That doesn't make copying impossible, just illegal. Only one way to really prevent copying: make sure it never sees the light of day (ie. destroy it or hide it somewhere). But this kind of defeats the purpose of making money doesn't it?:-)
Religion is losing power rather rapidly (in western nations, at least).
I agree, and I disagree. I observe that large organized religions are losing power. Smaller, new faiths are absorbing the rest. See The Evolution of Religion.
Being cloned without your knowledge really isn't all that bad.
I don't think it's that big a deal, but most people's sense of identity is so wrapped up in their physical body that they see it as a violation.
While I think it's a bit sick and twisted (vision of self as perfect, vicarious living, etc.), it's not something I'm about to legislate against or get worked up about. If you're so obsessed with yourself that you want a genetically identical (at point of conception) kid, go right ahead. I won't hold it against the kid (though I will hold it against you, sicko).
Well, who knows what a person's reasons are? I'm sure there are legitimate reasons/cirumstances for making a clone of oneself, just as there are sometimes legitimate reasons for killing another person.
Other than the fact that we're playing God by shockingly inserting on our genetic material into an egg cell in order to reproduce manually rather than leaving it to a chemical reaction, I don't get the shock and horror.
Two sources of shock and horror:
1. Playing God 2. The development of this technology can lead to being cloned without your knowledge
Neither of those seem to justify the fear to me, but those are the sources I have run up against.
My, aren't we quick to judge... Did you even read the post?
The Obligation to Assist, as you have phrased it, is predicated on the notion of a duty to protect others from suffering and death since they have a *right* not to endure suffering. Ayn Rand denies that suffering is a valid basis for rights as I explained; praytell, where is the logical inconsistency?
You assume that simply because it does not reference the Obligation to Assist directly, or that it does not use the identical phrasing that it has no connection? And you reject all arguments merely because you misunderstand what I am saying (or perhaps I misunderstood your argument)? So instead of trying to come to some sort of understanding or correcting me, you write me off as a troll? For all your distaste for Ayn Rand, you'd make a perfect militant Objectivist buddy. Have a nice day.
Ok, so I was writing about a real ethical category. Interesting.
In your article you have an incomplete description of Singer's obligation to assist.
I was not attempting to discuss ethics in detail; I was simply trying to dissect people's common stance on morals. You are focussing on the actual philosophies and logical consistency, and thus you categorize religious morals as irrelevant. From a practical sociological perspective, this is not useful since religious mores are all many people know. I was attempting a discussion of common misunderstandings between people of different views.
Ayn Rand uses an incomplete description of the theory because she is little more than an apologist for the ethical egoism practiced by the entrenched elite of her time.
Many believe that animals have the right to be free from harm by people. In particular, they believe that animals should not be harmed in food production, clothing production, or medical research. This belief is the product of a misunderstanding of the nature of rights. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that rights are derived from the capacity to experience pain, and since animals can experience pain just as people can, animals also have the right to be free from harm. However, rights are derived from the capacity to reason, and thus people have rights and animals do not.
She also stated that the concept of duty, especially "duty to others", is unfounded; man has no inherent duty, except perhaps a duty to himself (but even this is predicated on the choice to accept this duty). One cannot exclude her approach merely because it does not fall under traditional definitions.
If one should choose to adopt a certain name on religious grounds, it is their choice, but it is not based on an ethical theory.
But they believe it does. Hence the problem trying to argue with these people.
Yes, a book has no intrinsic moral value in it's matter, and a wrench which falls has no intent in it's falling.
Agreed thus far from a consequentialist perspective. Yet, from the perspective of one who believes in animated matter or divine purpose, everything does happen for a reason, everything exists for a reason. It's not a formal ethical theory, but it's something we have to deal with in the real world.
