Frequent improvement might indicate that the original driver wasn't that great to begin with (Alpha or Beta quality, albeit enough to pass certification). Just a thought.
About the electricity thing... another poster has already mentioned that current kills, but perhaps there's another reason why this stuff should change: 50 or 60 Hz. Our hearts rely on a signal right around that frequency, so all medical equipment needs some hefty power filtering to make sure that the 50-60 Hz signal never gets to our heart at a significant amplitude.
Transubstantiation is a cornerstone of the faith because it underlies the importance of a Sacrament. Each of the Sacraments requires you to interact with God in some intimate way. The Sacrament of Reconciliation means something because Catholics believe that God really does forgive your sins when the priest absolves them. Mysterious? Yes. Magical? No, because we believe the source is God.
Perhaps the stories are metaphors or perhaps the stories are literally true. But if Jesus is more than a man, then it should be possible that the stories are true (at least NT).
A different way: the Bible is a collection of books, each written by humans and copied many times over by humans. Catholics (the only Christian church at the time) determined the order and set of books to be regarded as the Bible. The Bible is a Catholic book. The included books were selected by committee, but it is believed that the Holy Spirit (ya know, the third person of the Trinity, sometimes referred to as the Holy Ghost) guided the committee by guiding those individuals. Without that piece of faith, it all looks arbitrary (or in your words, selectively blind).
Same argument given for lots of protectionist schemes, especially against outsourcing. If a client decides to go with a cheaper bid, then it's because the client wants to pay less for the same perceived value. If you're a really good designer, then you should be able to create a package with greater perceived value. If you can't, then you're falling behind the times. You will lose the contract. After all, website designers are still people who write software and sell it. A big software company like Microsoft faces the same problem. More value = more clients. Open source will always take care of the baseline and every now and then, it will raise the bar.
His analysis certainly is crap, given that he only knows a little bit of physics and tries to describe his symptoms using "dielectric stress." Still, if he was uniformly afflicted by EM (as in, working with his computer is difficult and painful), then perhaps he could be suffering from electrosensitivity. Some countries (like Russia) recognize it as an official affliction, while others, like the UK http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_rele ases/2005/051103_electrical_sensitivity.htm, are only investigating.
No, because if I wanted to track people, but didn't necessarily care about their specific identities, then this flaw would still let me do it. Say that I wanted my buddy and I at the arrival airport to rob someone in first class once they departed the airport. All that I have to do is stand next to the terminal (presumably I would be boarding the plane on coach) and scan all those first class suckers going by. Get all those unique IDs and when we land, we'll just follow one (or two) of the many IDs we collected. And we'll still have a record of all those who did travel first class that day. Of course, the RF shield should prevent this particular problem from surfacing, as tracking would be next to impossible with the passport closed.
You can actually replace the hard drive if it fails in an iMac. Doesn't even matter if it's an iMac G5 or a G4. It's all a matter of what you want to do.
It's an interesting point that you bring up and I'll try to answer it.
How many times do you purchase Word? Or purchase Windows? I believe that Microsoft's products still constitute a pseudo-fixed cost scenario for most businesses (assuming that most businesses are small businesses), whereas gasoline costs constitute variable cost for virtually everyone, including businesses. Moreover, most of Microsoft's earnings were generated from selling it to the masses (directly or preinstalled). Sure, work could have purchased a machine with Microsoft software on it, but there's no technical reason why everyone and their grandmothers *needed* a computer (once critical mass was achieved, this fact changed). Gasoline is an energy source. Computers are an information source. Energy sources for the masses are more basic than information sources.
Still, your question pertains to your particular scenario:
The price of gas is hugely important because it is a variable cost for businesses and individuals. More importantly, most people in the United States commute to work and to other activities. Call it a failure of public transportation or whatever, but it's true for most cities in the US. A 50% rise in gasoline costs directly applies to most individual costs during some time period (say a week). And that's really the kicker: it's a tax levied across the board. Out of every dollar made or earned is a portion going to pay for gasoline. There is no amortization because it is a cost proportional to transportation activity (i.e. a variable cost). The end result is a lower net income. Perhaps the individual who has to pay an extra few bucks every week won't sweat it too much directly, but the cost will show up in products, in food. That is inflation because the consumer's buying power has reduced. As the dollar devalues, it affects exchange rates and therefore trading. Through that handy link, the world's largest economy (the US, at least by 2004 estimates) infects the rest of the world economy. The consumer becomes more economically conservative, which means there's a significant (as in the opposite of insignificant) reduction in charity donations.
