Crap, now I have to wait another 2 weeks to not buy it.
I know it's a joke but I continually get the sense that the Vista release will go as follows:
Microsoft: Buy Vista Now!
World: Why should I?
Microsoft: Uh...because it's prettier and has DRM support?
World: No thanks, I'm happy with what I have now.
Microsoft: Please?
World: No.
Microsoft: Ballmer throws a chair in the new screensaver, and we dressed Gates up in a dress for the default background.
World: Really? Sign me up!
Microsoft: Really?
World: No.
(Months pass...)
Microsoft: WTS slightly used global software monopoly.
Google: 5 dollars and Gates in a diaper apologizing to the world.
Microsoft: Sold!
For instance, to learn to farm using only primitive methods or to smelt metal requires apprenticeship under experienced persons. These methods were developed over long periods of time and can't be transmitted succinctly or easily in written form.
Just because the media doesn't capture all the intricasies of the art or action, is no reason not to attempt to describe it using that same media. We no longer have the ability to create "Greek Fire" because no record of the process now is known to exist. I'd rather have a confusing paragraph of the distillation process on a piece of papyrus for the world to decrypt than the knowledge to be lost forever.
And I'm not even going to think about what happens if the world loses the ability to "read". We should at least be storing an equivalent to the Rosetta Stone somewhere on this blasted rock we call earth. At least that way if the world goes caveman again it will have a way to get back out.
"2 + 2 = 5. Don't ask why, that's just how it is."
I know you're joking, but that's exactly what Winston Smith is forced to believe in his re-education in the book 1984. The whole premise of being a party member in the book is that you believe, without question, whatever the party says, and that is how it always is and always was. Even if two things are in direct conflict, it is believed unerringly. ("Doublethink" I believe was the term.)
A good portion of Americans believe the President is acting in the best interests of the United States. As such, they have given him a clean slate to do whatever he wishes. Unless someone can not only provide evidence to the contrary, but can also set in motion measures to censure and/or punish him, what the hell is the point?
He was elected, twice, to the highest office in the land. As such he is nearly free to do whatever he wants, period. Constitutionally the only legal body that can affect the President while he is in office is Congress. (He's free to tell the Supreme Court to shove off.) Unless Congress gets some balls, or enough people to impeach him, the President has free license to do whatever he wants.
If Bush is abusing his office, it wouldn't be the first time a President did. Which is why this election is important. Basically, if you think the President is acting toward your best interests, vote for someone who supports him. If not, find someone who doesn't. And if you don't like those options, start trying to convince people that he may no longer be the man they think he is.
People who self-select a career in information technology tend to have poor social skills.
Hell, I think all the responses we just gave to the OP just proved that fact. The OP should just switch his thesis topic and make the content I see here the core of his new argument, "Inept Social Skills: The Slashdot Effect".
While the OP should really be seeking a professional to talk to, I can't imagine tactless responses like "You dumb f#$!, it's your own d!@# fault," are too helpful to him at all. The man asked for constructive criticism and thoughtful responses, and the majority of what he got was outright bashing.
I usually respect what people have to say here on Slashdot. But DAMN, people. I'm ashamed to even post among you people today. If you can't say something nice to a person who's world is being torn apart, shut the hell up. The man needs helpful advice, not criticism.
The best part is that the article explains in detail how the flagging process and review that got it unflagged works, and then goes on to blame the liberals at Google for the users of youtube flagging content.
Which begs the question of who actually was flagging the content. How do you know it wasn't Karl Rove and his republican cadre doing it on purpose to stir up some negative press for liberals?
It seems rather naive to think that a site like YouTube can't be manipulated for all sorts of political gains. I'd definitely file "misdirection" as one of the skilled politician's most oft' used tactics. (Republican or Democrat alike.)
If I were a shareholder, I'd be deeply worried that Google has opened themselves up to a potentially fatal IP battle. Between this and the Google book search IP lawsuits, Google is gambling big time and geek opinions on the legitimacy of IP law and how it should apply won't mean crap in a court of law WRT Google.
Google stock went up on the news, so I think the shareholders are fine with the deal. YouTube has been cozying up with the media companies over the past few months to prevent IP battles from erupting. I'd say they've been rather successful, as they are striking deals with Time Warner and others, instead of firing shots of litigation.
Google Video was doing so-so, but it lacked the brand recognition that YouTube garnered (yeah, you heard that right). Since Google is in the advertising business, and it needs to be #1 in the emerging market of online video advertising. Now it can.
A larger risk than the IP battles is probably Ma Bell and the ISP's putting the squeeze on Google's bandwidth. In all likelihood YouTube would be quashed in the next year or two by the communications industry since video eats up so much of the bandwidth. Google's also been at risk from this, but Google's also been buying up dark fiber as an insurance policy. Google buying YouTube insures that video streaming will not be leaving the web anytime soon, and opens a more lucrative market for Google.
Television as we know it will most likely evolve dramatically over the next decade. Google just wants to make sure that they have a decent sized foot in the door.
Nope. He's free to ignore the verdicts of the Supreme Court. The enforcement of Supreme Court rulings is delegated to the executive branch. If the executive branch decides not to enforce a ruling, there's nothing they can do about it.
The only legal body with authority over the President in the United States is Congress.
As President Jackson once remarked about Chief Justice Marshall: "He has made the decision now let him enforce it!"
This is sad- I am interested in the technical aspects of the N. Korea bomb, and I come on slashdot and have to hear not just Bush bashing (you'll have that) but soldier bashing.
Unfortunately most people in today's culture treat the armed forces as an extension of the Presidency, and fail to see a distinction between the two. I lay a large chunk of the blame on the disintegration of Congress over the past century. The legislative branch was originally given the power to decide when and where to declare war for two very good reasons. First, because if one man (the president) had the power to initiate war at a whim, our country would end up in trouble far more often than was prudent. And second, because congress would not authorize a war without first realizing that the people that are being sent to war are the children of the voters that the congress men and women represent.
Most Americans also seem to forget that the executive branch was originally created to enforce the laws and will of the legislative branch (AKA: Congress). Anything not in writing was left up to the discretion of the President, but everything that was in writing the president was supposed to do on behalf of Congress. To insure the president's compliance in matters of Congress, the founders wrote a cause to impeach such people should they appear. But originally, it was the legislative branch that had control of the nation, not the executive. As such, the country was less prone to dive into wars without careful consideration. But that was then, this is now.
The real point that people need to realize is that congress has the power to limit the amount of force being used, and the capacity in which to use it. So please, stop faulting the president or the troops at his disposal. Soldiers do what their told, and do it to the best of their ability. If you don't like what they're being told to do, complain to your congressman, not the president. After all, congress is the only political body in the nation that can constitutionally contrain the president's powers. Congress is the one that's supposed to be keeping an eye on presidential activities. And here's the REALLY important part for you whiners out there: The president is LEGALLY allowed to ignore anyone and everyone, with the sole exception being Congress.
I've been keeping tabs on the Diebold stories coming from U.S. news sources, and it's not like the Diebold problems have been kept secret. Nevertheless, many Americans have reacted to the information with a collective yawn.
That's because most of the Diebold problems are theoretical at this point. Someone COULD do all these nasty things and steal elections. Until we have some PROOF that someone stole an election from us using these machines, Americans will do what they always do, change the channel and go back to eating their fat-injected burgers. (And no, exit polls are not enough to convice a jury of vote tampering.) The Dutch have proved it can be done, and the public has acted accordingly.
For those of you keeping score, a good portion of Americans have essentially given up on their government, which allows it to get away with murder. I honestly can't think of a single thing that Congress would stop this administration from doing. The politicians in power don't listen to us, and our only choices on election day are between two candidates who are ready to sell their soul and lie to the public all over again.
And now we continually get reports that the politicians no longer need the public to get elected because of these new fangled e-voting machines. I write letters, I vote, I tell others about all of it, and yet the bastards keep doing what they do and don't go anywhere.
True democracy only works when the populace is educated enough to make smart decisions. You could counter by saying vacuous crap like, "well why aren't you running?" But in the end the public is apathetic because it's takes too much work to care about this crap. Americans are rediculously lazy, you know. (After all we invented the internet so we could browse pr0n without walking into a shady bookstore.)