What does have intrinsic value is people
This has no supporting evidence that I can see. Why should people not be the product of deterministic processes any more than a falling hammer? Why should a human life have more value than my car or a rock floating through space? This position presupposes a value for human life. Perhaps you meant to say that people hold intrinsic values. But then why couldn't their values be the product deterministic processes? In which case there is no intrinsic nature anywhere.
what has intent is people's choices
Perhaps. This one again presupposes that humans are somehow excluded from the chain of determinism. From this perspective, if human choices have intent, then any deterministic process has intent (or can). This may seem like a logical flaw, but at what point would intent magically appear in a deterministic process? Can we really say that at step x in this chain of events, intent is formed? Perhaps for certain definitions of intent. Intent seems meaningless to me in such a context though.
Nothing wrong with self-centredness as a pillar of ethics; these kids simply lack sufficient reasoning skills; their capacity for critical thought is far too shallow, since they do not understand the depth of their own ignorance, they over-estimate their own abilities.
Interesting that you mention consequential ethics. Is it actually a field of ethical study? I ask because I recently wrote about what I viewed as consequentialist versus intrinsic ethics and I was wondering whether it was the same thing (I have yet to come across it in my readings, though I admit I haven't read everything).
I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time.
Regulations will be as effective against hostile nanotech as they are against dangerous viruses: not very. Technological solutions are needed to combat technological menaces.
The ultimate problem is that the grid is emphatically *not* a single machine.
No... The ultimate problem (as the article explains) is that the grid *behaves* as a single machine, but is being *treated* as a loosely coupled set of networks.
By the sensible calculations I've seen, solar cells pay themselves off within five to ten years tops. That's 10-15 years of "free" energy. How does that qualify as pricier than fossil fuels? (which incur further costs to our health and dependence on external sources)
Keeping track of types is a computationally impossible problem.
The type inference included in many modern compilers must be a figment of my imagination then (such as the aforementioned Ocaml).
You seem to have no concept of the fact that the problem domain tends to mutate over time. Spagetti code is bad enough. Spagetti types fail in unknowable ways.
Exactly, and this is precisely why static typing is safer. Dynamic typing gives you no guarantee that you have altered all the affected code. Statically typed languages fail predictably and immediately in such circumstances.
There is no such thing as provable correctness of a language -- at least not if the language has the power of a turing machine.
Right. I meant to type "provable correctness of the *program*".
I agree that strong typing can catch simple errors, but it does so at the expense of making the program more complicated -- introducing more opportunity for complex errors.
That is an unfounded assertion. I have seen no research to demonstrate this. Considering that most "show-stopping" problemsin complex programs are simple and trivial errors (like memory leaks, type errors, etc.), it seems useful to let the computer handle these easily solvable, but tedious issues. As you said, programming is computationally difficult or even impossible to automate, so the most complex problems must be handled by humans. Computers are good at repetitive simple tasks, humans are good at complex abstract problems.
Keeping track of types is not a computationally difficult problem. If ones' algorithm or program depends on poorly defined input or ouput types, then it is a poorly defined algorithm. Generalization of algorithms is handled by polymorphism, not dynamic typing or (worse yet) weak typing.
For those worried about provable correctness of a language, strong typing is a necessity. Please check out OCaml and you'll find a language that guarantees that your program will not terminate with a type error. If you want casting between low-level types and bit manipulations, use C.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up." ~ Pastor Martin Niemolle ~
It was the irreproducability of the alleged results that meant that there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of further investigation.
Don't be silly. The results were reproducible, and many labs around the world announced success. But the results weren't reliably reproducible. So those who couldn't reporoduce them on the first or second try immediately dismissed the whole claim as a hoax.
Capitalism requires a government to enfore contracts, ownership of property, and establish and maintain a "level playing field" for the market.
Capitalism requires a *system* "to enfore contracts, ownership of property, and establish and maintain a "level playing field" for the market." A government is only one such system.
I wonder if the decompiled code for most programs would be better designed than the original source? No doubt it would be for perl, but what about anything else?;-)
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't make copying impossible, just illegal. Only one way to really prevent copying: make sure it never sees the light of day (ie. destroy it or hide it somewhere). But this kind of defeats the purpose of making money doesn't it? :-)
So...not unlike my ex-girlfriend, then.
:-)
You sir, truly live up to your name.
Religion is losing power rather rapidly (in western nations, at least).
I agree, and I disagree. I observe that large organized religions are losing power. Smaller, new faiths are absorbing the rest. See The Evolution of Religion.
Being cloned without your knowledge really isn't all that bad.
I don't think it's that big a deal, but most people's sense of identity is so wrapped up in their physical body that they see it as a violation.
While I think it's a bit sick and twisted (vision of self as perfect, vicarious living, etc.), it's not something I'm about to legislate against or get worked up about. If you're so obsessed with yourself that you want a genetically identical (at point of conception) kid, go right ahead. I won't hold it against the kid (though I will hold it against you, sicko).
Well, who knows what a person's reasons are? I'm sure there are legitimate reasons/cirumstances for making a clone of oneself, just as there are sometimes legitimate reasons for killing another person.
Other than the fact that we're playing God by shockingly inserting on our genetic material into an egg cell in order to reproduce manually rather than leaving it to a chemical reaction, I don't get the shock and horror.
Two sources of shock and horror:
1. Playing God
2. The development of this technology can lead to being cloned without your knowledge
Neither of those seem to justify the fear to me, but those are the sources I have run up against.
My, aren't we quick to judge... Did you even read the post?
The Obligation to Assist, as you have phrased it, is predicated on the notion of a duty to protect others from suffering and death since they have a *right* not to endure suffering. Ayn Rand denies that suffering is a valid basis for rights as I explained; praytell, where is the logical inconsistency?
You assume that simply because it does not reference the Obligation to Assist directly, or that it does not use the identical phrasing that it has no connection? And you reject all arguments merely because you misunderstand what I am saying (or perhaps I misunderstood your argument)? So instead of trying to come to some sort of understanding or correcting me, you write me off as a troll? For all your distaste for Ayn Rand, you'd make a perfect militant Objectivist buddy. Have a nice day.
In your article you have an incomplete description of Singer's obligation to assist.
I was not attempting to discuss ethics in detail; I was simply trying to dissect people's common stance on morals. You are focussing on the actual philosophies and logical consistency, and thus you categorize religious morals as irrelevant. From a practical sociological perspective, this is not useful since religious mores are all many people know. I was attempting a discussion of common misunderstandings between people of different views.
Ayn Rand uses an incomplete description of the theory because she is little more than an apologist for the ethical egoism practiced by the entrenched elite of her time.
Well, Ayn Rand actually denies Singer's definition entirely.
She also stated that the concept of duty, especially "duty to others", is unfounded; man has no inherent duty, except perhaps a duty to himself (but even this is predicated on the choice to accept this duty). One cannot exclude her approach merely because it does not fall under traditional definitions.
If one should choose to adopt a certain name on religious grounds, it is their choice, but it is not based on an ethical theory.
But they believe it does. Hence the problem trying to argue with these people.
Yes, a book has no intrinsic moral value in it's matter, and a wrench which falls has no intent in it's falling.
Agreed thus far from a consequentialist perspective. Yet, from the perspective of one who believes in animated matter or divine purpose, everything does happen for a reason, everything exists for a reason. It's not a formal ethical theory, but it's something we have to deal with in the real world.
What does have intrinsic value is people
This has no supporting evidence that I can see. Why should people not be the product of deterministic processes any more than a falling hammer? Why should a human life have more value than my car or a rock floating through space? This position presupposes a value for human life. Perhaps you meant to say that people hold intrinsic values. But then why couldn't their values be the product deterministic processes? In which case there is no intrinsic nature anywhere.
what has intent is people's choices
Perhaps. This one again presupposes that humans are somehow excluded from the chain of determinism. From this perspective, if human choices have intent, then any deterministic process has intent (or can). This may seem like a logical flaw, but at what point would intent magically appear in a deterministic process? Can we really say that at step x in this chain of events, intent is formed? Perhaps for certain definitions of intent. Intent seems meaningless to me in such a context though.
Thanks for all the pointers.
Nothing wrong with self-centredness as a pillar of ethics; these kids simply lack sufficient reasoning skills; their capacity for critical thought is far too shallow, since they do not understand the depth of their own ignorance, they over-estimate their own abilities.
