How would you be better off if everything and anything you want is obtained by simply asking a robot for it and it will be provided for free? Anyone can do that.
End of century ought to see so much robotization that we will live like the ancient Romans, with slaves to do all the real work, and for us those slaves will be robots. We program them to to do what they're told, they mine the minerals and build the machines to give us clean energy, transport us wherever we want to go, build gadgets to keep us from having to weed the garden in case we want to do it ourselves rather than letting personal robots grow food, etc. Nobody has to pay a robot because it too is served by other robots that supply its needs, and so forth. There will be no reason to study anything because the robots will be conducting the science and exploration, all we have to do is whatever we find pleasurable.
We should last about as long as the Krell that way.
I just saw 2001 in IMAX a couple weeks ago, and there's no way you're going to duplicate that at home. The sound was awesome, the image filled my peripheral vision, and it was just an incredible experience. Again. Same inscrutable mad computer, same unknowable ending. But... if you try to duplicate that sound at home, you're going to have your neighbors complaining about the "noise" for 3 doors down the block in each direction, assuming you can get the audio gear to do it anyway. I don't think my Pioneer early-90's 125 watts / channel driving the Cerwin Vega CE-3A's would come close to what I heard in the theater. No way I could get a screen big enough into the house.
The destruction of the internet has commenced with the censorship of certain political views and other information deemed too dangerous to allow the unwashed masses to see. Some of these things are known as "hate speech" and then there are the supposed dangerous things like data files that can be used to build an "undetectable" plastic gun. None of these things should be censored either by the government or the private enterprises that are doing it. But it is being done, it will probably grow in commonality, and in 10 - 20 years there will likely be no real political discussion on the net, nor the sorts of things "dangerous" that you see now. There are detailed videos on Youtube for making TATP, triacetone triperoxide, the terrorist's favorite explosive. The stuff is so unstable that you don't want to look at it funny or it will blow up. We had a female EOD Army member that picked up a terrorist's device made of TATP, didn't know what it was, and accidentally dropped it. It blew off both her arms. Should the making of such a thing be banned? One would think maybe, but there are so many other ways to commit mayhem it seems futile. The very familiar gasoline can be made to blow up and it is universally available. Should something's ability to be dangerous allow it to be banned? Such banning will, as it always does, work to the advantage of the powerful and lead more easily to the sort of slavery and genocide that some groups commit mostly out of fear of the other. No one can control fear, it is there and we have to deal with it, and courage sometimes runs short, and then terrible things can happen. Should the oppressed have this information to fight back with? I think yes. So, I am against banning any information or opinion on the internet.
That's a fantasy. Real good guys ignore such people. Its the bad guys that are always concerned with "respect" and take offense at the slightest perceived insult. That's what makes them bad guys.
So maybe you'd rather he firebombed the place - just a little gasoline, maybe a liquor bottle and a rag and a match. So much better than shooting them? There's 1000's of ways to kill a lot of people if you want to - those two immigrant pukes in Boston made pressure cooker bombs from the gunpowder from fireworks. Too simple. Guns are just easier, but you don't need one to do murder, you only need them to prevent murder. The victim's only chance is usually a gun, since other things that can stop the attack are usually too big or too expensive or too heavy to be carrying around. The victim needs something light, small, and portable to be able to retrieve it and stop an attack.
I don't know about less National press. I lived the 60's too, and the press was actually presses, and made newspapers, and people actually read 'em. Chet and David, as well as Walter, were on the tube every night of at least the weekdays, and people actually tuned them. I believe the mass shooting of the decade was the Texas Tower incident, and not coincidentally, it was an armed citizen and a cop together that sneaked up there and stopped the shooter. That had lots of coverage, and was very unusual at the time. It wouldn't be all that unusual today, so I don't agree. I think its mostly the gun control laws that are enabling these shootings.
NK & Iran could be quite capable of killing the whole USA, 90% of the population, with 1 nuke exploded over the center of the country 300 miles high. Its called an EMP attack - readers of this forum should be knowledgeable enough about science to know how that works. So... yeah... we're going to tell them they can't have nukes because they are batshit crazy enough to try that. The Russians were at least rational and not religious fuckwads that didn't care if we destroyed their entire country in retaliation, they cared. The religious nutjobs and the totally insane assholes in NK maybe not so much. We can't take that chance, so we need to remove the nukes from them, even if we have to invade to do it. Diplomacy would be a much better way, but either way, the nukes must go.