...but "episode-based" game content just seems like yet another excuse for game developers to release incomplete products, except this time rather than hide that fact, they can tout it as a feature?
Games are becoming too costly to develop and, as such, are a huge gamble for investors. Episodic content is a way for the game to prove it has financial merit, and gives the investors a low risk option of cancelling further work on the product if the returns aren't there.
Episodic content is a novel approach that will give the company a predictable income to budget off of. While it may not meet the die hard fans request of a full game right off the bat, it essentially promises that (as long as they find a market for the product) there will be a full game at some point. The alternative is to not make the game, which seems silly to potentially leave money on the table like that.
Agreed. Anyone who's researched Condi's background would realize really quickly that she's a near prodigy. She got to where she is today because she is a talented and uber smart individual, not because she's the token black person.
Having said that though, even hardworking geniouses can dedicate their lives to EVIL instead of for the greater good. (There's better money and perks involved.)
Where is the outrage? Almost everyone who frequents/. should have a good idea of how shitty these diebold machines are and how easy they are to hack. Can't you see what is going on here?
Yes, actually I do see what's going on. I am outraged by it. And I intend on voting them out. So let's see now, which button on the touchscreen does that?
We do not drive as we wish to ensure proper order on the roads (we hold to the proper lane... well... most of us).
Fuck order. I follow the rules when I drive because I don't want to die or get injured. I don't give damn about order. Order implies control. If there's control it means that there's someone holding the reins of that control.
Certain laws and rules are followed because people feel they have merit, in polisci terms it's called legitimacy. People stop at stoplights in the middle of the night on desserted roads because they know there's a chance they could get hit. People download music illegally because they think the music industry is made up of bastards and there isn't a distribution method that they're happy with yet.
We cede liberty to do as we wish when we want to constantly. Building codes, taxes, standards, all interfere with us doing precisely what we wish to do.
Uh, no. Building codes are there to insure the person paying for the construction doesn't get screwed. Taxes are how the government currently collects income because it's easier and less prone to risk than having state owned businesses or other sources of revenue. Standards exist to help businesses provide a common framework to provide goods and services. You're free to ignore most standards, but you risk having a much reduced adoption rate.
Ceding liberty requires trust in your government not to abuse the power you are giving them. Our forefathers thought long and hard on which liberties should be guaranteed in a nigh impossible to edit document (AKA: The Constituion). Nearly all of them combed over history books and carefully identified which rights were continually trampled on and tried to insure that future generations would be protected.
It's idiotic to throw out these liberties just because the boogie man is in the closet and we can't think of a better way to get rid of him. Smarter and better educated men than most of us all got together and made a document that protects us from history's blemishes. Ceding these same liberties has led to abuse in the past, and will lead to abuse in the future.
Quoting Ben Franklin is wonderful and all, but can one quote another founding father in response?
If you're going to quote Washington, how about: "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
He believed in good enemy intelligence, but not at the cost of the people he was trying to protect.
but until a mature discussion that doesn't depend on what men said well over 200 years ago out of the present context comes up, I don't think it will be very productive.
Ignoring our heritage and the history that makes this country great is not what a mature person does. Wisdom is a powerful tool, and history and historical figures have probably led greater lives than you or I will. Only a fool would totally ignore the advice of it's predecessors. Granted it may not directly apply to today's world, but human nature hasn't changed all that much in the last 3000 years. Anyone who doesn't agree needs to read more history books and watch fewer happy endings.
The $600 million lawsuit names several companies and Cody Posey, who it alleges played the game ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, stepmother and stepsister in July 2004
So...the father and stepmother let him play GTA "obsessively" for months, and now those same parental units are dead as a direct result. I know it sounds terribly cruel by implying this, but in this case it looks like bad parenting and improper gun control killed them.
If I left my kid alone to watch slasher movies and Ted Bundy documentaries ad nauseum, should I be surprised when he starts mimicking the behavior? If I allow my kid to visit chat rooms without occasional supervision or education, should I be surprised if a pedophile tries to introduce him or herself?
I realize that parents want their kids to be happy, but you're their parent, not the birthday clown trying to entertain them. Sometimes you just have to be a bastard for their own good.
