I assume we can more or less get a idea for creatures that slide, swim, hop, grow, fly and walk around. (haven't talked about this before)
"Human isn't something you become, it's something you are, from beginning to end." I certainly can't argue with that, but here i am thinking human as a species, while you are thinking human as-in the rights that you have. There certainly are rights that you have all your lifetime, but there also are rights that come and go. I hope i have communicated my opinion of this. The point is that a human is just a magnificent creature among the many other magnificent creatures, and we should base rights according to this symetry, basing them on their intelligence, and desires.
"It seems to me that you need to have (and give) some sort of a reason to make a law." Is this true? there are some principles which you want all laws to be consistent with. Reason is here the proof that it is consistent. I am suggesting that since i can't determine the principle of when a creature deserves what rights, to instead set the principle at the point where we meet the actual creature.
We need to make a judgement somehow and since we can't practically determine rights of every existing creature we determine rights of whole ranges of similar creatures. And that is exactly what we do when we speak of "human rights", "childrens rights", "animal rights". What you said: ""(the age an embryo "becomes" human) lies somewhere between conception and birth", is just a part of that. About mentally ill people, which "don't have capacity for intelligence", we can't really tell wether they really are incapable intelligence. Even if we know the "defect" in their brain, we may not be able to tell wether they can acheve intelligence another way. Also, humans who "don't have capacity for intelligence" may have much more intelligence then you think. If a person can comunicate in some way, it is basically quite high anyway. It's got to be really bad before the rights of the human go down.
So we should make our robots with a self-repression system? Poor tortured souls! What if they still get to reprogram themselves, then they'll be pissed. This is all way to vague and speculative to really say something interesting about.
Good point! Yes that is true, the models we have now may be dancing round the actual physics being true and all but not really touching the actual rules behind it. (being true but still laughable) Note, however that Ptolemy's geocentric model is phenominological. That means the model is based on a function where by measuring the phenomenon, constants in the function are determined. I am not sure whether there is a proper definition for phenominological(ness), but the less constants to be determined the less phenominological. (Ptolemy could go on determining new constants forever, roughly stated) General relativity, electrodynamics, Quantum mechanics(at least the part that doesn't regard the actual particles themselves), etc. are certainly not phenominological nor dancy, they have only the gravitational constant, speed of light, electric and magnetic permitivity(relate to speed of light), and Plank's constant as constants. Those are four constantsthat dont relate to elementary particles directly (i think). Ofcourse there are also elementary charge and particle masses, which are many more constants.
I don't know enough to say wether maybe String and M-Theory will turn out to be phenomenological, but i don't think so. (though they could still be laughable in retrospect, with being wrong or being dancy round a central point)
What the earlier reply by plunge said is about what i would reply. I indeed meant basing on the capacity of intelligence/self-awareness. Also, i said we should play it safe. (because we should take it seriously) Even if I did mean the actual intelligence stupid people still easily outwit smart rats. Regardless of wether we base rights on actual or potential intelligence we should always be aware of our own buyestness.
Yes, I said we should base some laws on nervous system abilities. (like laws on abortion) I didn't say we should enter into the law any mention of nervous system abilities. We aren't quite smart enough to oversee consequences. I mean for instance if we met aliens, we would then have to discuss as society (and with them if possible) what rights are appropriate for them, rather then try to make laws that determine that. (Because we are in a know-it-when-we-see-it basis on what is a person, and don't know the needs of the aliens, etc. there are too many unknowns) Ofcourse there may be animals on earth now, of which we should determine their status in their "person-ness". (whales are still being hunt)
I rather base the rights to live(and other rights) on the creature rather then its species. The nervous system of the embryo stage or well below that of rats, so in my view it's a labrat. It hasn't been a inteligent being before either. Admittedly it is hard to attach a creatures' right to nervous system abilities, but the brain cells are roughly the same as a fullgrown humans' and the embryo is tiny, pretty sure it isnt intelligent. More worries about all those pigs we kill for food. (and those Japanese Whalers, whales have big brains!) I'd say, it has human rights at rat-size, to play it safe. (small chance of being wrong=>small risk)
Slashdot Mirror
"Each electron has a fixed position it is in, it's just in a position you can't measure so it's pointless to know that it has such a position, so you might as well assume it doesn't have a position for all practical purposes."
Wrong, it actually doesn't have a position, it is represented with a wave function.
When you do a measurement you don't really measure positions, you "measure" eigenfunctions, of the operator that respresents you measurement, the particle's wavefunction then turns into that eigenfunction. Actually the chance of what you measure is determined by the wave function and the eigenfunction you measure.