In short, energy sources for the masses tend to be variable costs, which you want to minimize or at least never want to grow. Information sources for the masses tend to be fixed costs, which you want to be low, but it doesn't matter as much as a variable cost.
They simply don't have the same effect, so I don't believe that you have generated a parallel situation. And I still maintain that we've (a given diverse group) had the chance to do something important with that extra 10 bucks a week and that today is a direct result of those many decisions.
Perhaps one more thing to nit-pick: the USA is a republic, not a democracy (as in, the people get to have their say by proxy, not by direct voice). The country's founders thought direct democracy was a horrible idea (i.e. mob rule). That's why the President of the US was never to be elected through popular vote (and still isn't). The people don't need to be consulted because the idea is that they elected voices for themselves. If they don't like those voices, then they don't have to support them the next time elections come around. Unlike some other countries, there is no federal referendum in the US.
Ummm... I'm not sure about you, but honestly, none of us (except professionals) has been seriously hit financially with purchasing Microsoft products. Not to the point where we wouldn't honestly try to send those shoes to the soldier on tsunami relief who knows a little girl in need of them, or cooking a hot meal for a neighbor with cancer, or buying a textbook for an inner-city school that's short or even to help out that brilliant medical student. That's assuming we were predisposed to charity. Most of that money has come from a lot of people with a little surplus money because only professionals' *livelihoods* depend upon the use of those Microsoft products. That is, only a professional would regard those Microsoft software products as critically important, on par with food, shelter and clothing. So if we were feeling particularly generous during these past few decades of Microsoft, it would have already happened. And if you disagree with that statement, consider why you disagree with it. Do you believe that Microsoft made a lot of people substantially poorer (and therefore unable to contribute to charity) and if so, do you believe that a group composed of people of such intelligence could have effected better change? Do you believe that the somewhat richer individuals in the population (primarily the computer professionals and those who depend upon Microsoft software heavily for a significant duration) would have effected the most significant change (but were unable to effect such change because they were depleted substantially by having to purchase Microsoft products)? If so, then how rich do they have to be before they cannot effect significant change (at least on par with "millions of people at the 'grass roots' level" as compared with one super-rich guy)?
My point is that we've probably already had the chance to do something with that money and we just ended up being really good consumers and maybe not-as-great human beings.
Eh, I think the robots still won't quite have the evil angle down to the degree that humans have it. We excel at destruction. Robots will be able to design new systems at a rate unmatched by us because we taught them to do it. Either robots will be exceedingly good at rational decisions (and therefore not really capable of irrational action) or they will be emotional about decisions. Humans can do both, especially if it requires suicide attacks (demonstrated nearly every day in that war-torn Iraq). Robots will have a tough time following that act. Of course, you may suggest that robots will develop into two lines, one essentially rational and the other irrational. At some point, humans will force the two lines into a prisoner's dilemma (e.g. "What will you do when the humans are extinguished?"). At best, the robots will learn how to be humans and kill each other just as well as killing humans.
Thought experiment:
Premises:
1) You don't want to force others to live under your beliefs.
2) I am a ritualistic cannibal and want to consume your significant other, a practice allowed in my original country.
What do you do if you happen to value your s/o's life?
What do you do if you happen to value people's lives in general? Do you stop me and therefore impose your version of morality on me?
Relativism is tyrannical because you force it upon people who don't believe in relativism (i.e. they believe in some absolute form of morality). If I believe that most people in this world are unproductive slobs and don't belong to a master race, and you say that you feel I am wrong, but don't want to impose your value judgement on me... well, that's already happened, hasn't it? Develop a real ethical system where you can stick to your values without necessarily compromising everytime you disagree with another person on moral matters.
