We have to give the Russians a bit of leeway here.
First and foremost, this is a country that's only been so called "democratic" for less than 20 yrs.
It's got lots of internal problems to deal with for sure.
Second, they are not thugs, they have been useful when it comes to space duties. Admit it, and get over it.
Yes, they like to be recognized a lot, but that's a sign of immaturity, certainly, they are like children when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world, diplomacy isn't their forte. Do try and remember their origins and put that into context.
Because of that, they like to let people know they have been useful. no big deal.
By the way, the ISS is one initiative where indeed the US is playing with other countries.
For the most part, the US plays its own cards in the space race.
If all the big boys get together and pool their resources, including Russia, the chances of success in reaching the stars is much greater, that's just common sense.
Instead of nationalistic pride, there should be a global effort pride in place.
If the US where to promote that, it would be a step in the right direction.
Ok, first and foremost, we all have a conscience and when it comes to right and wrong, we should use 1) compassion and 2) fairness.
To be fair is hard. Fairness is justice, believe me, it's not easy to be fair and impartial.
Now, as far as rebelling against authority. You are reading much more than I'm writing.
And most of all, I'm not talking about our current society or laws as we have them currently.
Forget what is, right now.
What I'm writing about is about "what should be".
You just can't have people doing as they wish. There is a requirement for structure and order, else it's chaos and free for all, nothing works and it's the law of the jungle. If we are to evolve morally, we must rise above that.. right?.
Society = structure.
Assuming a society's laws are both fair and compassionate, or dare I say, humane.
Maybe some of this is already here in some form in the US and Canada.
Probably what is happening in China isn't all that great either.
But that's not to say that everything in China is wrong.
For example, I believe that if one kills another with intent and purpose, deliberately kills another being and this isn't on accident, but as a planned and committed act, then, this person should be killed too.
Why? because this person took it upon itself to take a person's power of choice (in this case, their very life) into their own hands. I think society has the duty to remove this person permanently.
Is this barbaric? I don't think so. But some would argue to the contrary. Is life sacred? Yes, but not in a religious way, at least to me. It is sacred in that every one of us has something to offer, but when we take it upon ourselves to take away a person's rights and choices, we shouldn't have any of our own. The right to life being the most sacred and most privilieged of rights. I say the punishment should meet the act, when intent is proven.
If someone kills another person by accident, a proven accident, truly, something they couldn't be in controlled with, that's another matter, I don't think there should be retribution.
But you know, the issue now is, proof. How to prove intent without a doubt? how to proof innocence without a doubt..
Those are the mechanics that need to be worked upon, the methods and techniques and technologies that must improve in order to help assist in the search for the real truth.
But in the end, truly, what is right or wrong is a question of degree and circumstances.
Is it wrong to steal? yes, but if you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family, then, really, at least it was done for the right reason.
It is society's duty to avoid these issues. To learn from the mistakes of its people and to adjust accordingly.
Should any member of a society be starving? no.
Should any member not have a place to live? no.
This is where we must define the basic rights of a human. What can a human expect upon birth? in adulthood?
Is it wrong to rebel against authority? well, is the authority being abusive? are it's people denied basic human rights?
The rights we humans have, in the end, should be define based on compassion and fairness.
We have the right of life, we have the right of choice and we have the right of respect.
Why? because it's fair
I'm not saying this is how things are, per say, I'm saying this is how we should aim things to be..
We make life what we wish it to be, that may be an idealistic view, but without ideals, we might as well be animals in the real sense. What makes us human, is we can aspire to be more tomorrow than we are today.
That's why every single member deserves to have real rights in this world.
I'll make this very brief, because this could be a long post, but I'll try and keep it short..
Let's go fundamental here... Respect is right, the power of choice is right.. in Society, the laws should be done based on fairness, promoting well being and must ensure the protection of all within it. No one should be above those laws.
The power of society vs one person's individual freedom must also be weighed in.. Never should an individual's right be more important than the society he/she is in.
Let's start with respect, everyone deserves respect. When you violate that, then you are doing wrong.
Whatever religion one choose to practice, whatever sexual orientation, whatever race they come from, shouldn't matter..
As long as who they are and what they do and believe in, never supercedes the law, they should be respected.
Assuming that a society's law is first and foremost, then comes the individual's power of choice.
When one takes aways the power of choice of an individual, then that is WRONG..
Bullying, killing, abusing, are all forms of conducts and acts which takes away the power of a choice of an individual..
This is a very condensed view of how I see things, but at least it's a start...
I'm missing many many many items here, such as what are the real rights of a human being, what are the privilieges all being should be accorded, what are the basic expectations a being can expect from society and what does society promises towards any one individual.
But this is a start to answering the question of what is right and wrong.. or so I hope I've tried anyways.
When I think of games, for me, I think either adventure, first person shooter or arcade, because to me, that's what I like most on computer games.
What I want in an arcade game is: fast, fun, you should be able to start easy to play, but must become skilled in order to reach higher levels, and must have a strong level of unpredictability in the game. Avoid games designed in such a way where one can learn patterns in order to beat the game. (original PacMan comes to mind..)
