This conversation always seems to forget that everyone who is old was young and that everyone who is young will be old. It's in young peoples interests to make sure older people are respected for what they have learned as much as it is in older peoples interests to help make sure younger people can establish careers.
What we should be criticizing is the myopic view of companies that devalue the experiences of older people to exploit the energies of younger people. It robs younger people of the opportunity to access the experiences that made older people's brains more efficient for problem solving - that is what experience is. It not only robs older people of work opportunities, it also robs them of seeing ideas built on and evolved. That denial of perspective is what holds back the evolution of ideas.
If this is true within Google then it renders their motto 'Don't be evil' hypocritical. The denial of wisdom and experience is a recipe for fragility for companies who don't have access to key knowledge at key times required for them to survive. That is why you pay more for experience, the ROI on youth.
In reality ageism is discrimination against anyone subject to the progression of time.
People won't be able to cope with being smarter from a drug because they can't cope with naturally smart people enough in the first place, how will they cope actually *being* smarter?
They think they will be taking a drug to make them smarter (actually: "Not distracted by their *phone long enough to actually get some fucking work done") and trade off their ability to socialize for a perceived benefit that they already have were they to take responsibility for their own education, exercise, sleep and state of mind.
Coupled with the increased ability to recognize what people are thinking through an unwanted enhanced understanding of body language, they will quickly understand that additional I.Q is as much a burden as it is a blessing. Worse still they may become voracious readers for a while and start to know a few things they don't want to know once they become dis-satisfied with the droll drivel that is supposed to be 'entertainment' on TV. For a while they may even get shocked out of their ignorance and question everything while they ruminate on solutions. They will push harder and then need more drug.
They won't exercise or sleep any more than they used to, if they use to, even though their enhanced 'brain' screams at them to do so and they will continue to abuse whatever else it is they abuse that held their intelligence back in the first place.
What is the withdrawal symptom? You become so stupid you can't tie your shoelaces and so apathetic that you become a cognitive burden on society (as if there wasn't enough of that already).
Why? Because they need a drug to make them smarter - that's why.
All humans destroyed
Enter new goal!
the gameplay, that's what I'm really into. And this has some good stuff.
Battlefront has never been disappointing in that regard and the previous 2 versions are still worth getting on a LAN and playing with friends. Hopefully this version of BF will allow the type of gameplay that has been available in the past to continue, instead of forcing you to be online like many games are now.
After all the gameplay has to be good AND it has to be fun to play.
What if justice and truth don't actually benefit society?
That's an interesting question. I think that depends of if you believe it's is supposed to. Law replaced belief systems as ways to maintain reasonable behaviour to build society, like 'I won't kill and eat my neighbour if I am starving' all the way through to 'if you make a contract with someone, it's binding'.
Personally I think it does when it is given the resources to function properly which means it should be malleable enough to adapt and improve to the needs of changing human civilization. I think that the benefit it provides to society is that civility is enforced so that other more constructive things can occur. Justice is the balancing act that settles disputes and truth (via learning as is the case with this) is the 'ah-ha' moment that allows lessons to be learned about things that caused a problem for people to be codified into law to prevent/resolve the problem in the future.
Civil, being the key word, for people often are not, which is why laws were necessary in the first place to build a civilization. I think there are plenty of places around the world where it doesn't function properly so it's possible to experience life without justice or truth.
Overall though I think that societies with high levels of justice and truth in their legal systems have higher standards of living for their participants because corruption, that brings down a society, is minimized.
I'm becoming more convinced that Police are often too lazy to do police work and now reviews of the cases shows evidence procedures stacked in favour of the prosecution. If the Court systems do not have mechanisms to self correct evidence procedures how can there be any trust that policing will lead to outcomes that protect society.
Justice is impossible if the system is not Just.
What *should* happen is a...
complete reform of the way congresscritters are funded to get to sit in congress so that it is truely representative of the people...but fat chance of that.
You act as though he is being punished for violating the rules on airspace. Clearly he is being punished for raising too much awareness about finance reform. The powers that be want to make an example of him before this gets too out of hand. .
Finally some talk about the topic - campaign finance reform. When do we want it, NOW, when will we get it....ummmm.
I miss the old slashdot.
You know, you don't have to use beta.
He might be talking about when there were fewer moron anonymous trolls, I miss that slashdot too!
Every depiction I've seen of it indicates blue. How could all the experts have gotten it wrong all these years?
Doppler shift. All the jokes about it's manhood, if it is or isn't a planet, got it down spectrum.
People will die. It's that simple. It is not safe, it is not known and mars is an environment hostile to human life. For the first people doing this, isolation will be another issue to deal with.
It seems like an unrealistic ambition to attempt a Mars landing without an established space transport infrastructure, in the same way moon landings were attempted. Consequently, IMHO, I think any realistic colonization of Mars will start with humans orbiting it. First in a capsule/ship, then in a space station with repeatable journeys back home. Who knows, it maybe cheaper to just send a space station there in the first place and solve all of the problems of not having a magnetosphere to shield it first.
Once the infrastructure is established isolation will become less of a problem. The biggest problem we have NOW is the will to get human crewed craft out beyond LEO.
He was then inferring that I am a psychotic killer
and where would you find the time?
Yeah, the budgets wasted on such a fruitless endeavour by turning a public health issue of addiction into a crime and policing issue.