*shrug* as far as I'm concerned, "person" and "child" are two different things, but the actual verbiage is irrelevant. If calling a dolphin a "person" make you happy, go for it. I don't see the relevance of the label we stick on them - what's under discussion is what kinds of rights and protections should be afforded to them.
Many animals are already protected under the law to some extent - you can't just go and shoot my dog for no reason, and we have animal cruelty legislation covering many different species. I certainly agree that dolphins should receive some protection (although how much is open to debate), I just think it's silly to call a dolphin a "person".
Either you don't understand what the word "reason" means, or you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Perhaps you meant to use the word "objective" in there somewhere, in which case you'd have a valid - though insignificant - point. Without it, your objections seem rather fishy.
Actually, intelligence doesn't have much to do with why we treat dogs differently. When an animal is useful to us, we take care of it. If it happens to be edible, we take care of it for a while, at least. Historically, the most useful non-edible (well, ones most of us don't eat) animals for humans have been dogs and horses, and they've been treated better than any other species. If dolphins really want to get special treatment, they need to figure out how to do something for us. Either become delicious and easy to farm, or start building dolphin-powered cargo ships.
No infant can ask for personhood, nor may others with differing mental or physical capabilities. Should they be denied personhood and the rights and privileges that comes with it?
Yes, and they are. Last I checked,a newborn doesn't have much in the way of rights. Children in general are severely restricted in what they can and can't do, until they reach an age at which we feel they are capable of understanding their rights, and acting responsibly. It's also why we don't punish them as severely for crimes as we do adults.
You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies. He doesn't need to make a "convincing case" for anything - he's not the one claiming that the place is haunted. I understand what he's trying to do, and I sympathize, but by playing into their delusions he's just reinforcing their ass-backward idea of how science and skepticism are supposed to work.
Funny how every believer in the world seems to have been an atheist, these days. It amazes me that the world seems to have gone from 90% atheist 10 years ago to 15% atheist today.
In forty-five years my arrogance has been tempered by senility
FTFY
One of the things I find most amusing is how people who arrogantly deny that there are things that they don't understand are usually the most surprised when they experience them.
One of the things I find most amusing is how arrogant assholes always claim not to be arrogant.
They wouldn't radiate heat - the most common reported "observation" is "a chill". I guess they suck up heat. Not that it makes any more sense, but you need to get your mythology straight:)
The phenomena you're looking for don't need to make sense. Obviously he's doing this at the behest of relatives/friends who think that ghosts exist. So if he wants to make it interesting, he needs to ask THEM what kind of observations might indicate a ghost. Get them looking into it, get them thinking about it, get them to outline what exactly they expect to find, and then go and look for it. They're the ones saying ghosts are real, so they're the ones who need to quantify what a ghost is and how you can tell when you've got one. Without that you'll just be accused of chasing strawmen.
What I personally believe is that strange things do happen that we do not (yet) know how to explain and as such, we have no idea what might be causing them.
Yes, and lucky charms might really be made by leprechauns, but I see no point in wasting time looking into it.
We know that every time we've looked into ghost stories, they've turned out to have a mundane explanation or to be complete bullshit. If this guy wants to go out and have some fun with his friends and family, great, have at 'er, but let's not pretend that there's any chance of him actually discovering something new.
"I'll say it again -- 10 years of "educating users" has failed. What did Einstein say about repeating an action and expecting a different result?"
Is just fucking stupid. It's like someone in the 1920's looking at the motor-vehicle accident rate and saying "10 years of educating drivers has failed". It's only a failure if there's a practical way to fix it. Otherwise it's just a fact of life.
Meh. You have a point, but that type of sanboxing isn't done on any user-oriented OS, and probably never will be. It's too much of a hassle, the average user won't understand it, and if you make it simple enough that they can grant rights with a click most of them will just hit "ok" no matter what. That type of security model would be helpful to power-users who get careless once in a while, and would be good for corporations that want to heavily lock down what a user can do, but they'd be completely useless for the average user.
My employer just stops executable from being received through e-mail in the first place. Much simpler solution.
There is no reason why a computer shouldn't be able to just sit there and look pretty.
The more control you take away from users, the less functional the machine becomes. There needs to be a balance between security and functionality, and the Vista experience has made it pretty clear that users won't willingly put up with an OS that throws dialogues and password requests at them every time they try to do anything.
Moreover, you started this discussion by blaming Windows, so the least you can do is admit that you were wrong, and that your "solution" would need to be implemented on pretty much every OS in existence. If you can't even do that, I certainly won't waste any more time on you.
The Osprey is a fantastic aircraft, and an excellent idea - it just turned out to be a fuck of a lot harder to make than anyone thought (and the numerous dumb accidents along the way didn't help much). Nothing "pork" about it - it cost a lot because it was difficult to do.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't have concealed semi-automatic weapons.
Bullshit. If you think that passing a law has made all such weapons magically disappear from your country, I've got a bridge to sell you ...
It also grew arms, pulled down my pants, and put this bottle of hand-lotion on the table beside me!
That what they think about themselves is completely irrelevant.
Ok, so we can discard the "don't understand what the word means" explanation.
*shrug* as far as I'm concerned, "person" and "child" are two different things, but the actual verbiage is irrelevant. If calling a dolphin a "person" make you happy, go for it. I don't see the relevance of the label we stick on them - what's under discussion is what kinds of rights and protections should be afforded to them.
Many animals are already protected under the law to some extent - you can't just go and shoot my dog for no reason, and we have animal cruelty legislation covering many different species. I certainly agree that dolphins should receive some protection (although how much is open to debate), I just think it's silly to call a dolphin a "person".