What I want when I play an adventure game is: a compelling story, a diverse world to play in, the complexity comes with experience of play, the rewards are new skills and most of all, the ability for the game to expand into new modules, allowing you to bring your characters into them. if You can play a game where you don't need to be forced into any scenarios, but can explore the "environment" and play based on the encounters, even more fun!:)
For a first shooter game: wicked weapons, all kinds of abilities to display and use, incredibly hard odds to beat, amazing graphics and sounds, the visual and auditory offers clues to the environment, out of the box effects and storylines.
It would be fun to have your character evolve and take him to future levels, but most of the time, the whole point of a first shooter game is to start with modest abilities and weapons and acquire more as you go.
But, if a Doom like game would create expansion packs which would actually build on the experience and game play you have, and your character starts with whatever he's finished with from a previous module, thus, getting into even harder game play, that would be wicked too!
If we are to get philosophical about this, which could be fun, then I think that humanity's problem will be solved when we stop fearing the unknown and we stop fearing change.
The universe should really be our guide in this, for it is in constant motion and change. Adaptability is the key and therefore, we as humans need to be able to adapt not only in body, but in mind and spirit.
We must be able to understand that there are always new truths to learn, that whatever we know, should always be in question.
It is arrogance to think that we have ultimate answers to anything, and yet, some out there do say and believe just that!
Our biggest problem right now, is that we need crutches in order to function as a society.
Religion is one of them.
Historically speaking, we can thank religion for bringing moral codes of conducts, which allows us to function as a society.
But, at this point in our evolution, our technological knowledge far surpasses our wisdom. And religion does NOT equal wisdom.
We need to go beyond that, we need to truly be dedicated in our venture to learn about ourselves as a species, in order to evolve.
Who is to say there IS or ISN'T a God? I don't know.
All religions are MAN-MADE, let's never forget that.
And from a historical and sociological point of view, there were very good reasons for the birth of religion.
It answered the question? "what's the point of us being alive?".
In it's answers, we get not only to be told of an eternal life, but also, how we while ON earth, need to behave in order to get there.
Death is the ultimate salesman, I tell ya.
So religion, ultimately, because it would impose rules of conducts within the people, has been associated with education.
Biased education, unfortunately...
A quick peek in history will easily show how many times, thinkers and philosophers and scientists have been shun by society, for daring a new truth, because it would clash with existing religious beliefs. How many poor souls, who happened to discover something new, have been tormented and persecuted, often until their death. And then, years later, proven right, by others.
Obviously, our other crutch is our inability to accept new ideas and new truths, when they clash the core foundation of our knowledge. An offshoot and side effect of religious beliefs, which are supposed to be immutable and ever lasting.
So, with religion, you now have a bunch of well behaved folks in society, all under the impression that life on earth is finite and most of all, transitory. Fear of not being able to have an eternal life, is the ticket to being well-behaved. To do what is supposed to be right.
But is it true? Are we destined for immortality in death?
What about while we are alive? I mean, we don't even use 1/10 of our brain capacity.
What if really, humanity's goal is to unlock its potential as live beings and learn the secrets locked in ourselves into prolonging our lives and most of all our quality of life.
See, that could be just as valid, because WE DON'T KNOW.
When we starting truly understanding what is RIGHT and what is WRONG and we act accordingly, not because of any religious beliefs or fears, but because it just is, then we will have finally furthered our moral evolution, which is to act on things because they are, not for any other reasons or incentives. This, in my honest opinion, is how we get to evolve morally.
I'm sure a few religious folks out there will send me to hell with that line of thought, but hey, the Devil doesn't want me, he already told me, he couldn't stand me around, he hates competition!!!:P:P:P
Seriously, you would think that the US would take a more "global" approach to space and start truly cooperating with other countries, say like uh.. Canada, UK, Japan, China, India, etc...
After all the race for the stars should be for humanity's sake, not just one country.
There would obviously be some economic advantages, that's for sure.
Russia, I believe would join in, if a real "space" coalition would be formed, I'm sure of that, if only not to be left behind in any form of discovery.
You know, all of these issues come down to the following:
Accountability
In this day and age of terrorist activities, computer virus, electronic theft, etc..., the government (FBI, CIA, etc...) they do need to do their jobs and our Free Speech and our Privacy are both going to have to bend when our security depends on it.
You can't have it all, and certainly for those out there who have NOTHING to hide, who don't perform any criminal ventures, I doubt they care if Big Brother is watching over them.
So, as long as these agencies are truly accountable for their actions, we must let them do their jobs, I think that's really what this is all about. We may not like it, but then again, it is what it is.
These agencies must not only deal with real time crisis, but must try and forecast crisis, so, mining the internet for information and clues is one of the ways to go.
Any disaster, crime that can be prevented, certainly we are all for that, no?
So, as long as they are responsible and accountable for their actions and can justify them if asked to, we must let them do their jobs.
I remember commenting about this in an earlier post (about Telus) I believe.
You have to love any company's balls as they write their contract stipulations, and yet, often, write them in such a way that they contradict local/state/province or country laws.