With that said, I think students generally learn much more by showing up in class. But that ought to be the student's decision. If he thinks he's a hotshot who doesn't need to attend class, let him try. If he fails, he has nobody to blame but himself. And in some classes that I had (the ones with nothing but straight lecture), attending class would have been a waste of time if I'd had audio of the lecture available.
What may not be immediately apparent to the professor is that if he/she puts podcasts of the lecture online, fewer people would show up to class which in turn would ENHANCE the lecture.
Think about it. In a typical class of around 300, you probably have about 250 "dead" bodies in the audience that do nothing but take notes and watch. Why should these people be in the lecture hall at all? I think the professor would be more willing to engage the audience if the ones who did show up were willing to participate. It might actually make sense to tell these people to stay away if they're not willing to help drive the lecture.
My personal preference would be to have a set of "stock" lectures on podcast (which could live for infinity), with the actual lectures for the semester being used for Q/A sessions by the people who want to get the most out of the course. I'd find it useful if I had an archive of past semester podcasts to root through for answers to questions. A student shouldn't be limited to only learning the material when the professor allows it. Not everyone learns the same way, so the more ways a student can learn the material, the more likely the student will retain the information.
Honestly, if I'm taking a course, in most cases I don't care about the professor. I took the course so I could learn the related information. The reason a regimented course exists is so the university can rubber stamp my level of knowledge to third persons. (This person has an 'A' knowledge level, etc.) The process that is currently in place is mainly for the university's benefit (insuring their degree actually means something). In the end it's up to the student to take away what he/she will from the course.
Re:Telepathic feasibility based on natual selectio
on
Virtual Worlds and ESP
·
· Score: 1
Are you suggesting:
a) telepathic ability so pronounced as to provide "unnatural knowledge" may spontaneously appear in a population,
No. I didn't know what historic term would best classify telepathic ability throughout the ages. Telepathic ability could be as trivial as subconsciously anticipating another person's move (resulting in quick reflexes) or could be as elaborate as being able to see an image that another person is thinking of. Both are difficult to believe scientifically, but we don't know everything yet.
I highly doubt, if there is telepathic ability in people, that it would exist to the degree that you see in Hollywood movies (or would even come close). The people who have it would first need to realize that they have the ability, and then they'd have to hone it. (Tiger Woods would have been just another schmuck if he had never picked up a golf club.) If it does exist, it most likely exists only in the subconscious level.
I'm merely exploring the feasibility of the ability if it were to exist. Basically, I don't know whether it exists. But if it were to exist (and a science were to be applied to it) I was merely trying to outline where to look first.
b) people are distrustful and tend to apply selection pressure by killing people that don't think like themselves?
Yes and No. People are inherently distrustful of strangers or people identified as "not one of us". It's one of the driving forces behind wars (the other more powerful force would be ambition). It has consistently been used throughout history to manipulate populaces to one side or another.
However, selection pressure need not be equated to homicide. Natural selection also has a more passive method, offspring. People who are deemed to be "outsiders" have a much more difficult time finding mates. There are quite a few examples in the animal kingdom. Antisocial behavior is rarely rewarded.
Again, I'm not passing judgement on whether the ability actually exists, but it's far less constructive to say "it doesn't" and leave the conversation there. We have no evidence to support or irrefutably discredit the idea at present.
There actually are Web sites that mock this mess by showing the simplest CSS code and the differing results from the three main browsers and the Safari and Linux browsers. The differences are not trivial. And because of the architecture of this dog, the bugs cascade when they are part of a larger style sheet, amplifying problems. Worse yet, nobody except the most techie insiders wants to talk about this mess.
So... his biggest problem with CSS... is that the browsers that are rendering it are flawed? Um... isn't that a problem with the browsers and not the standards those browsers agreed to support?
Dvorak just needs to admit he was beaten (and a cheapskate), and pay the neighbor kid $20 to fix up his CSS for him. Gramps is getting too old for this "tech" thing.
It is not uncommon for people with psychological disorders to think they are better than everyone around them, or "more aware" of what's truly going on in the world. Especially people that have severe insecurity issues.
