Why mod this funny? It's insightful!
Granted, as soon as you poke a camera out of the field it isn't 100% invisible, it's only 99.99% (or more) invisible. Still that's pretty damn good, do you know how hard it would be to notice a tiny dot floating around in space?
Evolution is outdated, go with the times! We're now in Godmode.
Evolution requires the absence of a "God". Because said God could pick and choose who gets to survive arbitrarily and who does not. Before this gets modded offtopic for being an Evolution vs. creation debate, it's not. Hear me out.
The "God" in this case is us. Evolution would have killed people who have medical conditions that make them die before they can have offspring. It could be something as simple as diabetes. But we found ways to make those people survive. This could be seen as humane or as playing God. Your choice. In either way, from a purely evolutionary point of view, it is putting a burden on the rest of the "healthy" people to give the "sick" ones a chance to survive. But it's the civilized thing to do. We are no longer dependent on evolution.
When you apply the same logics to economy, the politician who installs laws that prop up failing businesses is "God". He creates artificial systems that keep a business which would fail under the "evolutionary" laws of free market alive. At the expense of all the "healthy" businesses, of course, since someone has to foot the bill.
It's like playing an economy simulation and trying hard to keep one of your failing businesses propped up for some reason. Because you like it, because it was your first, for whatever reason. But it is a constant drain of your money because all the other businesses you run have to fund it. You could use those funds to improve the businesses that do well, eventually netting you more money (and jobs, if that is part of the economy sim), but you don't. In general, it usually means that you will fail.
Let's see how our "Gods" fare in their sim. Problem is, there's no save game option.
Heh, my brain parsed that as "Where possible, it's seen as safer for the patient to use only lolcats".
Ah, my favorite line from the MuppetVision 3D show:
Fozzie Bear: Did you say "cheap 3D tricks"?
If a type system creates more problems than it is worth, you can certainly use a crash and burn development methodology with a dynamically typed language. Mostly though, the trend in dynamic languages is to add type annotations, not take them away.
Sufficiently large systems (Google: "programming in the large") are rarely developed in unannotated dynamic languages because they are simply too fragile - too many errors cannot be caught before deployment. If it was a net loss, nobody would write programs in statically typed languages, ever.
I agree that the DMCA is wrong, but if it won't go away, then abusing it (including using it negligently) needs to carry a lot more risk than it does now.
A good start for a copyright reform would be a rollback. Copyright of everything created to date is rolled back to expire when it would have expired under the law as it was at the time of creation. While I'm sure many would complain bitterly, they wouldn't actually have much to hang their complaints on legally or philosophically. They will have exactly the boon that was to encourage the creation of the work in the first place. Their only "loss" would be the ill gotten gains from bribed lawmakers.
The rest can come from there.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey
