Murder rate in the USA is 42.8 per 1,000,000 people (freedom of speech and right to bear arms) Murder rate in the UK 14.0 per 1,000,000 people (freedom of speech) Murder rate in Hong Kong is 5.5 per 1,000,000 people (some limits on freedom)
I'm sure that , in a repressive regime , there is less crime , as people would be to scared to do anything.
Freedom is indeed a game of balance : the more freedom someone has , the less freedom someone else has. Without regulation , the strongest people will have the most freedom , and the rest will have none. Without over-regulation such as China , the government ( the strongest people ) will have the most freedom , and the rest will have none.
Isn't it strange how those 2 extremes are so similar ?
He basically said what i was thinking ( i can't speak for anyone else ) , but i don't say it , because i don't want to modded down. So in a sense , that's a form a self-imposed censorship.
A woman who fights 'like a girl' stereotypically (slapping, hair-pulling, etc.) is not going to be as effective as the masculine approach of attacking with powerful blows, blocking, feigning, etc.
I'm sorry, but why would that not be effective ? Just because it doesn't look powerful from our male perspective , doesn't mean it's not effective.Slapping someone in the face is certainly effective .
In martial arts , i recognize both :
- there are techniques based on speed and agility , with high positions and open hands , which you could see as female - there are techniques which are heavier , full blocks , closed fists , which you could see as male
Well , the first techniques (female ) are considered a higher level form of defense than then second , because it is more effective ( you can avoid an attack , use the attacker's power against him , rather than taking a blow and punching back )
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
The 'everyone dies in the end ' part , sure does happen a lot in some horror movies :
- there are a bunch of people doing stuff - something kills them of one by one - the two last characters fall in love and stay alive.
It happens so often , that usualy , i just start betting on the next character to die , and which two will survive in the end . It's never difficult to guess that though.
If you don't love creating art , you shouldn't become an artist , because you will never be happy. Just like you shouldn't become a sailor if you don't like water.
Well , i never said it was bad , nor that you could ignore peer pressure. This wasn't a rant against Apple , but against peer pressure .
In the case of my post , it proves it pretty good : i got modded -1 , Troll . likely , that wouldn't have been the case , if the topic didn't discuss Mac , but only peer pressure itself.
Peer pressure can lead to self-censorship , and that's a very real danger .
Namely : if Apple would allow me to install apps from other stores , it wouldn't need to be jailbroken. In that case , it could be seen as a feature , even though i wouldn't even call it that : it would just be as it should be.
To use your Autocad example : if i couldn't install AutoCAD on a pc , even though i know it's powerfull enough to run it , would you consider that a feature ?
Sure , for Apple , it's a feature , as it allows them to restrict usage to only their approved apps . But not for the user.
"more attentive modes of thought: contemplation, reflection, introspection, deep reading, and so forth"
Well , i do that a lot . I little to much even ( sometimes it takes me like 15m to respond to a post , just because I'm always rethinking and rephrasing my words ). And i generally don't spend more than 2 hours in a row without internet ( my job requires internet usage , luckily ).
So i agree : the net creates opportunities for both groups :
If you are interested in a subject , and want to know all about it , you can find all information on the internet . And then you can use that information to study the subject further.
If you just want the latest updates on something , you can find that too .
The problem with the analysis might be that a large group of people fit in the second category : they only use the net for quick , shallow information .
You make an excellent point : there's no telling what will happen when you introduce a newly discovered ( and as such , pretty much unknown ) life form into the open sea. However , from past experiences , when we decide to meddle with nature , it usually doesn't end up well for either.
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences (unless they stupidly out themselves, as Manning did). This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of legitimately protected or sensitive information -- indeed, the rule of law -- in a democratic society.
Isn't that the exact point of wikileaks : to make it possible to leak information the world should be aware of , without risk for the whistleblowers. You could say some information should be kept secret ( like military strategies , etc... ) , but if they can be leaked , they will be leaked , and the chances are it's going to be leaked not to the general public , but to someone with less then good intentions.
At least , when it gets leaked to wikileaks , the whole world knows about it , and so the goverment has no choice but to change there plans , and making them more leak-proof , which means it also becomes more difficult for those with bad intentions to get the information.
I think that has more to do with the people themselves than with television or the internet :
When i watch TV , i don't blindly watch it : i choose what i want to watch , and i usually pre-record what i want to watch , so i can see it when i want too . Added advantage is that i can skip the commercials this way.
