This is exactly the reason I am an advocate of a "web license". To post content, you would have to have a basic understanding of what you are actually doing, not one of those misleading "metaphorical understandings" that have become so popular nowadays.
I completely agree with what you said, but I would go farther and say that kids can watch tv and never be exposed to anything that could be considered inappropriate. I was forbidden from watching anything but PBS until I was 11, and I loved it. And don't complain about tv influencing people, I used to watch "Bill Nye" every day, and I still hate nature and believe evolution is a bunch of crap.
If you watch a channel that has really bad propaganda, you have nothing to worry about.
I would never suggest that we don't treat evil people humanely, rather that we redefine what "humane" means depending on the individual. If the person happens to be a serial killer/ child rapist then what is consider "humane" should be much different than what is considered "humane" to a child that stole a cookie out of a cookie jar. What bothers me, it that despite the vague definition of "humane", we always consider it to be a cut and dry issue (I wouldn't do that to someone who was caught speeding, so I wouldn't do that to a rapist). "Humane" is not cut and dry in the law, and people should not simple throw the word around without really analyzing the situation.
I found it interesting that you used the term "human" when referring to people that are supposedly born evil. If these evil people are indeed human, then what defines "humane"? Certainly their actions would not be considered "humane" although they are in fact "human". Nevertheless, we feel compelled to treat them in a "humane manner", the way that we would treat the naturally "good" people.
Perhaps interestingly, a quick search on wikipedia turned up an article on a group concerned with treatment of animals. Truthfully, I view these evil people as worse than animals.
While I agree with the content of the list, I don't really agree with the order. "friendsreunited.com" higher that "google.com"? Give me a break.
Pretty cool that slashdot and wikipedia made the list though.
So they basically put the first law of robotics into their license? It's an interesting concept, though I don't really think that it works for a software license. No use by military is one thing, but how is the software supposed prevent human harm?
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly the reason I am an advocate of a "web license". To post content, you would have to have a basic understanding of what you are actually doing, not one of those misleading "metaphorical understandings" that have become so popular nowadays.
If you watch a channel that has really bad propaganda, you have nothing to worry about.
I would never suggest that we don't treat evil people humanely, rather that we redefine what "humane" means depending on the individual. If the person happens to be a serial killer/ child rapist then what is consider "humane" should be much different than what is considered "humane" to a child that stole a cookie out of a cookie jar. What bothers me, it that despite the vague definition of "humane", we always consider it to be a cut and dry issue (I wouldn't do that to someone who was caught speeding, so I wouldn't do that to a rapist). "Humane" is not cut and dry in the law, and people should not simple throw the word around without really analyzing the situation.
Perhaps interestingly, a quick search on wikipedia turned up an article on a group concerned with treatment of animals. Truthfully, I view these evil people as worse than animals.
Correct, the v200 is the successor to the ti-92 and ti-92+.
PROFIT!!!!!
Now instead of computers taking my job, they're hiring me!
I would RTFA, but it might be risky...
I for one welcome our new voting machine overlords!
Drive into Canada, then fly.
*goes to read about citizendium on wikipedia* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium
I didn't know he was open source...
We distain our current situation, and thus there is hope. The day we really *are* in trouble, is the day that we don't care anymore.
Apparently it's release "mostly" under the Apache License. The "COPYING" file in the download contains license information.
Wow, for a second I thought it was April 1!
I'm sure it happens, though I think that at least the larger botmasters know enough of the tricks to protect themselfs from others.
You could probably argue that Tightpod manufactures protective pods...
While I agree with the content of the list, I don't really agree with the order. "friendsreunited.com" higher that "google.com"? Give me a break. Pretty cool that slashdot and wikipedia made the list though.
So they basically put the first law of robotics into their license? It's an interesting concept, though I don't really think that it works for a software license. No use by military is one thing, but how is the software supposed prevent human harm?
He was joking...
ha ha, noob.
Perhaps Google should blacklist them for attempting to manipulate their search results, albeit not through the usual means but rather the courts.
I find that I actually learn more about the news item if I read what other people have said about it. They're modded "Insightful" for a reason.
Reagan is smiling in his grave.
I was of course refering to the book that the quote came from, obviously the quote is not a title.