And AT&T right now is a fine example of a company inserting clauses into their contracts that are not legal to begin with, thus non-binding.
And I'm sure that if I knew enough about laws and clauses, etc.. that most companies out there have many non-binding clauses, but we just don't know. It's too complicated to read.
Another example are the games and their EULAs, all these "thou shall not and this isn't and so on and so forth", I would bet that it's all bluster and very little substance, that if anyone had a bit of money and time to blow and a good lawyer to partner with, they could blow holes in those EULAs.
I could be wrong, but to me, the Bug is the beginning of what could be true electronic modular assembly.
The ability to hook up various parts and get them to function in a very specific way, is how, I hope things will become over time.
Of course, hooking up the devices will also means a glue language, allowing these devices to interact, and that's where Java kicks ass.
But as I saw it right now, this Bug has a lot of potential, but, it also has a long way to go.
I might buy one of these, when they have more parts that can be hooked up, because right now, from what I saw, it doesn't do all that much, at least, not enough for me to be interested even as a hobby, but still, it's technology worth keeping an eye on, as far as I'm concerned:)
Yeah, let all your creditors have automated access to your bank account, sure, because, hey, why should YOU be in control of your assets uh? I mean, son-of-a-beehive, it's way too much to fun to see these companies take your money, as they wish, left and right, than to be in control on your own. They never have any clerical errors uh?:)
Ron Lieber must have been on drugs, and I mean, the special kind of drugs which you and I can only dream of!
It's one thing to use online, electronic methods of payment, for which, I agree, does facilitate the job.
But unless you have a solid and secure stash, readily available at all time, automated payments are NOT the way to go!
All it takes is for you to go online, with your bank and set your payments and then, when the time comes and you've got the money, press the "Pay" button.
I'm not rich enough to have anyone else automatically take money from my account.
The only payments I'm forced to endure automatically, because I sent a blank cheque to these companies, so they are allowed to retrieve their payments on the 14th of each month is my car lease and my car insurance. And if I could have been in charge of that, and not had to give them a blank, I wouldn't have given it to them.
Beside that, everything else, I take control. But I wish I had a few millions stashed away, so that I could just have every bill set to be paid automatically. I would NEVER give the company the ability to retrieve it on their own, but I could set my bank account for bills to automatically pay at regular intervals.
So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?
Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".
I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party
Now as for balancing pleasure with business, gee, I could always make a joke about working in a country where the "siesta" is mandatory:P but the truth is, I don't know. All I know is that in Canada, you could always challenge yourself to learn French. For me, being bilingual it obviously works well. But the truth is, if you had to learn a new language, I would suspect the following languages would be beneficial: spanish, mandarin, japanese, russian, german.
Ok, to me the bottom line on this issue is very simple and I think we can all agree on this, but obviously, someone will tell me if I'm wrong:
It is GOOD, that the government is providing guidelines and testing material to ensure a baseline in the quality of meat.
It makes sense that the government expects a minimum baseline which must be followed in the testing and quality control
It is NOT GOOD, when the government actually puts a cap as too how much testing a meat packer can do.
The current law is flawed, that's the truth. If a meat packer wants to provide more rigorous testing than required by law, he isn't breaking the law. He should be allowed to do so. He should also be allowed to advertise that he does so.
The competition should NOT be allowed to interfere, which is what has happened here. If a company wants to provide its clientele a report with more rigorous testing of its products, then as long as it as met the "minimum" rules which it must abide with, it shouldn't be forced to cap it to a maximum.
Bottom line, there should never be a law to stop anyone from doing what is right, and in the case of testing the quality of food, certainly, to err on the side of cautious shouldn't be penalized at all!
All I know, is those who voted against letting Creekstone do their testing, how the hell can they sleep at night? No conscience.
First of all, the USDA set a minimum standard. As long as that is complied, then hey, if you want to do better, why not?
This is one of those "cough cough" loopholes that need to be examined and fixed.
If a company wishes to do better, then, it should be allowed. Simple. Beside, I'm pretty sure these testing come at a price, so it's not like it's done for free.
One could also dare think that the USDA has some "ahem" staff who are clearly "cough cough" making extra cash on the side.
A private meat packer company wants to test all of it's beef products for safety and health issues and to reassure their export customers that their products are safe. Ok, that's a good thing.. right? RIGHT? and the USDA will NOT allow them. uh.. that's a bad thing.. right? BAD? UH?
Let's see, what's wrong with this picture? I mean, for pete's sakes, shouldn't we applause any company wishing to ensure their food products are 100% safe? Let's give Creekstone Farms Premium Beef credit and a hand folks!
Now, you would think that the USDA would instead do the following:
enforce the 1% rule of testing as a minimum standard of compliance
any company wishing to be more thorough should be allowed to
they should also be allowed to promote their products are more thoroughly tested too!
This is one of the many and many cases where money is more important than people, remember that folks! The government wants your taxes, not your health!
