Apparently it is now (has always been?) in vogue to criticize America for things that never actually happened. If you took time to actually understand the issue, the "collateral murder" video doesnt show any children being killed. The (2?) injured children were transferred to a US military hospital for a day before being released to an Iraqi hospital.
Dont be ridiculous; look at any economic standard, we continue to be top 10 in the world. Median income, GDP, GDP per capita, nil starvation levels, etc etc etc.
We're discussing it because someone decided to stir the pot a little and claim that western culture is destroying the world by eating foods that have been eaten for thousands of years. And noone outside of this ridiculous article (LOTS of people eat insects, its just not culturally western) discusses this because its a stupid question. You cant just snap your fingers and change culture like that.
Thats an awful idea, do you realize how bad the latency would be? What happens when one service is consistently behind the other, do you just allow the data to constantly be in an inconsistent state between your "stripes"? What happens if one provider is down-- do you allow the volume to remain "on" during the outage, and if so, where are you going to store the parity information until it comes back up?
And all of this for what benefit?
Youre basically taking the issues that arise in a mixed-hardware RAID, and amplifying them about a hundred times, and then throwing in TCP just to make things really exciting. You would end up with all of the bad parts of RAID 0, and none of the good ones (since one stripe is no good to you unless the other arrives immedately after, which can hardly be guaranteed over TCP).
It seems like the most surefire way for Google to "be evil" in people's eyes is to have special offers and go the extra mile. Offer google reader for free for years with a cutoff date? Evil! Offer free netflix, with a cutoff date? Evil! Donate to charity-- but only SOME of your assets? Evil!
Apparently the only way for them not to be evil is to only ever donate the entirety of their assets, offer services in perpetuity, and ever make any money whatsoever.
But they seem to be unable to actually apply it in practice. When it comes time to actually force the goverment to obey the law, they show their true colors as authoritarians.
No, youve nailed it. Trying to see the other point of view is so passe on slashdot; just call them authoritarian and be done with it. Never mind that the vast majority of folks I know who call themselves conservative are about as far away value wise from authoritarianism as you can get.
Somehow raymorris made a very insightful, balanced, and fair post, and you managed to garner very little from it, opting instead to turn this into a massive debate on why socialism is the answer.
I have seen you argue quite emphatically on a number of topics on this forum. I find it very hard to reconcile your claimed disbelief in free will with the time you spend trying to convince others of something.
I also find it hard to discern what you might mean by "freedom" if you deny free will, or your objection to being coerced (since, lacking free will, you never have a say in anything anyways).
Addendum: Soybean protein is a "complete protein" since it provides all of the essential amino acids for human nutrition.[12][13] Soybean protein is essentially identical to that of other legume pulses (that is to say, legume proteins in general consist of 7S and 11S storage proteins), and is one of the least expensive sources of dietary protein.[14] For this reason, soy is important to many vegetarians and vegans.
Im also an idiot for implying that yogurt wasnt an animal protein, which it certainly is.
My point is that no, they are not. Some of the amino acids are the same, some are different--it completely depends on WHICH protein you are eating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein
Generally, proteins derived from animal foods (meats, fish, poultry, cheese, eggs, yogurt, and milk) are complete, though gelatin is an exception.[1] Proteins derived from plant foods (legumes, grains, and vegetables) tend to have less of one or more essential amino acid.[6] Some are notably low, such as corn protein, which is low in lysine and tryptophan.[10]
As I recall, soy protein looked pretty good, but I do not know if it is complete.
The number of times I have seen someone admit that they were wrong (without pressure / coercion) pales in comparision to the number of times someone has been wrong but has continued defending themselves.
It only takes a casual look around the world, and within one's own character, to realize this is true. Someone calls you out as wrong, the first instinct isnt "AM i wrong?", but "how can I refute him". This is part of human nature, and I havent really found anything to indicate that it isnt universal; though certainly some people are quite good at stuffing that defensive posture into the back of their mind and are more humble.
Not sure why you slipped in that little list, but are you by any chance looking at this problem from quite far to the right? I've noticed a tendency of ideologues (rather than ethical pragmatists) to view everyone as evil hypocrites by nature, and to use that as an excuse for their worldview.
I dont know if I'd say Im far right, because I can recognize that even "leftist" programs will accomplish some good (I just tend to think it not worth the cost), but yes, and its interesting you would say it like that. Im currently in a Poli Sci class, and there was a video on "realism" where the speaker described it as basically what you said-- a cynical worldview that everyone is NOT intrinsically good, but intrinsically self-interested and self-justifying. This idea seems to be foreign to a lot of folks I know that I assume to be more to the left-- certainly a number of students in the class appear to never have even thought of the world in those terms.
Folks on the right appear cold and unsympathetic in public policy because (If I can generalize) they DO tend to view the world cynically, as a cold and hostile place. We dont want publicly funded social welfare programs because we see the potential for abuse as through the roof, and the spending as driven by idealism rather than grounded in the reality of both budget and human nature.
Folks on the left (and this is how it seems to me) seem to want to assume the best; that cooperation is not only possible, but easily obtainable, and that we should not only aim for the stars, but actively work towards some ideal world that we surely can achieve. It appears to be a worldview that hopes and dreams that maybe a utopia that looks like communism could be possible, if only we could get rid of the elements that undermine it.
Im not sure how relevant any of that is, but I hope you find it interesting, and if you want to offer any corrections on how I view the leftist mindset, I would appreciate it; I think the hardest thing about really dialoging "across the aisle" is the huge difficulty in really understanding where someone is coming from at a visceral level.
