Not wanting to extend your lifespan is an obfuscated form of suicide. When you argue that it would be bad for people generally to live longer you are forcing that on to other people, an obfuscated form of murder.
My choice of words were harsh. But people in their 80s are often pretty brave, they've seen a lot of shit and lived through a lot. Often old people wouldn't be that effected by their peers thoughts (comparatively).
I think the fact that a poor game can be so popular is the fact that they are targeting addicted social network users. That is like saying you can sell games and apps for more on an iphone... duhhh. It is all about the user base. I bet you could shoot fish in a barrel too...
It is stored as part of your google maps account... That seems obvious and seems to make sense. They advertise that you can set paths w/e on your computer then just go, they'll be available on your phone. It also doesn't matter if you break your phone and get a new one, nothing breaks.
Oh noes Google is saving information about me that I told it to. I don't think you are afraid of Google, you are afraid of 'the cloud'. Online services store your shit online zomg. Not shocking. ~_~ Not even surprising.
Hah, that's fucking stupid (no offense). You are talking about people that don't have a choice in the matter, you are talking about acceptance. You are talking about a brave face in front of family. You are talking about a lifetime of preparing for this eventuality.
If there were a pill that extended their life 10years and increased the quality of life. They'd be fucking horrified of not having that pill. Proof? If they really wanted to die they wouldn't be such pussies about it (srsly, old people are not pussies), and they'd end it themselves. Old people have tons of drugs they could do themselves in with in their sleep.
You are assuming a 95yrs old extensions. That doesn't have to be the case, might be that 35yrs lasts 5yrs more. I understand that it is easier to deal with death by saying it was his time. Or that he lived a full life. But people in the 1500s said 'he lived a full life' to people dying in their 20s (in the bronze age, a mere 15 yrs old). So our definition of a full life is pretty damn flexible.
What you are experiencing isn't rational, it is a rationalization, a way of handling with death. Don't use it to make decisions for the future please.
Do try and remember economic leaders are human beings. I don't think many of them would feel as you laid out. They will probably have irrational fear of new technology like any good luddite. But it is doubtful they'd conspire against us, especially when it would mean shortening their own lifespans and their children's. Once the cat isout of the bag they have no reasonable means of keeping it too expensive.
The Hydrogen and Helium atoms, predate all 3... by a fair bit. Though I imagine it is our of patent/copyright by now unless the US laws get realllllly screwed up in the near future.
Who says? I imagine with certain atoms you could include the functionality of multiple transistors in one atom. Or use smaller atoms. We are getting closer though:p
Ah, every headline I saw said hacker so I assumed... to assume is to make and ass... yeahyeah.
The distinction would be publicly available vs secret. Anyways it is just semantics. I'm happy to give up that point to you. Feel free to change steal to copy.
-No using political pull to get a paper rejected merely because you disagree with its conclusion.
They didnt... he just bitched and said he wanted to.
-Allowing anyone to inspect the data and methods so as to reproduce your calculations and inferences.
Raw data has been released now from most sources publicly. Methods are being more commonly released to the public but these were ALWAYS shared during peer reviews anyways or omitted...
-Seriously considering disconfirmatory data presented by other scientists, and its implications for your preferred hypothesis, rather than regarding it as a "way around" your exclusionary tactics that you have to "redefine out of the peer-reviewed literature".
That is truly up to the individual, hard to enforce. And something these people didn't follow.
-No "adjusting" your data to deliberately match the "top dog's" data and then calling your data set independent.
Agreed. Their algorithm was pretty lame, though I bet it was more out of stupidity and laziness than conspiracy.
But peer review caught these issues... Papers weren't rejected and were infact mentioned and discussed in the ipcc report. Peer reviewers obviously get access to their data, the issue was that the public didn't and that they picked and chose who to share it with for peer reviewing. And though they were stupid and edited their data sets, those didn't make it to peer review, if they did they'd have been blown away as they fail to be reproducible based on the data given, without a failed algorithm.
What good would come from having an invisible brain? I mean I don't show off my brain in everyday life. Really, I'd be quite concerned for my health if anyone to see my brain.