You know the problem here is the word "Christian".. heck if religion isn't a crutch, I swear! There are unfair things happening in this world every second. A lot of things happening in the middle-east, etc... are NOT fair. In a perfect world, there would be 1 form of government, a real UNITED nations of some sort, and religion wouldn't be a part of the equation when it comes to law and human rights. The LAW would always supercede any form of religion doctrine and practices. All would have equal rights, no more gender, race, color or language biases. Religion has helped civilised the world, true, it's given too many, a strong moral standard, but it's time to evolve past that point and to truly understand what is RIGHT and what is WRONG and to act accordingly. Not because of religion, but just because it is. When that time comes and I know it will one day, maybe not in my lifetime however, then, humanity will prosper.
Uh.. gee, let's put imagination 101 to the test.. say for example, your phone is:
locked, and
lost or stolen..
In real life, who the hell would locked their phone and maybe lose it uh? right? can't possible happen, that's way to fictional, going on sci-fi here..
You would THINK your phone numbers and whatever else is stored, at least is somewhat safe, but wait.. not anymore.. if a company sells you a phone and says it's safe when it is locked, only for anyone with the right software to override the locked feature, I think there is something wrong with this picture. That's the problem as I see it, if I'm naive, so be it, but I think there is a point to this, so, call me naive here, but I think you forgot that part of the equation in your comment:)
Gee, I must have dumb written all over my forehead for you to write that, because, I know that IF I take MY OWN PHONE and I hook it up to my PC I can clone it. The article is about phones that can be cloned while locked. The lock feature isn't working as advertised, I believe that's the issue here. It can be easily overriden. There is software out there to do so, maybe that's what that original article was all about. My worries is that what's the point of locking your phone and someone can rip the data out of it regardless? Right? RIGHT?
I always knew that cell phones are vulnerable, but to know there is a device which can basically clone your data out, with NO trace, that's downright scary! Even when LOCKED? We should start reading our contracts and our EULAs on our phone, somehow, somewhere, there's got to be something to rely on legally, if this can happen.
The internet is supposed to be global, so having the traffic spread out is a good idea anyway. I'm all for having major "hubs" all across the world. Of course US would go "big brother" on the data that flows through it, not surprised. I'm pretty sure other countries do the same, but it's not advertised. Unless you have something to hide, who cares? Right?:)
Reasoned with? if someone goes out of their way to plan and execute a murder, this means it's premeditated. It's not in the "heat" of passion, but done in cold blood, thus, done with intent to kill.
The survival of the human race, clearly does not depend upon the life of every of its individuals.
I may find life sacred, but, if you were to compare humanity to a lawn for example, in a lawn, you kill the bad weeds.
A person that takes it upon itself to kill another has taken away the power of choice of the victim. The victim may have been a father, a mother, a friend, etc... This victim is dead, gone, no more. This victim was a potential for everything and anything, except, no more, dead. Why should the murderer live?
Why should WE as a society reason with a murderer? Makes no sense to me.
The Death Penalty isn't something you jump for joy for, but it is, in my opinion, necessary because, so many people use the law and twist it, to get away "with murder" literally.
If murder with intent is proven beyond a doubt, the death penalty should be the sentence.
It would make a lot of folks think twice about committing murder.
Certainly, it would also be better than having to support these freeloaders in prison, yours and my tax money at work, no less too!
There are ALWAYS exception, for example to kill someone who is abusive, destructive, etc..., there are men out there who hit their woman and children, hurt them, so, there are exceptions, but overall, the death penalty is the way to go.
Barbaric is when you let the murderers roam free to enjoy the precious gift of life, they took away from their victim(s).
He killed her, that's the bottom line. He took her life.
He basically took away her power of choice.
She's dead.
He confessed, he knew where the body was, and yet some of you are still thinking he's innocent? uh.. I don't get it.
As far as I'm concerned, he's very lucky he's not getting the death penalty.
All murderers who, can be proven without a doubt that they killed in a premeditated state, should be killed in return. These murderers planned and executed their murder, these are NOT accident folks. There was method and intent.
Right now, this guy is getting prison for 15 yrs to life.
Club Fed!
Wow. That's a vacation. He will be fed, lodge and sheltered. Much better than being dead in my book.
A bad example for many sick minds out there, who can plan a murder, execute it and if caught, heck, life in prison! Sick female groupies, etc.. oye vay! It's scary to see that we, as a society are not tough enough to deal with this the way it should be dealt it. You plan to kill, you perform the act, it is proven without a doubt, then you die.
There should have been no deal. You don't deal with murderers. Our society is too lenient when it comes to murderers, pedophiles and predators.
I can't wait for technology to improve to the point where we should be able to coerce confessions our the guilty without their consent.
Unless your bride to be is as geeky as you, I would go with platinum or gold...
But, hey, it's your neck on the line, not mine.. What you should do, instead of worrying about the metal, is worry about the ring itself interms of design. If you are to get something custom made, aim for something that is unique and that has meaning for the two of you (or at least her):)
Cheers!
Slashdot Mirror
We have to give the Russians a bit of leeway here.
First and foremost, this is a country that's only been so called "democratic" for less than 20 yrs.
It's got lots of internal problems to deal with for sure.
Second, they are not thugs, they have been useful when it comes to space duties. Admit it, and get over it.
Yes, they like to be recognized a lot, but that's a sign of immaturity, certainly, they are like children when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world, diplomacy isn't their forte. Do try and remember their origins and put that into context.
Because of that, they like to let people know they have been useful. no big deal.
By the way, the ISS is one initiative where indeed the US is playing with other countries.
For the most part, the US plays its own cards in the space race.
If all the big boys get together and pool their resources, including Russia, the chances of success in reaching the stars is much greater, that's just common sense.
Instead of nationalistic pride, there should be a global effort pride in place.
If the US where to promote that, it would be a step in the right direction.
In my opinion anyways.
Ok, first and foremost, we all have a conscience and when it comes to right and wrong, we should use 1) compassion and 2) fairness.
To be fair is hard. Fairness is justice, believe me, it's not easy to be fair and impartial.
Now, as far as rebelling against authority. You are reading much more than I'm writing.
And most of all, I'm not talking about our current society or laws as we have them currently.
Forget what is, right now.
What I'm writing about is about "what should be".
You just can't have people doing as they wish. There is a requirement for structure and order, else it's chaos and free for all, nothing works and it's the law of the jungle. If we are to evolve morally, we must rise above that.. right?.
Society = structure.
Assuming a society's laws are both fair and compassionate, or dare I say, humane.
Maybe some of this is already here in some form in the US and Canada.
Probably what is happening in China isn't all that great either.
But that's not to say that everything in China is wrong.
For example, I believe that if one kills another with intent and purpose, deliberately kills another being and this isn't on accident, but as a planned and committed act, then, this person should be killed too.
Why? because this person took it upon itself to take a person's power of choice (in this case, their very life) into their own hands. I think society has the duty to remove this person permanently.
Is this barbaric? I don't think so. But some would argue to the contrary. Is life sacred? Yes, but not in a religious way, at least to me. It is sacred in that every one of us has something to offer, but when we take it upon ourselves to take away a person's rights and choices, we shouldn't have any of our own. The right to life being the most sacred and most privilieged of rights. I say the punishment should meet the act, when intent is proven.
If someone kills another person by accident, a proven accident, truly, something they couldn't be in controlled with, that's another matter, I don't think there should be retribution.
But you know, the issue now is, proof. How to prove intent without a doubt? how to proof innocence without a doubt..
Those are the mechanics that need to be worked upon, the methods and techniques and technologies that must improve in order to help assist in the search for the real truth.
But in the end, truly, what is right or wrong is a question of degree and circumstances.
Is it wrong to steal? yes, but if you steal a loaf of bread to feed your family, then, really, at least it was done for the right reason.
It is society's duty to avoid these issues. To learn from the mistakes of its people and to adjust accordingly.
Should any member of a society be starving? no.
Should any member not have a place to live? no.
This is where we must define the basic rights of a human. What can a human expect upon birth? in adulthood?
Is it wrong to rebel against authority? well, is the authority being abusive? are it's people denied basic human rights?
The rights we humans have, in the end, should be define based on compassion and fairness.
We have the right of life, we have the right of choice and we have the right of respect.
Why? because it's fair
I'm not saying this is how things are, per say, I'm saying this is how we should aim things to be..
We make life what we wish it to be, that may be an idealistic view, but without ideals, we might as well be animals in the real sense. What makes us human, is we can aspire to be more tomorrow than we are today.
That's why every single member deserves to have real rights in this world.
What is RIGHT and what is WRONG.. umm..
I'll make this very brief, because this could be a long post, but I'll try and keep it short..
Let's go fundamental here... Respect is right, the power of choice is right.. in Society, the laws should be done based on fairness, promoting well being and must ensure the protection of all within it. No one should be above those laws.
The power of society vs one person's individual freedom must also be weighed in.. Never should an individual's right be more important than the society he/she is in.
Let's start with respect, everyone deserves respect. When you violate that, then you are doing wrong.
Whatever religion one choose to practice, whatever sexual orientation, whatever race they come from, shouldn't matter..
As long as who they are and what they do and believe in, never supercedes the law, they should be respected.
Assuming that a society's law is first and foremost, then comes the individual's power of choice.
When one takes aways the power of choice of an individual, then that is WRONG..
Bullying, killing, abusing, are all forms of conducts and acts which takes away the power of a choice of an individual..
This is a very condensed view of how I see things, but at least it's a start...
I'm missing many many many items here, such as what are the real rights of a human being, what are the privilieges all being should be accorded, what are the basic expectations a being can expect from society and what does society promises towards any one individual.
But this is a start to answering the question of what is right and wrong.. or so I hope I've tried anyways.
When I think of games, for me, I think either adventure, first person shooter or arcade, because to me, that's what I like most on computer games.
What I want in an arcade game is: fast, fun, you should be able to start easy to play, but must become skilled in order to reach higher levels, and must have a strong level of unpredictability in the game. Avoid games designed in such a way where one can learn patterns in order to beat the game. (original PacMan comes to mind..)