You can only have a chance of not affecting a measured particle if the particle's wavefunction is in one of the measurement's eigenfunctions.
The impulse and position operators do not commute, which as a consequence means that they don't have the same eigenfunctions. And because of that the you cannot know the impulse for sure if you do know the position, since the eigenfunction for the position only specifies the impulse to the extent of a chance distribution. (it does, however entirely determine the position, but i don't think you can measure position without somehow also measuring impulse a little)
You haven't understood the idea. Its more like throwing a coin in a bag, somehow copying the bag and coin without looking. Bring one bag to the pub, the other is taken home. Now you can not transmit information by looking at the coin from the pub to the house, can you? If you make a measurement, the quantum entanglement is broken.
It really isn't that strange, except in quantum theory nature doesn't even know which coin is up or down.
He was talking about medical treatment of soldiers (which should be clear reading parent replies) When i started writing my earlier comment, i just wanted to say that he was totally ignoring the civilian casualties. (of which there are many more)
"most of them DID join to allow you anti-war types to sit behind your keyboard and complain about things"
Well for many that is the reason, but a lot of em just say that and have a nice (albeit dangerous) job.. Not fooling me here.
btw a bit confusing sentence you made, if you remove "to allow". (bleh i read badly)
"All of you anti-war people and anti-US people are always among the first to want . All of you anti-war people and anti-US people are always among the first to want protection from these types of selfless people.from these types of selfless people."
I certainly don't remember wanting protection, maybe in the cold war. (but was too young back then) Since the cold war, the large army of the US may have been good insurance, but hasn't really been needed.
When he signed in, and given the state of America(and prolly any country) he knew he could be send somewhere without just cause. If he just wanted to defend his country, why not just be civilian, and sign in when actually needed, or a similar more official arangement? Ok, this is just an option, I am not actually against military people personally.
Why are you so defensive for US army/navy etc. people? Guess they are sacrificing more then you get money for it you did a similar yob. With sacrificing i mean being away from home, dangerous work. It's still their choice, and regardless, i can still critise them for certain things.
Where did you get it that is was the Al-Qaeda the first time? It was the "same kind" of attack, but i don't see reason to think that the Al-Qaeda did it.
Since when does the life of a Iraqi/Afghan cilivian become less then our own? You didn't even mention, certainly many more civilians died then US soldiers. (as is not unusual in conflicts)
"I still support my government and would die to defend my home."
I don't consider attacking Iraq "defending our home", I am not even sure about Afghanistan.
"People who are so sheltered from the reality that the soldier keeps them safe and somehow they see the destruction wreaked on others and think it evil."
Most "others" are just minding their own business, it is evil if we allow to much "colateral damage" to reach our goals. Ofcourse people who think we shouldn't go to Iraq think it's evil, or at least evil in the sense that we should've avoided needing to do such things by not going to Iraq in the first place.
at night: I lost my car keys in the bushes, but i am looking at the sidewalk for it, thats where the light is..
lol, people look where the light is rather then where the object of search is all the time. Religion is an example, i have found the light!
Guess in some extent you are forced to do this, but thinking about things you cant see is called speculation, the effectiveness of this is less then moderate. Physics deals with what we can measure, mathematics only with what is doable with the theorems that we have.
Ofcourse if you are looking for a person hiding in the dark his trail my still be in the light, but the light is not the goal.
they dont call it spaghetti because its eatable as spagetti, they call it spaghetti code because only the flying spaghetti monster can understand it!
I agree, but how is the exploit really going to be used, what kind of damage is going to be done? I recon its probably less then what i value the freedom to circumvent the firewall for. If we didnt tell the chinese govt now, they could be caught by suprise with the DDoS attacks and need to shut the firewall down for a while. By telling them they may just fix both the DDoS attack and the firewall circumvention method. :s? (not that i know much about the subject)
Much of the important data send over the internet, like financial transactions is send redundantly right? Guess DDoS attacks could only delay those. Maybe DDoS attacks can somehow be used to help promote our view of the Chinese government? Guess blocking govt sites wouldn't be nice, only if it linked directly to some other site. Ofcourse the Chinese govt isn't all bad, freedom of speach missing badly, and better distibution of wealth needed. (hey same story in many countries, especially the latter)
Btw the circumvention method sounds very simple, just ignore TCP resets
whhhhhhhiiizzzzzzzz......
I think some soldiers do just sign up for the money/thrill. And in that way they do kill for money, when they get that kind of assignment.
While money/thrill (sh)could be a consideration in joining the army, the morality of what you are going to be ordered to do should be too. So, morally you should only join the army if you trust the army not to order anything immoral from your point of view. Ofcourse in todays world we do need soldiers, but that isn't really a point since the USA got plenty.