See this recent study: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.
Interesting that you mention consequential ethics. Is it actually a field of ethical study? I ask because I recently wrote about what I viewed as consequentialist versus intrinsic ethics and I was wondering whether it was the same thing (I have yet to come across it in my readings, though I admit I haven't read everything).
Reading from video memory is very slow. It's optimized for writing, so it can't be used as general purpose storage.
I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time.
Regulations will be as effective against hostile nanotech as they are against dangerous viruses: not very. Technological solutions are needed to combat technological menaces.
Try reading the post asshole.
...". That's the letter 'i' not the number 1. And he's wrong, KDE 3.1 has startup feedback.
No, the parent post said "... KDE 3.1 I
The ultimate problem is that the grid is emphatically *not* a single machine.
No... The ultimate problem (as the article explains) is that the grid *behaves* as a single machine, but is being *treated* as a loosely coupled set of networks.
By the sensible calculations I've seen, solar cells pay themselves off within five to ten years tops. That's 10-15 years of "free" energy. How does that qualify as pricier than fossil fuels? (which incur further costs to our health and dependence on external sources)
Marx also claimed that some "wise men" could force society in the "right direction", but much of the 20th century was failures of his followers.
Which simply demonstrates that any theory dependent on infallibility of any kind (like socialism) is doomed to failure.
Keeping track of types is a computationally impossible problem.
The type inference included in many modern compilers must be a figment of my imagination then (such as the aforementioned Ocaml).
You seem to have no concept of the fact that the problem domain tends to mutate over time. Spagetti code is bad enough. Spagetti types fail in unknowable ways.
Exactly, and this is precisely why static typing is safer. Dynamic typing gives you no guarantee that you have altered all the affected code. Statically typed languages fail predictably and immediately in such circumstances.
There is no such thing as provable correctness of a language -- at least not if the language has the power of a turing machine.
Right. I meant to type "provable correctness of the *program*".
I agree that strong typing can catch simple errors, but it does so at the expense of making the program more complicated -- introducing more opportunity for complex errors.
That is an unfounded assertion. I have seen no research to demonstrate this. Considering that most "show-stopping" problemsin complex programs are simple and trivial errors (like memory leaks, type errors, etc.), it seems useful to let the computer handle these easily solvable, but tedious issues. As you said, programming is computationally difficult or even impossible to automate, so the most complex problems must be handled by humans. Computers are good at repetitive simple tasks, humans are good at complex abstract problems.
Keeping track of types is not a computationally difficult problem. If ones' algorithm or program depends on poorly defined input or ouput types, then it is a poorly defined algorithm. Generalization of algorithms is handled by polymorphism, not dynamic typing or (worse yet) weak typing.
For those worried about provable correctness of a language, strong typing is a necessity. Please check out OCaml and you'll find a language that guarantees that your program will not terminate with a type error. If you want casting between low-level types and bit manipulations, use C.
Actually, C is the dirtbike of the progamming world. Small & fast, but don't try doing long distances.
"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant
Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up."
~ Pastor Martin Niemolle ~
I think these electronic engineers sound like very useful devices. [..] Do they run Linux?
As a matter of fact I do!
I imagine they would implement far more stringent security measures quick, fast and in a hurry. Bio-metric identifiers on each of your cards, etc.
It was the irreproducability of the alleged results that meant that there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of further investigation.
Don't be silly. The results were reproducible, and many labs around the world announced success. But the results weren't reliably reproducible. So those who couldn't reporoduce them on the first or second try immediately dismissed the whole claim as a hoax.
The whole situation was handled poorly by all parties involved. The politics doesn't mean there wasn't a phenomenon worthy of investigation.
nitkpick:
Capitalism requires a government to enfore contracts, ownership of property, and establish and maintain a "level playing field" for the market.
Capitalism requires a *system* "to enfore contracts, ownership of property, and establish and maintain a "level playing field" for the market." A government is only one such system.
I meant the source of the interpreter.
I wonder if the decompiled code for most programs would be better designed than the original source? No doubt it would be for perl, but what about anything else? ;-)