Even so , given the garbage that's currently on TV , it must have been months since i watched TV.
The internet is different, as there is a lot more information to choose from . That information might not always be correct , but that goes for television as well .
At least on the Internet , you can find both sides of an argument , and as such try to discover the truth/form an opinion on your own . Television just tells you what they want you to believe.
The internet just gives you the options . It's your choice what you do with it.
True , but there are some things that can be tested , like a limited food supply and communication delays. If we can already foresee what problems come out of that , and get good solutions for it , that's one less thing to worry about.
You call it 'enlightened self-interest' , i call it 'altruism' . It's basically the same thing.
It's obvious altruism evolved as a process of evolution ( necessary for the survival of the group , which in turn makes it possible for individuals to survive ) , so it makes sense that some animals are also altruistic .
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers , it claims to seek the answers ( and often finds them ) The key to science is not knowing , and thus researching , trying to find the answer.
Science is not fixed : someone might discover something that totally changes our interpretation of physics as we know it .
If you are looking for one single answer to all your problems , then science won't hand it to you on a silver plater . Neither will true faith . Religion will , but you are just buying an illusion then.
Reading the summary , it says more about atheists/agnostics , then about scientists :
I consider myself an agnostic , and spiritual in a sense as well , but i don't have any problem with faith itself either. I do have a problem, however , with those who abuse faith , to control the people.
Most atheists i know don't hate 'faith' either , they hate organized religion , because of all the abuse .
I'm guessing that those scientists got to the same conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Murder rate in the USA is 42.8 per 1,000,000 people (freedom of speech and right to bear arms)
Murder rate in the UK 14.0 per 1,000,000 people (freedom of speech)
Murder rate in Hong Kong is 5.5 per 1,000,000 people (some limits on freedom)
I'm sure that , in a repressive regime , there is less crime , as people would be to scared to do anything.
Freedom is indeed a game of balance : the more freedom someone has , the less freedom someone else has.
Without regulation , the strongest people will have the most freedom , and the rest will have none.
Without over-regulation such as China , the government ( the strongest people ) will have the most freedom , and the rest will have none.
Isn't it strange how those 2 extremes are so similar ?
Am I the only one who read "Usenix security conference" as "Unisex security conference" ?
Same here.
I think they choose that name on purpose :-)
What about -1 , "Censorship" ?
He basically said what i was thinking ( i can't speak for anyone else ) , but i don't say it , because i don't want to modded down.
So in a sense , that's a form a self-imposed censorship.
A woman who fights 'like a girl' stereotypically (slapping, hair-pulling, etc.) is not going to be as effective as the masculine approach of attacking with powerful blows, blocking, feigning, etc.
I'm sorry, but why would that not be effective ? Just because it doesn't look powerful from our male perspective , doesn't mean it's not effective .Slapping someone in the face is certainly effective .
In martial arts , i recognize both :
- there are techniques based on speed and agility , with high positions and open hands , which you could see as female
- there are techniques which are heavier , full blocks , closed fists , which you could see as male
Well , the first techniques (female ) are considered a higher level form of defense than then second , because it is more effective ( you can avoid an attack , use the attacker's power against him , rather than taking a blow and punching back )
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
I guess it also counts for physics.
The 'everyone dies in the end ' part , sure does happen a lot in some horror movies :
- there are a bunch of people doing stuff
- something kills them of one by one
- the two last characters fall in love and stay alive.
It happens so often , that usualy , i just start betting on the next character to die , and which two will survive in the end . It's never difficult to guess that though.
Then why would you call it an artist ?
If you don't love creating art , you shouldn't become an artist , because you will never be happy.
Just like you shouldn't become a sailor if you don't like water.
Lol , what Belgian invasion ?
Well , i never said it was bad , nor that you could ignore peer pressure.
This wasn't a rant against Apple , but against peer pressure .
In the case of my post , it proves it pretty good : i got modded -1 , Troll . likely , that wouldn't have been the case , if the topic didn't discuss Mac , but only peer pressure itself.
Peer pressure can lead to self-censorship , and that's a very real danger .
Well ,there is a difference :
Namely : if Apple would allow me to install apps from other stores , it wouldn't need to be jailbroken. In that case , it could be seen as a feature , even though i wouldn't even call it that : it would just be as it should be.