I Seriously doubt wether its moral to join the USA's army/navy/airforce, simply because it uses 50% of the budget! This is a ridiculous amount. Not to even speak about the intrusive recruitment methods i've heard about the army uses, its relations with corporations.
government ->army -> contracts with corperations -> lobyists, money for political campaigns->politics ->government
How i wonder how the militairy budget got to 50% ?? (bleh this is old news)
I am from the Netherlands and i wish the dutch army was "joinable" (not that i would), but they just send a division for some bunker-sitting in Afghanistan, which is totally useless. I am not sure, maybe we should go there despite the fact that its hard to change things there. (try anyway)
How long ago was one of the best GM beaten in chess by a computer, 10yrs? I recon a palm computer can beat a GM now.
Guess it doesn't really make the game any better/worse, except for the computing power needed. The comment really was only for giving the links.
I played a little civ4, and i didnt like it much. The religion idea was interesting. It also was 3D... ??WHY?? wtf does it have to be 3d for?? It adds absolutely no gameplay value. Also the little movies add little value. (though the expectation of watching does a bit when you see it for the first time)
I liked civ2 also, that one did add a lot, at least in civ2 On the down side the damn militia cant kill the battleship. civ2 had a ridiculous problem with corruption being unmanagable sometimes.
(GPL-like) Alternatives are FreeCiv, and C-evo of which i personnally liked the second one best. FreeCiv seemed not to have a good AI and even magically apearing cities, while C-evo has several AI's, which are made using *.dll's, the default one is pretty good, and there is a manual for making AI's yourself. (making AI's is usually hard)
I haven't played/looked into these that much, but if you want a civ-like game, feel free to judge for yourself.
I agree, Microsoft is definitely aquiring these companies to remove the competition and get some bucks out of it. I hope all the Mythic developers quit and start Mythic_haha_buy_us_again nextdoor (or Mythic_unbuyable, if possible). And hope they won't get a lawsuit because the content in their brains they stole from EA.
Ok, they have a lot of work ahead if they need to start again, but at least they have the knowhow.
Why is it interesting how much it adds up to for the entire country? Determine how much energy it costs for you, and how much you would save spending it differently.
20$ a year for the Xbox360 not too bad, depending on how long you use the thing. You will still spend a lot more energy if you were to go drive somewhere instead of play.
Also a whole lot of other places then you gaming console are using energy for you, air conditioning (big bad one, take the heat plz), house heating(wear a sweater), the fridge, diskwasher, clothes washer and dryer, lights. Better to compare power consumption with these. For house heating, also isolation is important. Also think of all the energy used for products you use, services you use.
Saying the obvious thing above..
Also i think energy consumption doesn't matter if its cold enough outside anyway to need a heater to keep your house up to acceptable temperature, since the used energy of appliances just becomes heat anyway.
Ofcourse if you gas-heat your house its more efficient then the electricity your appliances use.
Well, I "believe" in evolution but i think the talk about is silly. For one are seriously handycapped because there is only limited fossil evidence.
/masses, charges etc. of a gas. And macroscopically "most" variables are irrelevant, the "remaining" variables are things like temperature, (energy, particle, impulse)densities, -flows. :D) In kinetic gas theory and the like, the macroscopic relations can be derived from the microscopic relations using methods of eliminating irrelevant variables and approximation.
More importantly: We don't have a definition of a species. We don't even know whether a reasonable definition is possible. When people are talking about evolution they think about how the species evolve, while in reality there are only a whole lot of interacting organisms. The model people form in their head is far from reality, and we have no idea how to even specify how relevant it is to reality.(but, hey, let em dream)
Well, the model is relevant to the point that mice and flies can't breed to form a hybrid naturally, but i think the model is totally says nothing about how the mice themselves are evolving. I think people that find fossils are deluding themselves that they have a useable model. It's a kind of hindsight hey i can explain that model.
So basically i don't believe in all that "transitional fossil" shit. Mathematics using DNA probably have a much better chance of saying usefull things.
It may just be possible to try model some properties of "organism-design-dynamics" using less variables then exist in the actual process of evolution, but the task of finding it sounds more then dounting.
I should try illustrate what i mean. With variables of a system i mean every thing that describes a system at a given time.
For example, in a case of a gas/liquid the variables are all the speeds and position
(btw impulseflow == pressuretensor
Now theory of gasses/liquids can be complicated, imagine "theory of organism-design-dynamics"! If your "pro-evolution" you should not get yourself pushed into the actual mechanisms of evolution discussion. What else? There is little else to argue for evolution, so maybe you shouldn't.