What I want when I play an adventure game is: a compelling story, a diverse world to play in, the complexity comes with experience of play, the rewards are new skills and most of all, the ability for the game to expand into new modules, allowing you to bring your characters into them. if You can play a game where you don't need to be forced into any scenarios, but can explore the "environment" and play based on the encounters, even more fun! :)
For a first shooter game: wicked weapons, all kinds of abilities to display and use, incredibly hard odds to beat, amazing graphics and sounds, the visual and auditory offers clues to the environment, out of the box effects and storylines.
It would be fun to have your character evolve and take him to future levels, but most of the time, the whole point of a first shooter game is to start with modest abilities and weapons and acquire more as you go.
But, if a Doom like game would create expansion packs which would actually build on the experience and game play you have, and your character starts with whatever he's finished with from a previous module, thus, getting into even harder game play, that would be wicked too!
If we are to get philosophical about this, which could be fun, then I think that humanity's problem will be solved when we stop fearing the unknown and we stop fearing change.
The universe should really be our guide in this, for it is in constant motion and change. Adaptability is the key and therefore, we as humans need to be able to adapt not only in body, but in mind and spirit.
We must be able to understand that there are always new truths to learn, that whatever we know, should always be in question.
It is arrogance to think that we have ultimate answers to anything, and yet, some out there do say and believe just that!
Our biggest problem right now, is that we need crutches in order to function as a society.
Religion is one of them.
Historically speaking, we can thank religion for bringing moral codes of conducts, which allows us to function as a society.
But, at this point in our evolution, our technological knowledge far surpasses our wisdom. And religion does NOT equal wisdom.
We need to go beyond that, we need to truly be dedicated in our venture to learn about ourselves as a species, in order to evolve.
Who is to say there IS or ISN'T a God? I don't know.
All religions are MAN-MADE, let's never forget that.
And from a historical and sociological point of view, there were very good reasons for the birth of religion.
It answered the question? "what's the point of us being alive?".
In it's answers, we get not only to be told of an eternal life, but also, how we while ON earth, need to behave in order to get there.
Death is the ultimate salesman, I tell ya.
So religion, ultimately, because it would impose rules of conducts within the people, has been associated with education.
Biased education, unfortunately...
A quick peek in history will easily show how many times, thinkers and philosophers and scientists have been shun by society, for daring a new truth, because it would clash with existing religious beliefs. How many poor souls, who happened to discover something new, have been tormented and persecuted, often until their death. And then, years later, proven right, by others.
Obviously, our other crutch is our inability to accept new ideas and new truths, when they clash the core foundation of our knowledge. An offshoot and side effect of religious beliefs, which are supposed to be immutable and ever lasting.
So, with religion, you now have a bunch of well behaved folks in society, all under the impression that life on earth is finite and most of all, transitory. Fear of not being able to have an eternal life, is the ticket to being well-behaved. To do what is supposed to be right.
But is it true? Are we destined for immortality in death?
What about while we are alive? I mean, we don't even use 1/10 of our brain capacity.
What if really, humanity's goal is to unlock its potential as live beings and learn the secrets locked in ourselves into prolonging our lives and most of all our quality of life.
See, that could be just as valid, because WE DON'T KNOW.
When we starting truly understanding what is RIGHT and what is WRONG and we act accordingly, not because of any religious beliefs or fears, but because it just is, then we will have finally furthered our moral evolution, which is to act on things because they are, not for any other reasons or incentives. This, in my honest opinion, is how we get to evolve morally.
I'm sure a few religious folks out there will send me to hell with that line of thought, but hey, the Devil doesn't want me, he already told me, he couldn't stand me around, he hates competition!!! :P :P :P
Slightly better than russian roulette uh?
Seriously, you would think that the US would take a more "global" approach to space and start truly cooperating with other countries, say like uh.. Canada, UK, Japan, China, India, etc...
After all the race for the stars should be for humanity's sake, not just one country.
There would obviously be some economic advantages, that's for sure.
Russia, I believe would join in, if a real "space" coalition would be formed, I'm sure of that, if only not to be left behind in any form of discovery.
You know, all of these issues come down to the following:
Accountability
In this day and age of terrorist activities, computer virus, electronic theft, etc..., the government (FBI, CIA, etc...) they do need to do their jobs and our Free Speech and our Privacy are both going to have to bend when our security depends on it.
You can't have it all, and certainly for those out there who have NOTHING to hide, who don't perform any criminal ventures, I doubt they care if Big Brother is watching over them.
So, as long as these agencies are truly accountable for their actions, we must let them do their jobs, I think that's really what this is all about. We may not like it, but then again, it is what it is.
These agencies must not only deal with real time crisis, but must try and forecast crisis, so, mining the internet for information and clues is one of the ways to go.
Any disaster, crime that can be prevented, certainly we are all for that, no?
So, as long as they are responsible and accountable for their actions and can justify them if asked to, we must let them do their jobs.
I remember commenting about this in an earlier post (about Telus) I believe.
You have to love any company's balls as they write their contract stipulations, and yet, often, write them in such a way that they contradict local/state/province or country laws.
And AT&T right now is a fine example of a company inserting clauses into their contracts that are not legal to begin with, thus non-binding.
And I'm sure that if I knew enough about laws and clauses, etc.. that most companies out there have many non-binding clauses, but we just don't know. It's too complicated to read.