The reason they show up after the fact is that there are so few of them, armed good guys, that is, and they have to come from a distance, usually, since the scene of the mass shooting is almost always a "gun free zones" where good guys don't bring their guns, only bad guys have guns in gun free zones. The shooting of congressperson Gabby Giffords is one of the very few recent mass shootings that wasn't in a gun free zone, and then there still wasn't anyone there except the shooter that had a gun, still because of all the gun control laws and the failed idea that it's a good thing not to carry a gun. Its not. People who are capable to carry a gun should carry a gun, to protect themselves and others. It should be a civic duty for people to carry a gun to prevent these mass shootings if nothing else.
"I hope so too because people don't have guns pointed at everyone all the time, so abject helplessness when someone with a gun approaches is pretty much the status quo. Yes, perhaps one person with a gun will draw, old west style, and gun them down after shooting a few people. The reality, though, is less guns tends to mean less guns drawn on people who are inherently helpless, armed or not."
No, they don't draw "old west style", facing each other at high noon on main street. They draw like, 'this guy was shooting everyone, and I was behind him so I drew my gun and blew his brains out before he could turn around and shoot me.' There's no "code of the west" when someone starts shooting everyone, there is only survival and protecting the innocent. If all the good guys have guns, the bad guy gets outnumbered 50 or 100 to one and is cut down in the 1st 10 seconds of his rampage, and become 1 of th 2 or 3 victims, rather than 10 - 20 victims.
All these mass shootings are happening in "gun free zones." We are apparently slow learners that it is the gun free zones that enable these things.
No, gun control laws were from the 60's, after Kennedy was shot. That's what started it. The gun control laws are enabling these shootings, because the good guys are disarmed and the criminals continue to do as they please as they always have, regardless of laws, and some of them are pleased to carry a gun and shoot up someplace whenever they please.
The cure is to repeal all the gun control laws that prevent the good guys, and only the good guys, from having guns. A shooter that opens up on a video game contest or a school or any other place would be outnumbered about 50 or 100 to one by good guys shooting back, and he'd be killed in the 1st 10 seconds of his attack. The mass shooting would be reduced to a 1 or 2 dead shooting, with one of them being the shooter.
Getting rid of all the guns historically has always been followed by genocide and slavery. Wounded Knee was all about collecting up the guns, and the Jim Crow laws disarming blacks was followed by carefree lynchings by the KKK sometimes even attended by the Sheriff or police chief. Lexington and Concorde was about collecting up colonists' guns, but colonists were too smart to let that happen, and fired upon the redcoats.
Oh, and these mass shootings? Its absolutely hilarious when some pinhead newsperson wails, "We didn't have all these mass shootings back in the 60's, and now we've got all these gun control laws and mass shootings all over the place. What changed?" Well, duh, the gun control laws is what changed. Gun control laws disarm the good guys, don't affect the bad guys, so eventually you get to where we are today, with the shooter being the only one at the scene with a gun until the police get there.
Want to fix it? Repeal all the gun control laws. All of 'em. All 25,000+ of them. Just repeal them and let the good guys do what they want with respect to having firearms. Note that it will completely not affect the criminal community because they are and have always been doing what they please anyway. The only thing that will change is that mass shooters like this asshole will be outnumbered by maybe 50 or 100 to one, and get cut down in the 1st 10 seconds of their shooting rampage. Death toll will be 1 or 2, including the shooter. That's how to fix this.
I bought an annual plan last March. I see a LOT of movies. Made my money back in about 6 weeks. Have dramatically exceeded my investment in subsequent savings. If I still get 3 movies a month, I'll STILL make $$$ compared to not having it, since I will for-sure see those 3 movies - I see 3 - 5 movies a week depending on new availability and whether I want to see a particularly good movie a 2nd or more times. OK, I'm retired and have the time, and I'm ancient and get the senior price. But even under the new terms, I'm better off with it that without it.