To use your Autocad example : if i couldn't install AutoCAD on a pc , even though i know it's powerfull enough to run it , would you consider that a feature ?
Sure , for Apple , it's a feature , as it allows them to restrict usage to only their approved apps . But not for the user.
Don't give them any ideas.
Still, people buy Ipads because it's cool to have them , not necessarily because they need them.
And that is the case for most of Apple's products : they sell because they make their products look cool.
So in that sense Apple does tell them what to do , through peer pressure : if you don't buy an Ipad/other Apple thing , you are not cool .
"more attentive modes of thought: contemplation, reflection, introspection, deep reading, and so forth"
Well , i do that a lot . I little to much even ( sometimes it takes me like 15m to respond to a post , just because I'm always rethinking and rephrasing my words ).
And i generally don't spend more than 2 hours in a row without internet ( my job requires internet usage , luckily ).
So i agree : the net creates opportunities for both groups :
If you are interested in a subject , and want to know all about it , you can find all information on the internet . And then you can use that information to study the subject further.
If you just want the latest updates on something , you can find that too .
The problem with the analysis might be that a large group of people fit in the second category : they only use the net for quick , shallow information .
You make an excellent point : there's no telling what will happen when you introduce a newly discovered ( and as such , pretty much unknown ) life form into the open sea.
However , from past experiences , when we decide to meddle with nature , it usually doesn't end up well for either.
Seriously, I had to read that headline so many times to parse it, I think either I or the submitter is autistic.
Great , now we just need a cure for dyslexia .
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences (unless they stupidly out themselves, as Manning did). This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of legitimately protected or sensitive information -- indeed, the rule of law -- in a democratic society.
Isn't that the exact point of wikileaks : to make it possible to leak information the world should be aware of , without risk for the whistleblowers. ... ) , but if they can be leaked , they will be leaked , and the chances are it's going to be leaked not to the general public , but to someone with less then good intentions.
You could say some information should be kept secret ( like military strategies , etc
At least , when it gets leaked to wikileaks , the whole world knows about it , and so the goverment has no choice but to change there plans , and making them more leak-proof , which means it also becomes more difficult for those with bad intentions to get the information.
I think that has more to do with the people themselves than with television or the internet :
When i watch TV , i don't blindly watch it : i choose what i want to watch , and i usually pre-record what i want to watch , so i can see it when i want too . Added advantage is that i can skip the commercials this way.
Even so , given the garbage that's currently on TV , it must have been months since i watched TV.
The internet is different, as there is a lot more information to choose from . That information might not always be correct , but that goes for television as well .
At least on the Internet , you can find both sides of an argument , and as such try to discover the truth/form an opinion on your own . Television just tells you what they want you to believe.
The internet just gives you the options . It's your choice what you do with it.
True , but there are some things that can be tested , like a limited food supply and communication delays.
If we can already foresee what problems come out of that , and get good solutions for it , that's one less thing to worry about.
I love the double meaning of resistance in this case.
Well , literaly translated : pathos means passion or suffering .
empathy means : in passion / in suffering
pathetic means : subject to feeling, capable of feeling, impassioned
So the origin of the word is indeed very similar.
You call it 'enlightened self-interest' , i call it 'altruism' . It's basically the same thing.
It's obvious altruism evolved as a process of evolution ( necessary for the survival of the group , which in turn makes it possible for individuals to survive ) , so it makes sense that some animals are also altruistic .
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers , it claims to seek the answers ( and often finds them )
The key to science is not knowing , and thus researching , trying to find the answer.
Science is not fixed : someone might discover something that totally changes our interpretation of physics as we know it .
If you are looking for one single answer to all your problems , then science won't hand it to you on a silver plater . Neither will true faith . Religion will , but you are just buying an illusion then.
Reading the summary , it says more about atheists/agnostics , then about scientists :
I consider myself an agnostic , and spiritual in a sense as well , but i don't have any problem with faith itself either.
I do have a problem, however , with those who abuse faith , to control the people.
Most atheists i know don't hate 'faith' either , they hate organized religion , because of all the abuse .
I'm guessing that those scientists got to the same conclusion.
great , now they will ban slashdot.
There are no known delivery methods for them which could anywhere near ensure widespread distribution over the populace.
two words : tap water