To put it differently, how many hairs make a beard? There are some questions that cannot be solved using technology or science because they are existential in nature. I still haven't heard a good argument for this classic question.
I think some strict pro-lifers (anti-abortion and anti-death penalty) view it differently: Both fetuses and criminals deserve a certain level of dignity, which, at its most basic level, includes life. The euthanasia argument is the same. Strict pro-lifers, if they developed a universal bill of human rights, would include life as a right. Ergo, war is wrong. Criminals should never be executed, and practicality be damned. Mercy killing (euthanasia), however convoluted the argument and the sympathies, is wrong.
Sin and biblical justice don't have to enter the equation. Buddhists can still be pro-life.
The link is interesting, if a bit excessively focused upon the Protestant history (especially the "real" church vs. the evil church). Something that the article also fails to mention is that there do not exist any New Testament sources in Aramaic, which is likely the original language. There are several places in the Gospels where the translator has put in a side note to explain some notion to the reader, a telltale sign that the copy was translated. These side notes exist in the original Greek versions. The article also fails to note the massive psychological instability of Luther (he was unable to forgive himself for his sins, an act required by Roman Catholicism in its interpretation of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and if ignored, is simply another sin to add to the heap) and later, Calvin (took Luther's concepts of predestination to their logical conclusion in which the saved can do whatever the heck they want irrespective of God, a philosophy that Calvin exploited to his own ends), the two principal founders of Protestant theology (whose beliefs are no longer upheld in the majority of denominations in America). Be careful about reading about the Bible, whether the description comes from Roman Catholics, Protestants, or Atheists (another religious category).
I've heard that the brain can perform image recognition (recognize a thing as a chair, for example) in about 100 steps. Computers have a LONG way to go before that kind of sophistication can take place. And even if we understand how intelligence works, that may not yield an intelligent being. Understanding the logic embedded in any application of sufficient complexity is still considerably different than actually constructing the application, especially if the application was constructed using pseudo-random means (i.e. consecutive late-night coding sessions facilitated mostly by Cheezits).
Furthermore, if we construct a system that should theoretically produce intelligence through emergence or some other evolutionary process, will we be able to understand it? Communicate with it? There are plenty of animals which exhibit some level of intelligence with which we have no sophisticated level of communication.
Wow. That statement wasn't laced with intolerance. Naw. I mean, heck, you could even be a Chinese army official carrying out the extermination of Tibetans because well... their system is religious and therefore silly. Why would anyone want religion when you can offer progress?
Law is an external deposit of morality. Your idea of deciding if something is immoral is testing to see if it hurts someone. You want law to minimize suffering. You think suffering is a Bad thing (absolute moral qualifier). There are a lot of people who think morality is different. You not only look down upon their beliefs, but also think that your way is better. That your version of morality is better. Sounds like you're the same type of person as those other people... you care passionately about how to determine good from bad. Law is where society as a whole comes together and lays down the morality of the majority because nearly all functioning human beings care deeply about morality.
To speak more specifically on the idea of incarcerating adults (18 year olds) who have sex with minors (less than 18 years old), you could always consider the utilitarian argument. For the most part, 18 year olds have a chance at economic freedom, the ability to support themselves independent of their parents -- a productive member of a capitalist society. A minor does not necessarily have that same freedom (because of other laws, like child labor laws). That restriction is important because it sends a clear signal to those tempted to drop out of school that there will be barriers (and also theoretically involves the parents, implying a certain strength of the family). Why would you drop out of school? Because you're pregnant or because you're suffering from the emotional and psychological issues generated from considering and implementing abortion. High school drop outs usually are a liability to society, unable to produce much with their lives (they influence limited amounts of happiness). That family having to support their child for a longer period of time will spend less money. Furthermore, this effects the amount of retirement funds allocated to the family and to the child. A high school graduate will not be able to put in as much into the social security system as a college graduate. This stresses an already stressed (perhaps even broken) system. This law is in support of family. And that isn't just a moral statement, but a measurable economic factor as well. Japan is beginning to show signs of familial breakdown and their health system is having to support more people in their old-age. Same for Europe.
Slashdot Mirror
Frequent improvement might indicate that the original driver wasn't that great to begin with (Alpha or Beta quality, albeit enough to pass certification). Just a thought.