Probably re-up for a year when the current subscription runs out, if they indeed have an annual plan by that time, which I guess was implied by some of the postings here that they won't, although I didn't get that out of the email I read. Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough. But anyway, I'd like to see them get their act together on this seemingly impossible task and actually deliver something close to what they said they were shooting for. I'm betting I'll save some $$$.
Fine, there's nothing you can do about corruption, but what we don't need is a bunch of f'n Russian techs in Moscow screwing with the elections by attacking electronics.
Good grief, will we never learn? To make it truly unhackable, you use paper ballots, get about 50 people into the room, and count the damned ballots by eyeball. Not that hard.
If only... Electricity would really knock down the fuel costs, and other things like oil changes and timing belt changes and spark plug changes ($400 for a Subaru WRX) so bring on the electrics, the sooner the better.
Also, lets not forget about the other pollutions of internal combustion engines, such as oxides of nitrogen, waste lubricating oil, waste heat, evaporative emissions of the fuel that occurs any time the fuel is exposed to the atmosphere, etc. Those things don't occur when using electric motors.
Carbon neutral? No, we need carbon-free. No more emitting. Otherwise there's the thing about moving that fuel around via trucks and railroads, burning it at maybe 20% efficiency of an internal combustion engine, when we could be electirfying and moving the fuel with about 90% efficiency via the power grid, charging batteries at about 90% efficiency, and using it at better than 90% efficiency in electric motors. We need to stop with the internal combustion engines.
I make a lot more than 2 trips a year, and need _my_ car because it is fast and quick and outfitted with certain modifications that facilitate what I do. Having _my_ car means a competitive advantage in the sport I use it in. And of course the rest of the time I have my non-electric car to go get the groceries, go to the movies (am writing this in the movie theater parking lot after seeing a movie), going to the gym (later today), and so forth. If I could have yet a 3rd car (also have a Jeep for a few other purposes) I'd have an electric, but damn, I can't afford 3 cars. Its a financial thing, y'know?
Slashdot Mirror
How would you be better off if everything and anything you want is obtained by simply asking a robot for it and it will be provided for free? Anyone can do that.
End of century ought to see so much robotization that we will live like the ancient Romans, with slaves to do all the real work, and for us those slaves will be robots. We program them to to do what they're told, they mine the minerals and build the machines to give us clean energy, transport us wherever we want to go, build gadgets to keep us from having to weed the garden in case we want to do it ourselves rather than letting personal robots grow food, etc. Nobody has to pay a robot because it too is served by other robots that supply its needs, and so forth. There will be no reason to study anything because the robots will be conducting the science and exploration, all we have to do is whatever we find pleasurable.
We should last about as long as the Krell that way.
I just saw 2001 in IMAX a couple weeks ago, and there's no way you're going to duplicate that at home. The sound was awesome, the image filled my peripheral vision, and it was just an incredible experience. Again. Same inscrutable mad computer, same unknowable ending. But... if you try to duplicate that sound at home, you're going to have your neighbors complaining about the "noise" for 3 doors down the block in each direction, assuming you can get the audio gear to do it anyway. I don't think my Pioneer early-90's 125 watts / channel driving the Cerwin Vega CE-3A's would come close to what I heard in the theater. No way I could get a screen big enough into the house.
IMAX at home is just not going to happen.
The destruction of the internet has commenced with the censorship of certain political views and other information deemed too dangerous to allow the unwashed masses to see. Some of these things are known as "hate speech" and then there are the supposed dangerous things like data files that can be used to build an "undetectable" plastic gun. None of these things should be censored either by the government or the private enterprises that are doing it. But it is being done, it will probably grow in commonality, and in 10 - 20 years there will likely be no real political discussion on the net, nor the sorts of things "dangerous" that you see now. There are detailed videos on Youtube for making TATP, triacetone triperoxide, the terrorist's favorite explosive. The stuff is so unstable that you don't want to look at it funny or it will blow up. We had a female EOD Army member that picked up a terrorist's device made of TATP, didn't know what it was, and accidentally dropped it. It blew off both her arms. Should the making of such a thing be banned? One would think maybe, but there are so many other ways to commit mayhem it seems futile. The very familiar gasoline can be made to blow up and it is universally available. Should something's ability to be dangerous allow it to be banned? Such banning will, as it always does, work to the advantage of the powerful and lead more easily to the sort of slavery and genocide that some groups commit mostly out of fear of the other. No one can control fear, it is there and we have to deal with it, and courage sometimes runs short, and then terrible things can happen. Should the oppressed have this information to fight back with? I think yes. So, I am against banning any information or opinion on the internet.
Well, yeah, they expanded greatly in the 60's, that's what I meant. Before that, they mostly only applied to blacks.
Alternative -> Shared Misery.
That's a fantasy. Real good guys ignore such people. Its the bad guys that are always concerned with "respect" and take offense at the slightest perceived insult. That's what makes them bad guys.
So maybe you'd rather he firebombed the place - just a little gasoline, maybe a liquor bottle and a rag and a match. So much better than shooting them? There's 1000's of ways to kill a lot of people if you want to - those two immigrant pukes in Boston made pressure cooker bombs from the gunpowder from fireworks. Too simple. Guns are just easier, but you don't need one to do murder, you only need them to prevent murder. The victim's only chance is usually a gun, since other things that can stop the attack are usually too big or too expensive or too heavy to be carrying around. The victim needs something light, small, and portable to be able to retrieve it and stop an attack.
I don't know about less National press. I lived the 60's too, and the press was actually presses, and made newspapers, and people actually read 'em. Chet and David, as well as Walter, were on the tube every night of at least the weekdays, and people actually tuned them. I believe the mass shooting of the decade was the Texas Tower incident, and not coincidentally, it was an armed citizen and a cop together that sneaked up there and stopped the shooter. That had lots of coverage, and was very unusual at the time. It wouldn't be all that unusual today, so I don't agree. I think its mostly the gun control laws that are enabling these shootings.
NK & Iran could be quite capable of killing the whole USA, 90% of the population, with 1 nuke exploded over the center of the country 300 miles high. Its called an EMP attack - readers of this forum should be knowledgeable enough about science to know how that works. So... yeah... we're going to tell them they can't have nukes because they are batshit crazy enough to try that. The Russians were at least rational and not religious fuckwads that didn't care if we destroyed their entire country in retaliation, they cared. The religious nutjobs and the totally insane assholes in NK maybe not so much. We can't take that chance, so we need to remove the nukes from them, even if we have to invade to do it. Diplomacy would be a much better way, but either way, the nukes must go.
Most of us are good guys. We outnumber bad guys 50 to one, easily.
The reason they show up after the fact is that there are so few of them, armed good guys, that is, and they have to come from a distance, usually, since the scene of the mass shooting is almost always a "gun free zones" where good guys don't bring their guns, only bad guys have guns in gun free zones. The shooting of congressperson Gabby Giffords is one of the very few recent mass shootings that wasn't in a gun free zone, and then there still wasn't anyone there except the shooter that had a gun, still because of all the gun control laws and the failed idea that it's a good thing not to carry a gun. Its not. People who are capable to carry a gun should carry a gun, to protect themselves and others. It should be a civic duty for people to carry a gun to prevent these mass shootings if nothing else.
"I hope so too because people don't have guns pointed at everyone all the time, so abject helplessness when someone with a gun approaches is pretty much the status quo. Yes, perhaps one person with a gun will draw, old west style, and gun them down after shooting a few people. The reality, though, is less guns tends to mean less guns drawn on people who are inherently helpless, armed or not."
No, they don't draw "old west style", facing each other at high noon on main street. They draw like, 'this guy was shooting everyone, and I was behind him so I drew my gun and blew his brains out before he could turn around and shoot me.' There's no "code of the west" when someone starts shooting everyone, there is only survival and protecting the innocent. If all the good guys have guns, the bad guy gets outnumbered 50 or 100 to one and is cut down in the 1st 10 seconds of his rampage, and become 1 of th 2 or 3 victims, rather than 10 - 20 victims.
All these mass shootings are happening in "gun free zones." We are apparently slow learners that it is the gun free zones that enable these things.
We have more people - 320 million or more, so there's more of everything that is people-related.
No, gun control laws were from the 60's, after Kennedy was shot. That's what started it. The gun control laws are enabling these shootings, because the good guys are disarmed and the criminals continue to do as they please as they always have, regardless of laws, and some of them are pleased to carry a gun and shoot up someplace whenever they please.