So where i stand is that i will not say i believe in evolution, i believe in the current state of the universe is a result of the natural way the universe behaves, and our understanding of it is limited. Let them prove god suddenly appeared and created everything, that is the silly-est explanation possible anyway. Maybe i effectively say nothing, but i am pretty sure i am not saying nonsense either, as i would in getting in the evolution-discussion mess.
Another thing: computer simulations may be able to model organisms. Maybe a simulation with imaginairy physics may be able to create evolution. Ofcourse it will have to be very visual to convince people.
" "Take the time to read Singer's FAQ on the page I linked, you'll find where your line of reasoning ends if taken to it's logical conclusion."I did, this is not at all where my line of reasoning is heading. Just about the only similarity between his thinking and mine is that Singer also believes in determining rights on a creature basis. Also he never said it is right to kill children, he said its less immoral then killing adults. "
Guess I didn't put enough time to read stuff about Singer, sorry. Still, his views about this still aren't totally clear about this:
"My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support - which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby's life swiftly and humanely"
Basicly he is saying it may be better to actively kill a baby that is disabled, then to let it die slowly and possibly more painfully by taking away treatment, as -he claims- is done now by some doctors. He doesn't explicitely specify how disabled the baby is but "withdrawing life-support" suggests the baby needs life support. (and i agree that a life on life support would suck)
But then when asked "What about a normal baby?" he says this:
"But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it."
Which seems to me to suggest killing children would be less then wrong(as wrong as killing other animals) if there weren't other couples who would want to take care of it.
Maybe he is in denial about where his reasoning headed or something, I would say he is pro-child-killing if i had to chose, but I'd rather know more. Looks like he has put a lot of thought in, written books about it.
I don't think we should enter any of these ideas in law for quite a while. You did convince me on the point that there is the danger of children and mentally ill being considered less-righted because of the creature-based rights. Also you made me think about this some more.
Probably discussing more about this topic right now won't be very productive. (I will read any reply though, and if there is something new, or you ask me something, reply)
Damn, i just commented, so i can't mod this guy up.(in this story)
I am unsure whether it is true though, maybe people have to be tought blind belief to need it, and only some can escape.
A well, i can live with people blindly believing stuff, as long as they don't bother stuff. Also there is a (maybe subtile)difference with blind belief and implict assumption, in that if a person discovers he has the second, he will admit it is an assumption. If he has the first he will continue saying it is true-as-in-true, not as in assumption.
where did god come from?
Sorry, I got confused about the sentence about your reply.
"I am suggesting that we define rights by species rather than developement stage, as it is far less susceptible to abuse."
Well the current system is being abused to lower (non human)some animal rights for our purposes.(though its prolly improving) Also the current system has been abused many times -redefining what you call human, by the Nazi's one of the worst examples, and many more examples like South America's and India's apartheid, seperation between the poor and rich. We need to be on guard for this in any case.
"Indeed, if you take the view that a creature must "deserve" rights in some way, you are taking a view that is inherently in conflict with the Declaration of Independence (I am assuming you are a US citizen?)"
(I am from the Netherlands) Creatures do need to satisfy criteria to get certain rights in your model, for humans, this criterium is being human. Also "all men are created equal" and have "certain unalienable rights" doesn't mean they have entirely the same rights. Children are treated different then adults, having the right to go to school and all.
"Take the time to read Singer's FAQ on the page I linked, you'll find where your line of reasoning ends if taken to it's logical conclusion."
I did, this is not at all where my line of reasoning is heading. Just about the only similarity between his thinking and mine is that Singer also believes in determining rights on a creature basis. Also he never said it is right to kill children, he said its less immoral then killing adults. (also i hes vegitarian, so he may have a high regard for life in any form)
As i see it Singer adds as value determining the rights of a creature the fact that i can anticipate (and long for) things in the future. Though this is certainly a sign of higher levels of intelligence, i don't think it quite is a good indicator. Again, also i am talking about capacity to intelligence (at a moment in time, not that it still has to grow brain). I have also admitted that i don't know a good function that determines capacity intelligences from arbritrary creature fysiology, we will have to watch them, and judge on a know it when we see it basis.
For Braino420, well i don't know what he was thinking, probably not enough.
Really, i think my line of thinking is heading for the same morals, only stated in a different way. The reason i want to state it differently is that the other way seem to put humans on some kind of pedistal, which i think is rather arrogant. It makes it seem that humans are not animals.
Maybe the laws shouldn't be changed for now, to keep things stable, but i would like to think they will be changed in the far future to treat all creatures symmetrically.