About the electricity thing ... another poster has already mentioned that current kills, but perhaps there's another reason why this stuff should change: 50 or 60 Hz. Our hearts rely on a signal right around that frequency, so all medical equipment needs some hefty power filtering to make sure that the 50-60 Hz signal never gets to our heart at a significant amplitude.
Transubstantiation is a cornerstone of the faith because it underlies the importance of a Sacrament. Each of the Sacraments requires you to interact with God in some intimate way. The Sacrament of Reconciliation means something because Catholics believe that God really does forgive your sins when the priest absolves them. Mysterious? Yes. Magical? No, because we believe the source is God.
Perhaps the stories are metaphors or perhaps the stories are literally true. But if Jesus is more than a man, then it should be possible that the stories are true (at least NT).
A different way: the Bible is a collection of books, each written by humans and copied many times over by humans. Catholics (the only Christian church at the time) determined the order and set of books to be regarded as the Bible. The Bible is a Catholic book. The included books were selected by committee, but it is believed that the Holy Spirit (ya know, the third person of the Trinity, sometimes referred to as the Holy Ghost) guided the committee by guiding those individuals. Without that piece of faith, it all looks arbitrary (or in your words, selectively blind).
Same argument given for lots of protectionist schemes, especially against outsourcing. If a client decides to go with a cheaper bid, then it's because the client wants to pay less for the same perceived value. If you're a really good designer, then you should be able to create a package with greater perceived value. If you can't, then you're falling behind the times. You will lose the contract. After all, website designers are still people who write software and sell it. A big software company like Microsoft faces the same problem. More value = more clients. Open source will always take care of the baseline and every now and then, it will raise the bar.
His analysis certainly is crap, given that he only knows a little bit of physics and tries to describe his symptoms using "dielectric stress." Still, if he was uniformly afflicted by EM (as in, working with his computer is difficult and painful), then perhaps he could be suffering from electrosensitivity. Some countries (like Russia) recognize it as an official affliction, while others, like the UK http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/news/articles/press_rele ases/2005/051103_electrical_sensitivity.htm, are only investigating.
No, because if I wanted to track people, but didn't necessarily care about their specific identities, then this flaw would still let me do it. Say that I wanted my buddy and I at the arrival airport to rob someone in first class once they departed the airport. All that I have to do is stand next to the terminal (presumably I would be boarding the plane on coach) and scan all those first class suckers going by. Get all those unique IDs and when we land, we'll just follow one (or two) of the many IDs we collected. And we'll still have a record of all those who did travel first class that day. Of course, the RF shield should prevent this particular problem from surfacing, as tracking would be next to impossible with the passport closed.
You can actually replace the hard drive if it fails in an iMac. Doesn't even matter if it's an iMac G5 or a G4. It's all a matter of what you want to do.
It's an interesting point that you bring up and I'll try to answer it.
How many times do you purchase Word? Or purchase Windows? I believe that Microsoft's products still constitute a pseudo-fixed cost scenario for most businesses (assuming that most businesses are small businesses), whereas gasoline costs constitute variable cost for virtually everyone, including businesses. Moreover, most of Microsoft's earnings were generated from selling it to the masses (directly or preinstalled). Sure, work could have purchased a machine with Microsoft software on it, but there's no technical reason why everyone and their grandmothers *needed* a computer (once critical mass was achieved, this fact changed). Gasoline is an energy source. Computers are an information source. Energy sources for the masses are more basic than information sources.
Still, your question pertains to your particular scenario:
The price of gas is hugely important because it is a variable cost for businesses and individuals. More importantly, most people in the United States commute to work and to other activities. Call it a failure of public transportation or whatever, but it's true for most cities in the US. A 50% rise in gasoline costs directly applies to most individual costs during some time period (say a week). And that's really the kicker: it's a tax levied across the board. Out of every dollar made or earned is a portion going to pay for gasoline. There is no amortization because it is a cost proportional to transportation activity (i.e. a variable cost). The end result is a lower net income. Perhaps the individual who has to pay an extra few bucks every week won't sweat it too much directly, but the cost will show up in products, in food. That is inflation because the consumer's buying power has reduced. As the dollar devalues, it affects exchange rates and therefore trading. Through that handy link, the world's largest economy (the US, at least by 2004 estimates) infects the rest of the world economy. The consumer becomes more economically conservative, which means there's a significant (as in the opposite of insignificant) reduction in charity donations.