The cure is to repeal all the gun control laws that prevent the good guys, and only the good guys, from having guns. A shooter that opens up on a video game contest or a school or any other place would be outnumbered about 50 or 100 to one by good guys shooting back, and he'd be killed in the 1st 10 seconds of his attack. The mass shooting would be reduced to a 1 or 2 dead shooting, with one of them being the shooter.
Getting rid of all the guns historically has always been followed by genocide and slavery. Wounded Knee was all about collecting up the guns, and the Jim Crow laws disarming blacks was followed by carefree lynchings by the KKK sometimes even attended by the Sheriff or police chief. Lexington and Concorde was about collecting up colonists' guns, but colonists were too smart to let that happen, and fired upon the redcoats.
Oh, and these mass shootings? Its absolutely hilarious when some pinhead newsperson wails, "We didn't have all these mass shootings back in the 60's, and now we've got all these gun control laws and mass shootings all over the place. What changed?" Well, duh, the gun control laws is what changed. Gun control laws disarm the good guys, don't affect the bad guys, so eventually you get to where we are today, with the shooter being the only one at the scene with a gun until the police get there.
Want to fix it? Repeal all the gun control laws. All of 'em. All 25,000+ of them. Just repeal them and let the good guys do what they want with respect to having firearms. Note that it will completely not affect the criminal community because they are and have always been doing what they please anyway. The only thing that will change is that mass shooters like this asshole will be outnumbered by maybe 50 or 100 to one, and get cut down in the 1st 10 seconds of their shooting rampage. Death toll will be 1 or 2, including the shooter. That's how to fix this.
I bought an annual plan last March. I see a LOT of movies. Made my money back in about 6 weeks. Have dramatically exceeded my investment in subsequent savings. If I still get 3 movies a month, I'll STILL make $$$ compared to not having it, since I will for-sure see those 3 movies - I see 3 - 5 movies a week depending on new availability and whether I want to see a particularly good movie a 2nd or more times. OK, I'm retired and have the time, and I'm ancient and get the senior price. But even under the new terms, I'm better off with it that without it.
Probably re-up for a year when the current subscription runs out, if they indeed have an annual plan by that time, which I guess was implied by some of the postings here that they won't, although I didn't get that out of the email I read. Maybe I didn't read it carefully enough. But anyway, I'd like to see them get their act together on this seemingly impossible task and actually deliver something close to what they said they were shooting for. I'm betting I'll save some $$$.
Fine, there's nothing you can do about corruption, but what we don't need is a bunch of f'n Russian techs in Moscow screwing with the elections by attacking electronics.
Good grief, will we never learn? To make it truly unhackable, you use paper ballots, get about 50 people into the room, and count the damned ballots by eyeball. Not that hard.
...to use the same phone I have now until the sun burns out...
If only... Electricity would really knock down the fuel costs, and other things like oil changes and timing belt changes and spark plug changes ($400 for a Subaru WRX) so bring on the electrics, the sooner the better.
Also, lets not forget about the other pollutions of internal combustion engines, such as oxides of nitrogen, waste lubricating oil, waste heat, evaporative emissions of the fuel that occurs any time the fuel is exposed to the atmosphere, etc. Those things don't occur when using electric motors.
I think it better that nothing emits.
Carbon neutral? No, we need carbon-free. No more emitting. Otherwise there's the thing about moving that fuel around via trucks and railroads, burning it at maybe 20% efficiency of an internal combustion engine, when we could be electirfying and moving the fuel with about 90% efficiency via the power grid, charging batteries at about 90% efficiency, and using it at better than 90% efficiency in electric motors. We need to stop with the internal combustion engines.
I make a lot more than 2 trips a year, and need _my_ car because it is fast and quick and outfitted with certain modifications that facilitate what I do. Having _my_ car means a competitive advantage in the sport I use it in. And of course the rest of the time I have my non-electric car to go get the groceries, go to the movies (am writing this in the movie theater parking lot after seeing a movie), going to the gym (later today), and so forth. If I could have yet a 3rd car (also have a Jeep for a few other purposes) I'd have an electric, but damn, I can't afford 3 cars. Its a financial thing, y'know?