Also, bad to double reply I know but... Google has a play button so you can hear the word.. in fact, it has a male UK speaker and female US speaker to work out dialects (for ginormous at least). And it has the gibberish known as pronunciation keys.
The complaints about the laws such as the kyoto protocol were that they let 3rd world/developing countries grow..... That is the main stated reason for the US not joining (only country on the planet that didn't). So I'm pretty sure you got that wrong.... Unless agreements change radically it does not stand to help big countries/hurt small ones. If it did then why are most 3rd world countries ok with the deals, or simply left out? Doesn't make any sense.
Information is ALWAYS this way... perhaps more so when politically charged. But it is never good to assume. The best you can do is pick people you trust that are informed people since you can't possibly inform yourself on every wing of science. Then let your reps duke it out with others. It is like a sort of.... free choice democratic system where your vote only matters to you.
Credentials for hacker involves electronic breaking and entering. Whistle-blowers had access to the data to begin with. If I heard of a bank scandal, broke into the bank, snuck into their vault and took pictures, then exposed them. I'd be a hero, I'd also be going to jail.
And stealing because it wasn't freely given. Like if I copied the US militaries designs for a missile... if I had to sneak into a compound to do so it'd likely be stealing blueprints. If I knew a guy that owned 1980's military jeep and copied it, it would be copied.
Not totally on topic but... discovery, newscientist, and nature all make it into my science RSS feeds. Was wondering if you had a list of other renowned science journals I can get online of the same caliber. Discovery feels like it is aimed at children I know, it is the least read of the 3. And newscientist does make some stupid statements on occasion, but they have a love for science reminiscent of carl sagan which is something I admire.
Slashdot Mirror
Not wanting to extend your lifespan is an obfuscated form of suicide. When you argue that it would be bad for people generally to live longer you are forcing that on to other people, an obfuscated form of murder.
My choice of words were harsh. But people in their 80s are often pretty brave, they've seen a lot of shit and lived through a lot. Often old people wouldn't be that effected by their peers thoughts (comparatively).
I think the fact that a poor game can be so popular is the fact that they are targeting addicted social network users. That is like saying you can sell games and apps for more on an iphone... duhhh. It is all about the user base. I bet you could shoot fish in a barrel too...
It is stored as part of your google maps account... That seems obvious and seems to make sense. They advertise that you can set paths w/e on your computer then just go, they'll be available on your phone. It also doesn't matter if you break your phone and get a new one, nothing breaks.
Oh noes Google is saving information about me that I told it to. I don't think you are afraid of Google, you are afraid of 'the cloud'. Online services store your shit online zomg. Not shocking. ~_~ Not even surprising.
Emo from the repubicans calling them names clearly they are cutting themselves.
"I'm ready to go, I'm tired, I've had enough"
Hah, that's fucking stupid (no offense). You are talking about people that don't have a choice in the matter, you are talking about acceptance. You are talking about a brave face in front of family. You are talking about a lifetime of preparing for this eventuality.
If there were a pill that extended their life 10years and increased the quality of life. They'd be fucking horrified of not having that pill. Proof? If they really wanted to die they wouldn't be such pussies about it (srsly, old people are not pussies), and they'd end it themselves. Old people have tons of drugs they could do themselves in with in their sleep.
You are assuming a 95yrs old extensions. That doesn't have to be the case, might be that 35yrs lasts 5yrs more. I understand that it is easier to deal with death by saying it was his time. Or that he lived a full life. But people in the 1500s said 'he lived a full life' to people dying in their 20s (in the bronze age, a mere 15 yrs old). So our definition of a full life is pretty damn flexible.
What you are experiencing isn't rational, it is a rationalization, a way of handling with death. Don't use it to make decisions for the future please.
Do try and remember economic leaders are human beings. I don't think many of them would feel as you laid out. They will probably have irrational fear of new technology like any good luddite. But it is doubtful they'd conspire against us, especially when it would mean shortening their own lifespans and their children's. Once the cat isout of the bag they have no reasonable means of keeping it too expensive.
The Hydrogen and Helium atoms, predate all 3... by a fair bit. Though I imagine it is our of patent/copyright by now unless the US laws get realllllly screwed up in the near future.