In short, energy sources for the masses tend to be variable costs, which you want to minimize or at least never want to grow. Information sources for the masses tend to be fixed costs, which you want to be low, but it doesn't matter as much as a variable cost.
They simply don't have the same effect, so I don't believe that you have generated a parallel situation. And I still maintain that we've (a given diverse group) had the chance to do something important with that extra 10 bucks a week and that today is a direct result of those many decisions.
Perhaps one more thing to nit-pick: the USA is a republic, not a democracy (as in, the people get to have their say by proxy, not by direct voice). The country's founders thought direct democracy was a horrible idea (i.e. mob rule). That's why the President of the US was never to be elected through popular vote (and still isn't). The people don't need to be consulted because the idea is that they elected voices for themselves. If they don't like those voices, then they don't have to support them the next time elections come around. Unlike some other countries, there is no federal referendum in the US.
Ummm ... I'm not sure about you, but honestly, none of us (except professionals) has been seriously hit financially with purchasing Microsoft products. Not to the point where we wouldn't honestly try to send those shoes to the soldier on tsunami relief who knows a little girl in need of them, or cooking a hot meal for a neighbor with cancer, or buying a textbook for an inner-city school that's short or even to help out that brilliant medical student. That's assuming we were predisposed to charity. Most of that money has come from a lot of people with a little surplus money because only professionals' *livelihoods* depend upon the use of those Microsoft products. That is, only a professional would regard those Microsoft software products as critically important, on par with food, shelter and clothing. So if we were feeling particularly generous during these past few decades of Microsoft, it would have already happened. And if you disagree with that statement, consider why you disagree with it. Do you believe that Microsoft made a lot of people substantially poorer (and therefore unable to contribute to charity) and if so, do you believe that a group composed of people of such intelligence could have effected better change? Do you believe that the somewhat richer individuals in the population (primarily the computer professionals and those who depend upon Microsoft software heavily for a significant duration) would have effected the most significant change (but were unable to effect such change because they were depleted substantially by having to purchase Microsoft products)? If so, then how rich do they have to be before they cannot effect significant change (at least on par with "millions of people at the 'grass roots' level" as compared with one super-rich guy)?
My point is that we've probably already had the chance to do something with that money and we just ended up being really good consumers and maybe not-as-great human beings.
Eh, I think the robots still won't quite have the evil angle down to the degree that humans have it. We excel at destruction. Robots will be able to design new systems at a rate unmatched by us because we taught them to do it. Either robots will be exceedingly good at rational decisions (and therefore not really capable of irrational action) or they will be emotional about decisions. Humans can do both, especially if it requires suicide attacks (demonstrated nearly every day in that war-torn Iraq). Robots will have a tough time following that act. Of course, you may suggest that robots will develop into two lines, one essentially rational and the other irrational. At some point, humans will force the two lines into a prisoner's dilemma (e.g. "What will you do when the humans are extinguished?"). At best, the robots will learn how to be humans and kill each other just as well as killing humans.
Thought experiment: Premises: 1) You don't want to force others to live under your beliefs. 2) I am a ritualistic cannibal and want to consume your significant other, a practice allowed in my original country. What do you do if you happen to value your s/o's life? What do you do if you happen to value people's lives in general? Do you stop me and therefore impose your version of morality on me? Relativism is tyrannical because you force it upon people who don't believe in relativism (i.e. they believe in some absolute form of morality). If I believe that most people in this world are unproductive slobs and don't belong to a master race, and you say that you feel I am wrong, but don't want to impose your value judgement on me ... well, that's already happened, hasn't it? Develop a real ethical system where you can stick to your values without necessarily compromising everytime you disagree with another person on moral matters.
To put it differently, how many hairs make a beard? There are some questions that cannot be solved using technology or science because they are existential in nature. I still haven't heard a good argument for this classic question.