Another example are the games and their EULAs, all these "thou shall not and this isn't and so on and so forth", I would bet that it's all bluster and very little substance, that if anyone had a bit of money and time to blow and a good lawyer to partner with, they could blow holes in those EULAs.
I could be wrong, but to me, the Bug is the beginning of what could be true electronic modular assembly.
The ability to hook up various parts and get them to function in a very specific way, is how, I hope things will become over time.
Of course, hooking up the devices will also means a glue language, allowing these devices to interact, and that's where Java kicks ass.
But as I saw it right now, this Bug has a lot of potential, but, it also has a long way to go.
I might buy one of these, when they have more parts that can be hooked up, because right now, from what I saw, it doesn't do all that much, at least, not enough for me to be interested even as a hobby, but still, it's technology worth keeping an eye on, as far as I'm concerned :)
Yeah, let all your creditors have automated access to your bank account, sure, because, hey, why should YOU be in control of your assets uh? I mean, son-of-a-beehive, it's way too much to fun to see these companies take your money, as they wish, left and right, than to be in control on your own. They never have any clerical errors uh? :)
Ron Lieber must have been on drugs, and I mean, the special kind of drugs which you and I can only dream of!
It's one thing to use online, electronic methods of payment, for which, I agree, does facilitate the job.
But unless you have a solid and secure stash, readily available at all time, automated payments are NOT the way to go!
All it takes is for you to go online, with your bank and set your payments and then, when the time comes and you've got the money, press the "Pay" button.
I'm not rich enough to have anyone else automatically take money from my account.
The only payments I'm forced to endure automatically, because I sent a blank cheque to these companies, so they are allowed to retrieve their payments on the 14th of each month is my car lease and my car insurance. And if I could have been in charge of that, and not had to give them a blank, I wouldn't have given it to them.
Beside that, everything else, I take control. But I wish I had a few millions stashed away, so that I could just have every bill set to be paid automatically. I would NEVER give the company the ability to retrieve it on their own, but I could set my bank account for bills to automatically pay at regular intervals.
So both candidates say they will keep politics out of science, but what about religion?
Stem cell research for example is one of those field of research which is being blocked because of politics.. "well, because of religious groups, which uses politics as a tool to achieve their goals of blocking the research".
I wonder if each candidate is willing to tell the religious groups to grow up and let science be?, especially McCain's party
I live in Canada, but I'm being sponsored to work in the US, so I will more than likely be working on the US side in the next month or 2.
However, if you wish to work in Canada or the UK, you can try these job boards.
http://www.jobshark.ca/caeng/index.cfm
http://www.jobserve.com/
Now as for balancing pleasure with business, gee, I could always make a joke about working in a country where the "siesta" is mandatory :P but the truth is, I don't know. All I know is that in Canada, you could always challenge yourself to learn French. For me, being bilingual it obviously works well. But the truth is, if you had to learn a new language, I would suspect the following languages would be beneficial: spanish, mandarin, japanese, russian, german.
Ok, to me the bottom line on this issue is very simple and I think we can all agree on this, but obviously, someone will tell me if I'm wrong:
The current law is flawed, that's the truth. If a meat packer wants to provide more rigorous testing than required by law, he isn't breaking the law. He should be allowed to do so. He should also be allowed to advertise that he does so.
The competition should NOT be allowed to interfere, which is what has happened here. If a company wants to provide its clientele a report with more rigorous testing of its products, then as long as it as met the "minimum" rules which it must abide with, it shouldn't be forced to cap it to a maximum.
Bottom line, there should never be a law to stop anyone from doing what is right, and in the case of testing the quality of food, certainly, to err on the side of cautious shouldn't be penalized at all!
All I know, is those who voted against letting Creekstone do their testing, how the hell can they sleep at night? No conscience.
First of all, the USDA set a minimum standard. As long as that is complied, then hey, if you want to do better, why not?
This is one of those "cough cough" loopholes that need to be examined and fixed.
If a company wishes to do better, then, it should be allowed. Simple. Beside, I'm pretty sure these testing come at a price, so it's not like it's done for free.
One could also dare think that the USDA has some "ahem" staff who are clearly "cough cough" making extra cash on the side.
Time to reorganize that place and get new blood!
A private meat packer company wants to test all of it's beef products for safety and health issues and to reassure their export customers that their products are safe. Ok, that's a good thing.. right? RIGHT? and the USDA will NOT allow them. uh.. that's a bad thing.. right? BAD? UH?
Let's see, what's wrong with this picture? I mean, for pete's sakes, shouldn't we applause any company wishing to ensure their food products are 100% safe? Let's give Creekstone Farms Premium Beef credit and a hand folks!
Now, you would think that the USDA would instead do the following:
This is one of the many and many cases where money is more important than people, remember that folks! The government wants your taxes, not your health!
Is it true that sometimes there is Too Much Information?
First and foremost, is how can these gentlemen do what they do and be legal? are they law enforcement agents?
Shouldn't they be "unknown"? I mean, if they are to be known, doesn't it make them targets? and/or their jobs that much harder?