"Perhaps intelligence resides in the "spirit" and the nervous system is the means by which it is brought into the world and communicated."
Well maybe, but since other creatures also have nervous systems, no reason to talk specifically about human rights. (btw this is an arguement for basing the rights on nervous system abilities)
Also maybe stones have a spirit and the hardness is the means by which it is brought into the world and communicated when it hits my head. Ofcourse we can't know what stones might be thinking, or what is good or bad for them, (maybe they want to be crushed!) that why i ignore the rights they (possibly) deserve. I assume we can more or less get a idea for creatures that slide, swim, hop, grow, fly and walk around. (haven't talked about this before)
"Human isn't something you become, it's something you are, from beginning to end."
I certainly can't argue with that, but here i am thinking human as a species, while you are thinking human as-in the rights that you have. There certainly are rights that you have all your lifetime, but there also are rights that come and go.
I hope i have communicated my opinion of this. The point is that a human is just a magnificent creature among the many other magnificent creatures, and we should base rights according to this symetry, basing them on their intelligence, and desires.
I meant this reply .
"It seems to me that you need to have (and give) some sort of a reason to make a law."
Is this true? there are some principles which you want all laws to be consistent with. Reason is here the proof that it is consistent.
I am suggesting that since i can't determine the principle of when a creature deserves what rights, to instead set the principle at the point where we meet the actual creature.
We need to make a judgement somehow and since we can't practically determine rights of every existing creature we determine rights of whole ranges of similar creatures.
And that is exactly what we do when we speak of "human rights", "childrens rights", "animal rights". What you said: ""(the age an embryo "becomes" human) lies somewhere between conception and birth", is just a part of that.
About mentally ill people, which "don't have capacity for intelligence", we can't really tell wether they really are incapable intelligence. Even if we know the "defect" in their brain, we may not be able to tell wether they can acheve intelligence another way.
Also, humans who "don't have capacity for intelligence" may have much more intelligence then you think. If a person can comunicate in some way, it is basically quite high anyway. It's got to be really bad before the rights of the human go down.
So we should make our robots with a self-repression system? Poor tortured souls! What if they still get to reprogram themselves, then they'll be pissed.
This is all way to vague and speculative to really say something interesting about.
Good point!
Yes that is true, the models we have now may be dancing round the actual physics being true and all but not really touching the actual rules behind it. (being true but still laughable)
Note, however that Ptolemy's geocentric model is phenominological. That means the model is based on a function where by measuring the phenomenon, constants in the function are determined. I am not sure whether there is a proper definition for phenominological(ness), but the less constants to be determined the less phenominological. (Ptolemy could go on determining new constants forever, roughly stated)
General relativity, electrodynamics, Quantum mechanics(at least the part that doesn't regard the actual particles themselves), etc. are certainly not phenominological nor dancy, they have only the gravitational constant, speed of light, electric and magnetic permitivity(relate to speed of light), and Plank's constant as constants. Those are four constantsthat dont relate to elementary particles directly (i think). Ofcourse there are also elementary charge and particle masses, which are many more constants.
I don't know enough to say wether maybe String and M-Theory will turn out to be phenomenological, but i don't think so. (though they could still be laughable in retrospect, with being wrong or being dancy round a central point)
What the earlier reply by plunge said is about what i would reply. I indeed meant basing on the capacity of intelligence/self-awareness. Also, i said we should play it safe. (because we should take it seriously)
Even if I did mean the actual intelligence stupid people still easily outwit smart rats. Regardless of wether we base rights on actual or potential intelligence we should always be aware of our own buyestness.
Yes, I said we should base some laws on nervous system abilities. (like laws on abortion)
I didn't say we should enter into the law any mention of nervous system abilities. We aren't quite smart enough to oversee consequences.
I mean for instance if we met aliens, we would then have to discuss as society (and with them if possible) what rights are appropriate for them, rather then try to make laws that determine that. (Because we are in a know-it-when-we-see-it basis on what is a person, and don't know the needs of the aliens, etc. there are too many unknowns)
Ofcourse there may be animals on earth now, of which we should determine their status in their "person-ness".
(whales are still being hunt)
I rather base the rights to live(and other rights) on the creature rather then its species.
The nervous system of the embryo stage or well below that of rats, so in my view it's a labrat. It hasn't been a inteligent being before either.
Admittedly it is hard to attach a creatures' right to nervous system abilities, but the brain cells are roughly the same as a fullgrown humans' and the embryo is tiny, pretty sure it isnt intelligent. More worries about all those pigs we kill for food. (and those Japanese Whalers, whales have big brains!)
I'd say, it has human rights at rat-size, to play it safe. (small chance of being wrong=>small risk)