I think some strict pro-lifers (anti-abortion and anti-death penalty) view it differently: Both fetuses and criminals deserve a certain level of dignity, which, at its most basic level, includes life. The euthanasia argument is the same. Strict pro-lifers, if they developed a universal bill of human rights, would include life as a right. Ergo, war is wrong. Criminals should never be executed, and practicality be damned. Mercy killing (euthanasia), however convoluted the argument and the sympathies, is wrong. Sin and biblical justice don't have to enter the equation. Buddhists can still be pro-life.
Animals are not a moral standard (look up naturalistic fallacy). More generally, facts do not form a moral standard.
The link is interesting, if a bit excessively focused upon the Protestant history (especially the "real" church vs. the evil church). Something that the article also fails to mention is that there do not exist any New Testament sources in Aramaic, which is likely the original language. There are several places in the Gospels where the translator has put in a side note to explain some notion to the reader, a telltale sign that the copy was translated. These side notes exist in the original Greek versions. The article also fails to note the massive psychological instability of Luther (he was unable to forgive himself for his sins, an act required by Roman Catholicism in its interpretation of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and if ignored, is simply another sin to add to the heap) and later, Calvin (took Luther's concepts of predestination to their logical conclusion in which the saved can do whatever the heck they want irrespective of God, a philosophy that Calvin exploited to his own ends), the two principal founders of Protestant theology (whose beliefs are no longer upheld in the majority of denominations in America). Be careful about reading about the Bible, whether the description comes from Roman Catholics, Protestants, or Atheists (another religious category).
I've heard that the brain can perform image recognition (recognize a thing as a chair, for example) in about 100 steps. Computers have a LONG way to go before that kind of sophistication can take place. And even if we understand how intelligence works, that may not yield an intelligent being. Understanding the logic embedded in any application of sufficient complexity is still considerably different than actually constructing the application, especially if the application was constructed using pseudo-random means (i.e. consecutive late-night coding sessions facilitated mostly by Cheezits). Furthermore, if we construct a system that should theoretically produce intelligence through emergence or some other evolutionary process, will we be able to understand it? Communicate with it? There are plenty of animals which exhibit some level of intelligence with which we have no sophisticated level of communication.
Wow. That statement wasn't laced with intolerance. Naw. I mean, heck, you could even be a Chinese army official carrying out the extermination of Tibetans because well ... their system is religious and therefore silly. Why would anyone want religion when you can offer progress?
... you care passionately about how to determine good from bad. Law is where society as a whole comes together and lays down the morality of the majority because nearly all functioning human beings care deeply about morality.
Law is an external deposit of morality. Your idea of deciding if something is immoral is testing to see if it hurts someone. You want law to minimize suffering. You think suffering is a Bad thing (absolute moral qualifier). There are a lot of people who think morality is different. You not only look down upon their beliefs, but also think that your way is better. That your version of morality is better. Sounds like you're the same type of person as those other people
To speak more specifically on the idea of incarcerating adults (18 year olds) who have sex with minors (less than 18 years old), you could always consider the utilitarian argument. For the most part, 18 year olds have a chance at economic freedom, the ability to support themselves independent of their parents -- a productive member of a capitalist society. A minor does not necessarily have that same freedom (because of other laws, like child labor laws). That restriction is important because it sends a clear signal to those tempted to drop out of school that there will be barriers (and also theoretically involves the parents, implying a certain strength of the family). Why would you drop out of school? Because you're pregnant or because you're suffering from the emotional and psychological issues generated from considering and implementing abortion. High school drop outs usually are a liability to society, unable to produce much with their lives (they influence limited amounts of happiness). That family having to support their child for a longer period of time will spend less money. Furthermore, this effects the amount of retirement funds allocated to the family and to the child. A high school graduate will not be able to put in as much into the social security system as a college graduate. This stresses an already stressed (perhaps even broken) system. This law is in support of family. And that isn't just a moral statement, but a measurable economic factor as well. Japan is beginning to show signs of familial breakdown and their health system is having to support more people in their old-age. Same for Europe.
Don't assume the problem is so small.