Who says? I imagine with certain atoms you could include the functionality of multiple transistors in one atom. Or use smaller atoms. We are getting closer though :p
MIT is a school in the US btw. Err and the US is the United States of America... it's a country.
Ah, every headline I saw said hacker so I assumed... to assume is to make and ass... yeahyeah.
The distinction would be publicly available vs secret. Anyways it is just semantics. I'm happy to give up that point to you. Feel free to change steal to copy.
-No using political pull to get a paper rejected merely because you disagree with its conclusion.
They didnt... he just bitched and said he wanted to.
-Allowing anyone to inspect the data and methods so as to reproduce your calculations and inferences.
Raw data has been released now from most sources publicly. Methods are being more commonly released to the public but these were ALWAYS shared during peer reviews anyways or omitted...
-Seriously considering disconfirmatory data presented by other scientists, and its implications for your preferred hypothesis, rather than regarding it as a "way around" your exclusionary tactics that you have to "redefine out of the peer-reviewed literature".
That is truly up to the individual, hard to enforce. And something these people didn't follow.
-No "adjusting" your data to deliberately match the "top dog's" data and then calling your data set independent.
Agreed. Their algorithm was pretty lame, though I bet it was more out of stupidity and laziness than conspiracy.
But peer review caught these issues... Papers weren't rejected and were infact mentioned and discussed in the ipcc report. Peer reviewers obviously get access to their data, the issue was that the public didn't and that they picked and chose who to share it with for peer reviewing. And though they were stupid and edited their data sets, those didn't make it to peer review, if they did they'd have been blown away as they fail to be reproducible based on the data given, without a failed algorithm.
What good would come from having an invisible brain? I mean I don't show off my brain in everyday life. Really, I'd be quite concerned for my health if anyone to see my brain.
Wow.... scrolling past your comment I caught:
"naked" . . . . . . . . . . "Penetrating"
I imagine throwing a stone at something you don't know is there to find it would be quite the feat.
Also, bad to double reply I know but... Google has a play button so you can hear the word.. in fact, it has a male UK speaker and female US speaker to work out dialects (for ginormous at least). And it has the gibberish known as pronunciation keys.
Japanese isn't on the list for me either. Even when I use a proxy so I dunno what's up.
Maybe he is the CEO of answers.com, I'm sure he is "really fucking unhappy" :P
I'll wait to decide in 6months. Hopefully it will be better by then.
The complaints about the laws such as the kyoto protocol were that they let 3rd world/developing countries grow..... That is the main stated reason for the US not joining (only country on the planet that didn't). So I'm pretty sure you got that wrong.... Unless agreements change radically it does not stand to help big countries/hurt small ones. If it did then why are most 3rd world countries ok with the deals, or simply left out? Doesn't make any sense.
Information is ALWAYS this way... perhaps more so when politically charged. But it is never good to assume. The best you can do is pick people you trust that are informed people since you can't possibly inform yourself on every wing of science. Then let your reps duke it out with others. It is like a sort of.... free choice democratic system where your vote only matters to you.
Credentials for hacker involves electronic breaking and entering. Whistle-blowers had access to the data to begin with. If I heard of a bank scandal, broke into the bank, snuck into their vault and took pictures, then exposed them. I'd be a hero, I'd also be going to jail.
And stealing because it wasn't freely given. Like if I copied the US militaries designs for a missile... if I had to sneak into a compound to do so it'd likely be stealing blueprints. If I knew a guy that owned 1980's military jeep and copied it, it would be copied.
Not totally on topic but... discovery, newscientist, and nature all make it into my science RSS feeds. Was wondering if you had a list of other renowned science journals I can get online of the same caliber. Discovery feels like it is aimed at children I know, it is the least read of the 3. And newscientist does make some stupid statements on occasion, but they have a love for science reminiscent of carl sagan which is something I admire.
If you have a better system than peer review do tell.
He's a hacker that stole data duhhh he's going to jail, it is a totally separate matter and proves nothing.
Agreed, I just meant that science generally has a lot to lose. Not that the hours put in proved anything.