For the 3 or 4 which are employed in that role, sure. Not so much for the rest.
The lack of fire is their biggest hindrance. Kinda hard to get one started under water.
Either you don't understand what the word "reason" means, or you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Perhaps you meant to use the word "objective" in there somewhere, in which case you'd have a valid - though insignificant - point. Without it, your objections seem rather fishy.
All indications are they are about as smart as dogs, and try to hump your leg just as often.
It's true!
Actually, intelligence doesn't have much to do with why we treat dogs differently. When an animal is useful to us, we take care of it. If it happens to be edible, we take care of it for a while, at least. Historically, the most useful non-edible (well, ones most of us don't eat) animals for humans have been dogs and horses, and they've been treated better than any other species. If dolphins really want to get special treatment, they need to figure out how to do something for us. Either become delicious and easy to farm, or start building dolphin-powered cargo ships.
No infant can ask for personhood, nor may others with differing mental or physical capabilities. Should they be denied personhood and the rights and privileges that comes with it?
Yes, and they are. Last I checked,a newborn doesn't have much in the way of rights. Children in general are severely restricted in what they can and can't do, until they reach an age at which we feel they are capable of understanding their rights, and acting responsibly. It's also why we don't punish them as severely for crimes as we do adults.
Sure, and Bill O'Riley thinks he's a smart guy. 'nuff said.
You seem to be confused about where the burden of proof lies. He doesn't need to make a "convincing case" for anything - he's not the one claiming that the place is haunted. I understand what he's trying to do, and I sympathize, but by playing into their delusions he's just reinforcing their ass-backward idea of how science and skepticism are supposed to work.
Funny how every believer in the world seems to have been an atheist, these days. It amazes me that the world seems to have gone from 90% atheist 10 years ago to 15% atheist today.
In forty-five years my arrogance has been tempered by senility
FTFY
One of the things I find most amusing is how people who arrogantly deny that there are things that they don't understand are usually the most surprised when they experience them.
One of the things I find most amusing is how arrogant assholes always claim not to be arrogant.
So what you're saying is that most ghosts hide underground? Interesting. Let me guess - the ghost of Elvis told you that?
They wouldn't radiate heat - the most common reported "observation" is "a chill". I guess they suck up heat. Not that it makes any more sense, but you need to get your mythology straight :)
The phenomena you're looking for don't need to make sense. Obviously he's doing this at the behest of relatives/friends who think that ghosts exist. So if he wants to make it interesting, he needs to ask THEM what kind of observations might indicate a ghost. Get them looking into it, get them thinking about it, get them to outline what exactly they expect to find, and then go and look for it. They're the ones saying ghosts are real, so they're the ones who need to quantify what a ghost is and how you can tell when you've got one. Without that you'll just be accused of chasing strawmen.
"Common sense" tells me that there's plenty of stuff in the world that we don't understand yet on a scientific level ...
Therefore the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real! HAH! ON YOUR KNEES, SINNER!
There's a lack of hard evidence for any of these things to be sure, but there's also a lot of soft evidence for them
Heh. Soft evidence, huh? That's the coolest euphemism for "shit" that I've ever heard!
What I personally believe is that strange things do happen that we do not (yet) know how to explain and as such, we have no idea what might be causing them.
Yes, and lucky charms might really be made by leprechauns, but I see no point in wasting time looking into it.
We know that every time we've looked into ghost stories, they've turned out to have a mundane explanation or to be complete bullshit. If this guy wants to go out and have some fun with his friends and family, great, have at 'er, but let's not pretend that there's any chance of him actually discovering something new.
P.S. This bit:
"I'll say it again -- 10 years of "educating users" has failed. What did Einstein say about repeating an action and expecting a different result?"
Is just fucking stupid. It's like someone in the 1920's looking at the motor-vehicle accident rate and saying "10 years of educating drivers has failed". It's only a failure if there's a practical way to fix it. Otherwise it's just a fact of life.
Meh. You have a point, but that type of sanboxing isn't done on any user-oriented OS, and probably never will be. It's too much of a hassle, the average user won't understand it, and if you make it simple enough that they can grant rights with a click most of them will just hit "ok" no matter what. That type of security model would be helpful to power-users who get careless once in a while, and would be good for corporations that want to heavily lock down what a user can do, but they'd be completely useless for the average user.
My employer just stops executable from being received through e-mail in the first place. Much simpler solution.
There is no reason why a computer shouldn't be able to just sit there and look pretty.
The more control you take away from users, the less functional the machine becomes. There needs to be a balance between security and functionality, and the Vista experience has made it pretty clear that users won't willingly put up with an OS that throws dialogues and password requests at them every time they try to do anything.
Moreover, you started this discussion by blaming Windows, so the least you can do is admit that you were wrong, and that your "solution" would need to be implemented on pretty much every OS in existence. If you can't even do that, I certainly won't waste any more time on you.
The Osprey is a fantastic aircraft, and an excellent idea - it just turned out to be a fuck of a lot harder to make than anyone thought (and the numerous dumb accidents along the way didn't help much). Nothing "pork" about it - it cost a lot because it was difficult to do.
I just can't wait to see the crash test results for this plane. Shouldn't have to wait long - I figure about 5 minutes after takeoff.
You're kidding, right? The thing looks like a flying battle-axe. Looking at the still pictures, you'd expect it to move around like a boomerang.
Sorry, the F-14 will always be the iconic jet-fighter. Most pilots would sacrifice one or both of their testicles for a chance to fly one.