Still, I have to admit, I envy them, I wish I could do such a job :)
You know the problem here is the word "Christian".. heck if religion isn't a crutch, I swear! There are unfair things happening in this world every second. A lot of things happening in the middle-east, etc... are NOT fair. In a perfect world, there would be 1 form of government, a real UNITED nations of some sort, and religion wouldn't be a part of the equation when it comes to law and human rights. The LAW would always supercede any form of religion doctrine and practices. All would have equal rights, no more gender, race, color or language biases. Religion has helped civilised the world, true, it's given too many, a strong moral standard, but it's time to evolve past that point and to truly understand what is RIGHT and what is WRONG and to act accordingly. Not because of religion, but just because it is. When that time comes and I know it will one day, maybe not in my lifetime however, then, humanity will prosper.
Uh.. gee, let's put imagination 101 to the test.. say for example, your phone is:
In real life, who the hell would locked their phone and maybe lose it uh? right? can't possible happen, that's way to fictional, going on sci-fi here..
You would THINK your phone numbers and whatever else is stored, at least is somewhat safe, but wait.. not anymore.. if a company sells you a phone and says it's safe when it is locked, only for anyone with the right software to override the locked feature, I think there is something wrong with this picture. That's the problem as I see it, if I'm naive, so be it, but I think there is a point to this, so, call me naive here, but I think you forgot that part of the equation in your comment :)
Gee, I must have dumb written all over my forehead for you to write that, because, I know that IF I take MY OWN PHONE and I hook it up to my PC I can clone it. The article is about phones that can be cloned while locked. The lock feature isn't working as advertised, I believe that's the issue here. It can be easily overriden. There is software out there to do so, maybe that's what that original article was all about. My worries is that what's the point of locking your phone and someone can rip the data out of it regardless? Right? RIGHT?
Should be for all software... Should even include media such as videos and audios.. :)
I always knew that cell phones are vulnerable, but to know there is a device which can basically clone your data out, with NO trace, that's downright scary! Even when LOCKED? We should start reading our contracts and our EULAs on our phone, somehow, somewhere, there's got to be something to rely on legally, if this can happen.
The internet is supposed to be global, so having the traffic spread out is a good idea anyway. I'm all for having major "hubs" all across the world. Of course US would go "big brother" on the data that flows through it, not surprised. I'm pretty sure other countries do the same, but it's not advertised. Unless you have something to hide, who cares? Right? :)
Reasoned with? if someone goes out of their way to plan and execute a murder, this means it's premeditated. It's not in the "heat" of passion, but done in cold blood, thus, done with intent to kill.
The survival of the human race, clearly does not depend upon the life of every of its individuals.
I may find life sacred, but, if you were to compare humanity to a lawn for example, in a lawn, you kill the bad weeds.
A person that takes it upon itself to kill another has taken away the power of choice of the victim. The victim may have been a father, a mother, a friend, etc... This victim is dead, gone, no more. This victim was a potential for everything and anything, except, no more, dead. Why should the murderer live?
Why should WE as a society reason with a murderer? Makes no sense to me.
The Death Penalty isn't something you jump for joy for, but it is, in my opinion, necessary because, so many people use the law and twist it, to get away "with murder" literally.
If murder with intent is proven beyond a doubt, the death penalty should be the sentence.
It would make a lot of folks think twice about committing murder.
Certainly, it would also be better than having to support these freeloaders in prison, yours and my tax money at work, no less too!
There are ALWAYS exception, for example to kill someone who is abusive, destructive, etc..., there are men out there who hit their woman and children, hurt them, so, there are exceptions, but overall, the death penalty is the way to go.
Barbaric is when you let the murderers roam free to enjoy the precious gift of life, they took away from their victim(s).
He killed her, that's the bottom line. He took her life.
He basically took away her power of choice.
She's dead.
He confessed, he knew where the body was, and yet some of you are still thinking he's innocent? uh.. I don't get it.
As far as I'm concerned, he's very lucky he's not getting the death penalty.
All murderers who, can be proven without a doubt that they killed in a premeditated state, should be killed in return. These murderers planned and executed their murder, these are NOT accident folks. There was method and intent.
Right now, this guy is getting prison for 15 yrs to life.
Club Fed!
Wow. That's a vacation. He will be fed, lodge and sheltered. Much better than being dead in my book.
A bad example for many sick minds out there, who can plan a murder, execute it and if caught, heck, life in prison! Sick female groupies, etc.. oye vay! It's scary to see that we, as a society are not tough enough to deal with this the way it should be dealt it. You plan to kill, you perform the act, it is proven without a doubt, then you die.
There should have been no deal. You don't deal with murderers. Our society is too lenient when it comes to murderers, pedophiles and predators.
I can't wait for technology to improve to the point where we should be able to coerce confessions our the guilty without their consent.
Unless your bride to be is as geeky as you, I would go with platinum or gold... But, hey, it's your neck on the line, not mine.. What you should do, instead of worrying about the metal, is worry about the ring itself interms of design. If you are to get something custom made, aim for something that is unique and that has meaning for the two of you (or at least her) :)
Cheers!