Society tends to ostracize most individuals who do not "fit in". If telepathy did exist, I find it highly probable that societal evolution exterminated, marginalized, or actively prevented procreation with said individuals over the last few centuries. For example, let's say a telepath existed 200 years ago. If the telepath were to have exposed any privately held thoughts or secrets in that day and age, the person most likely would have been labeled a witch or devil worshiper and would have been ostracized (or worse).
The stigma of "unnatural" knowledge has been actively pushed out of mainstream civilizations for the past thousand years or so. But some civilizations of old (think of Greece and the Oracle at Delphi), would have honored such telepaths (if a telepath ever existed). If telepathic ability has any genetic roots, it therefore seems likely that natural selection has exterminated (or has dramatically reduced) true telepathic ability throughout the world.
Most societies have ostracized people who have "unnatural" knowledge. As such, any telepaths that survive to today most likely keep a low profile or discount their gift as luck, good insight, or ignore it all together. In addition any telepathic ability that exists in today's world is probably weak or negligible at best due to the inherent natural selection that has occurred over the past few centuries.
So while I find it credible that telepathic ability could exist in a human (and would most likely have a genetic component), I find it unlikely that few (if any) individuals today would posess such an ability. If a scientist were to try to hunt down true telepathic ability, he or she would need to find a civilization or culture that:
A. Has existed for the past 1000 years or so *AND*
B. Has defied human nature by embracing people who display unnatural knowledge instead of ostracizing them
Failing to meet those conditions, you're stuck deriving tests for a multitude of individuals who (in all probability) have little or no telepathic ability due to genetic natural selection over the past few centuries. If telepathic ability ever did exist and currently does not, short of breeding individuals based on trace hints of telepathic ability, the only other way to find a true telepath would be to stumble upon a person who is the descendent of a long history of people who have kept quiet or ignorant about their ability. Considering how unlikely this last scenario is (from a scientific perspective) I'd give any study actively attempting to discover telepathic ability the same odds as hitting a bullseye while blindfolded, a mile away from the target, and pointed in the wrong direction.
Photocopying lyrics is killing the music indurty ! Pay us more for this service.
Let's launch suits against those pesky lyrics-pirate.
This actually brings up an interesting question. Are spoken words copyright-able? In other words, if I listen to a song and transcribe the lyrics, is that copyright infringement? If true, the legal ramifications are devastating. If true, newspapers have been infringing constantly with all of their so called "quoting" of sources.
Although my legal knowledge is limited, I seem to remember a case from my college years that it was found to be "fair use" for a student to transcribe and publish a teacher's lecture (spoken words) for the web, but it was illegal to copy-paste any printed notes he had provided. (He was quite miffed at this revelation, if I remember.)
The video is very cool, and the first thought that went through my head is "I wonder how much NASA would charge if that were an amusement ride?" There's a T-shirt or two to be sold and worn in this adventure that reads "I fell from outer space!", "Yes mom, I am an alien!", or "I blew chunks at 5 miles up!"
This proposal sounds eerily like what the book 1984 referred to as Newspeak. Basically a reduction of the number of spellings and words used in the language. The goal of the process was to slowly but surely reduce the chances of dissenting thought by elminating the words that promote critical thinking and opposing viewpoints. In one part one of the characters brags that the new version has dramatically reduced the verbal set by eliminating negative words like "bad" and replacing it with prefixed words like "ungood".
We've already taken enough steps towards that possible future, thank you kindly. Besides, what the heck would poetry sound like in this new lexicon? It's like telling an artist he or she can only use primary colors because "beige", "periwinkle" and "mauve" are too illustrative. No thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft: Buy Vista Now!
World: Why should I?
Microsoft: Uh...because it's prettier and has DRM support?
World: No thanks, I'm happy with what I have now.
Microsoft: Please?
World: No.
Microsoft: Ballmer throws a chair in the new screensaver, and we dressed Gates up in a dress for the default background.
World: Really? Sign me up!
Microsoft: Really?
World: No.
(Months pass...)
Microsoft: WTS slightly used global software monopoly.
Google: 5 dollars and Gates in a diaper apologizing to the world.
Microsoft: Sold!
And I'm not even going to think about what happens if the world loses the ability to "read". We should at least be storing an equivalent to the Rosetta Stone somewhere on this blasted rock we call earth. At least that way if the world goes caveman again it will have a way to get back out.
Kinda scary, actually.
A good portion of Americans believe the President is acting in the best interests of the United States. As such, they have given him a clean slate to do whatever he wishes. Unless someone can not only provide evidence to the contrary, but can also set in motion measures to censure and/or punish him, what the hell is the point?
He was elected, twice, to the highest office in the land. As such he is nearly free to do whatever he wants, period. Constitutionally the only legal body that can affect the President while he is in office is Congress. (He's free to tell the Supreme Court to shove off.) Unless Congress gets some balls, or enough people to impeach him, the President has free license to do whatever he wants.
If Bush is abusing his office, it wouldn't be the first time a President did. Which is why this election is important. Basically, if you think the President is acting toward your best interests, vote for someone who supports him. If not, find someone who doesn't. And if you don't like those options, start trying to convince people that he may no longer be the man they think he is.
While the OP should really be seeking a professional to talk to, I can't imagine tactless responses like "You dumb f#$!, it's your own d!@# fault," are too helpful to him at all. The man asked for constructive criticism and thoughtful responses, and the majority of what he got was outright bashing.
I usually respect what people have to say here on Slashdot. But DAMN, people. I'm ashamed to even post among you people today. If you can't say something nice to a person who's world is being torn apart, shut the hell up. The man needs helpful advice, not criticism.
It seems rather naive to think that a site like YouTube can't be manipulated for all sorts of political gains. I'd definitely file "misdirection" as one of the skilled politician's most oft' used tactics. (Republican or Democrat alike.)
1. Wads and wads of free press about the game
2. Sued by a lawyer who loses nearly every court battle he's ever been in
I don't think Rockstar considers this a bad thing.
Google Video was doing so-so, but it lacked the brand recognition that YouTube garnered (yeah, you heard that right). Since Google is in the advertising business, and it needs to be #1 in the emerging market of online video advertising. Now it can.
A larger risk than the IP battles is probably Ma Bell and the ISP's putting the squeeze on Google's bandwidth. In all likelihood YouTube would be quashed in the next year or two by the communications industry since video eats up so much of the bandwidth. Google's also been at risk from this, but Google's also been buying up dark fiber as an insurance policy. Google buying YouTube insures that video streaming will not be leaving the web anytime soon, and opens a more lucrative market for Google.
Television as we know it will most likely evolve dramatically over the next decade. Google just wants to make sure that they have a decent sized foot in the door.
The only legal body with authority over the President in the United States is Congress.
As President Jackson once remarked about Chief Justice Marshall: "He has made the decision now let him enforce it!"
Most Americans also seem to forget that the executive branch was originally created to enforce the laws and will of the legislative branch (AKA: Congress). Anything not in writing was left up to the discretion of the President, but everything that was in writing the president was supposed to do on behalf of Congress. To insure the president's compliance in matters of Congress, the founders wrote a cause to impeach such people should they appear. But originally, it was the legislative branch that had control of the nation, not the executive. As such, the country was less prone to dive into wars without careful consideration. But that was then, this is now.
The real point that people need to realize is that congress has the power to limit the amount of force being used, and the capacity in which to use it. So please, stop faulting the president or the troops at his disposal. Soldiers do what their told, and do it to the best of their ability. If you don't like what they're being told to do, complain to your congressman, not the president. After all, congress is the only political body in the nation that can constitutionally contrain the president's powers. Congress is the one that's supposed to be keeping an eye on presidential activities. And here's the REALLY important part for you whiners out there: The president is LEGALLY allowed to ignore anyone and everyone, with the sole exception being Congress.
For those of you keeping score, a good portion of Americans have essentially given up on their government, which allows it to get away with murder. I honestly can't think of a single thing that Congress would stop this administration from doing. The politicians in power don't listen to us, and our only choices on election day are between two candidates who are ready to sell their soul and lie to the public all over again.
And now we continually get reports that the politicians no longer need the public to get elected because of these new fangled e-voting machines. I write letters, I vote, I tell others about all of it, and yet the bastards keep doing what they do and don't go anywhere.
True democracy only works when the populace is educated enough to make smart decisions. You could counter by saying vacuous crap like, "well why aren't you running?" But in the end the public is apathetic because it's takes too much work to care about this crap. Americans are rediculously lazy, you know. (After all we invented the internet so we could browse pr0n without walking into a shady bookstore.)
[/apathy]
Episodic content is a novel approach that will give the company a predictable income to budget off of. While it may not meet the die hard fans request of a full game right off the bat, it essentially promises that (as long as they find a market for the product) there will be a full game at some point. The alternative is to not make the game, which seems silly to potentially leave money on the table like that.
Agreed. Anyone who's researched Condi's background would realize really quickly that she's a near prodigy. She got to where she is today because she is a talented and uber smart individual, not because she's the token black person.
Having said that though, even hardworking geniouses can dedicate their lives to EVIL instead of for the greater good. (There's better money and perks involved.)
Certain laws and rules are followed because people feel they have merit, in polisci terms it's called legitimacy. People stop at stoplights in the middle of the night on desserted roads because they know there's a chance they could get hit. People download music illegally because they think the music industry is made up of bastards and there isn't a distribution method that they're happy with yet.
Uh, no. Building codes are there to insure the person paying for the construction doesn't get screwed. Taxes are how the government currently collects income because it's easier and less prone to risk than having state owned businesses or other sources of revenue. Standards exist to help businesses provide a common framework to provide goods and services. You're free to ignore most standards, but you risk having a much reduced adoption rate.
Ceding liberty requires trust in your government not to abuse the power you are giving them. Our forefathers thought long and hard on which liberties should be guaranteed in a nigh impossible to edit document (AKA: The Constituion). Nearly all of them combed over history books and carefully identified which rights were continually trampled on and tried to insure that future generations would be protected.
It's idiotic to throw out these liberties just because the boogie man is in the closet and we can't think of a better way to get rid of him. Smarter and better educated men than most of us all got together and made a document that protects us from history's blemishes. Ceding these same liberties has led to abuse in the past, and will lead to abuse in the future.
If you're going to quote Washington, how about: "Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness."
He believed in good enemy intelligence, but not at the cost of the people he was trying to protect.
Ignoring our heritage and the history that makes this country great is not what a mature person does. Wisdom is a powerful tool, and history and historical figures have probably led greater lives than you or I will. Only a fool would totally ignore the advice of it's predecessors. Granted it may not directly apply to today's world, but human nature hasn't changed all that much in the last 3000 years. Anyone who doesn't agree needs to read more history books and watch fewer happy endings.
If I left my kid alone to watch slasher movies and Ted Bundy documentaries ad nauseum, should I be surprised when he starts mimicking the behavior? If I allow my kid to visit chat rooms without occasional supervision or education, should I be surprised if a pedophile tries to introduce him or herself?
I realize that parents want their kids to be happy, but you're their parent, not the birthday clown trying to entertain them. Sometimes you just have to be a bastard for their own good.
Think about it. In a typical class of around 300, you probably have about 250 "dead" bodies in the audience that do nothing but take notes and watch. Why should these people be in the lecture hall at all? I think the professor would be more willing to engage the audience if the ones who did show up were willing to participate. It might actually make sense to tell these people to stay away if they're not willing to help drive the lecture.
My personal preference would be to have a set of "stock" lectures on podcast (which could live for infinity), with the actual lectures for the semester being used for Q/A sessions by the people who want to get the most out of the course. I'd find it useful if I had an archive of past semester podcasts to root through for answers to questions. A student shouldn't be limited to only learning the material when the professor allows it. Not everyone learns the same way, so the more ways a student can learn the material, the more likely the student will retain the information.
Honestly, if I'm taking a course, in most cases I don't care about the professor. I took the course so I could learn the related information. The reason a regimented course exists is so the university can rubber stamp my level of knowledge to third persons. (This person has an 'A' knowledge level, etc.) The process that is currently in place is mainly for the university's benefit (insuring their degree actually means something). In the end it's up to the student to take away what he/she will from the course.
I highly doubt, if there is telepathic ability in people, that it would exist to the degree that you see in Hollywood movies (or would even come close). The people who have it would first need to realize that they have the ability, and then they'd have to hone it. (Tiger Woods would have been just another schmuck if he had never picked up a golf club.) If it does exist, it most likely exists only in the subconscious level.
I'm merely exploring the feasibility of the ability if it were to exist. Basically, I don't know whether it exists. But if it were to exist (and a science were to be applied to it) I was merely trying to outline where to look first. Yes and No. People are inherently distrustful of strangers or people identified as "not one of us". It's one of the driving forces behind wars (the other more powerful force would be ambition). It has consistently been used throughout history to manipulate populaces to one side or another.
However, selection pressure need not be equated to homicide. Natural selection also has a more passive method, offspring. People who are deemed to be "outsiders" have a much more difficult time finding mates. There are quite a few examples in the animal kingdom. Antisocial behavior is rarely rewarded.
Again, I'm not passing judgement on whether the ability actually exists, but it's far less constructive to say "it doesn't" and leave the conversation there. We have no evidence to support or irrefutably discredit the idea at present.
Dvorak just needs to admit he was beaten (and a cheapskate), and pay the neighbor kid $20 to fix up his CSS for him. Gramps is getting too old for this "tech" thing.
The stigma of "unnatural" knowledge has been actively pushed out of mainstream civilizations for the past thousand years or so. But some civilizations of old (think of Greece and the Oracle at Delphi), would have honored such telepaths (if a telepath ever existed). If telepathic ability has any genetic roots, it therefore seems likely that natural selection has exterminated (or has dramatically reduced) true telepathic ability throughout the world.
Most societies have ostracized people who have "unnatural" knowledge. As such, any telepaths that survive to today most likely keep a low profile or discount their gift as luck, good insight, or ignore it all together. In addition any telepathic ability that exists in today's world is probably weak or negligible at best due to the inherent natural selection that has occurred over the past few centuries.
So while I find it credible that telepathic ability could exist in a human (and would most likely have a genetic component), I find it unlikely that few (if any) individuals today would posess such an ability. If a scientist were to try to hunt down true telepathic ability, he or she would need to find a civilization or culture that:
A. Has existed for the past 1000 years or so *AND*
B. Has defied human nature by embracing people who display unnatural knowledge instead of ostracizing them
Failing to meet those conditions, you're stuck deriving tests for a multitude of individuals who (in all probability) have little or no telepathic ability due to genetic natural selection over the past few centuries. If telepathic ability ever did exist and currently does not, short of breeding individuals based on trace hints of telepathic ability, the only other way to find a true telepath would be to stumble upon a person who is the descendent of a long history of people who have kept quiet or ignorant about their ability. Considering how unlikely this last scenario is (from a scientific perspective) I'd give any study actively attempting to discover telepathic ability the same odds as hitting a bullseye while blindfolded, a mile away from the target, and pointed in the wrong direction.
Although my legal knowledge is limited, I seem to remember a case from my college years that it was found to be "fair use" for a student to transcribe and publish a teacher's lecture (spoken words) for the web, but it was illegal to copy-paste any printed notes he had provided. (He was quite miffed at this revelation, if I remember.)
The video is very cool, and the first thought that went through my head is "I wonder how much NASA would charge if that were an amusement ride?" There's a T-shirt or two to be sold and worn in this adventure that reads "I fell from outer space!", "Yes mom, I am an alien!", or "I blew chunks at 5 miles up!"
This proposal sounds eerily like what the book 1984 referred to as Newspeak. Basically a reduction of the number of spellings and words used in the language. The goal of the process was to slowly but surely reduce the chances of dissenting thought by elminating the words that promote critical thinking and opposing viewpoints. In one part one of the characters brags that the new version has dramatically reduced the verbal set by eliminating negative words like "bad" and replacing it with prefixed words like "ungood".
We've already taken enough steps towards that possible future, thank you kindly. Besides, what the heck would poetry sound like in this new lexicon? It's like telling an artist he or she can only use primary colors because "beige", "periwinkle" and "mauve" are too illustrative. No thanks.