I think you are overestimating the executive branch. FBI, NSA, DHS are all executive branch, and the exec only has the power to "execute" laws. Congress could pass a law that not only defunds the NSA, but makes its US operations illegal. Bam, theyre gone, and have no power to threaten anyone.
It astounds me that people act like the president is where the power lies. Certainly presidents past and present have made power grabs, but they do not ultimately have the power to defy congress, nor, really, does anyone. Congress can even in extreme situations overrule the supreme court by passing amendments.
No-one has any idea how many people this disaster has, or will, cause.
Im pretty sure radiation experts know what the dosages were in, around, and at a distance from the plant, and it is well documented what levels of radiation do what to the human body.
There were two workers who went into the plant during the meltdown to access the core who got doses that could be described as "concerning"; they were treated at a hospital and I believe released the same day. Only 3 workers (including the two I mentioned) recieved a dose over 100mSv; Wikipedia notes
In 2012 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation stated that for typical background radiation levels (1-13 mSv per year) it's not possible to account for any health effects and for exposures under 100 mSv
The amount of hysteria here is unbelievable. For the record,
10 to 30 mSv -single full-body CT scan[17][18] 68 mSv -estimated maximum dose to evacuees who lived closest to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents
Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992,
there were just 39 on-the-job deaths of nuclear power plant workers worldwide, while during the same time period,
there were 6,400 on-the-job deaths of coal power plant workers,
1,200 on-the-job deaths of natural gas power plant workers and members of the general public caused by natural gas power plants, and
4,000 deaths of members of the general public caused by hydroelectric power plants.
The thing is, coal is rarely as "exciting" or "spectacular" as nuclear: nuclear plants go down in a big way, and so when someone dies everyone sees it. Coal mining deaths (never mind the "on the job" coal plant deaths) are a fact of life, and noone notices that sort of thing.
Yes, brilliant idea. A US organization threatening congress-- THAT would go well. Im not sure you realize the extent of the power that Congress has to make life difficult for the NSA if it wanted to.
They have convinced themselves that they are good people on no basis whatsoever,
All people do this, and I am continually amazed when people make comments like GP, wondering how someone can live with certain actions.
Its as if they think the "big bads" of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin, et al) thought they were bad guys. Never underestimate the ability of humans to rationalize and justify their actions. Note that this means each person should be continually on guard for when they have convinced themselves that something abhorrent is actually justifiable.
What happened is that you apparently dont know the difference between operating system vulnerabilities, and someone gaining unauthorized access to a forum.
what good is the right to free speech, if your speech can never affect public policy?
"The right to have your opinion automatically enshrined in law" has never been in a right. You have more ability to get political speech out today than ever before, and I would argue that Obama's election and reelection is a pretty big example of people making their voice heard --free speech definitely played an enormous role in both races. Zimmerman is being defended by law enforcement against the threats you mention, and honestly hes probably keeping a low profile because the media is full of bloodsucking lampreys.
No but youre right, apathy all the way man. Screw rights, embrace oblivion.
The NSA can simply mark all documents involved secret and congress will be effectively blocked from the ability to track the de-fund.
That is incorrect. Im fairly certain that congress can compel basically anyone they want to testify, even if it has to be in a closed session.
As dysfunctional as they are, a united congress is the most powerful entity in the US. The president's "power" is that he isnt divided; however he cannot compel anyone to testify, control budgets, or change laws.
The United States of America is the shining example of totalitarianism in the world today.
We have a major problem with the constitution being seen as completely irrelevant (see Obama's decision that he can unilaterally override legislation with Obamacare / immigration; the idea that the fed has the constitutional right to mandate healthcare; the idea that state governments have the right to prohibit firearm posession; etc ad nauseam).
That said, I have a strong feeling you've never been to a totalitarian government, and have no idea what youre talking about. All governments tend towards totalitarianism, but we're pretty far from it. Part of the issue with "nothing but complaints" is that people get this ridiculous idea that "we've lost, we have no freedoms, and we're already a dictatorship". Guess what, no we're not, we still have a large number of rights, and battles over a lot of them are STILL being fought.
So next time the discussion over gun control or the first amendment or the 4th amendment comes up, rather than saying "think of the children" and conceding, and rather than saying "we've lost' and giving up, try actually standing up for the principle and letting it affect how you vote. I have a strong feeling that this defeatism is a lot of the reason so many people dont vote, and you really should not be complaining about slacktivism on the one hand and encouraging apathy on the other.
Given a screen size, they are "equivalent" and somewhat interchangeable. Also, when dealing with scaling images, you really cant talk of pixel density without meaning "resolution"; on-screen widgets arent going to be aware of or able to interact with the pixel density.
Slashdot Mirror
The Feds love stacking that shit up.
Its not "the feds" who make that call, its the judge.
Apparently it is now (has always been?) in vogue to criticize America for things that never actually happened. If you took time to actually understand the issue, the "collateral murder" video doesnt show any children being killed. The (2?) injured children were transferred to a US military hospital for a day before being released to an Iraqi hospital.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike
Now go forth, and try to keep the uninformed BS to a minimum.
Doesnt the US get massively criticized as being an imperialistic, oil-interested monster every time we intervene overseas?
Dont be ridiculous; look at any economic standard, we continue to be top 10 in the world. Median income, GDP, GDP per capita, nil starvation levels, etc etc etc.
We're discussing it because someone decided to stir the pot a little and claim that western culture is destroying the world by eating foods that have been eaten for thousands of years. And noone outside of this ridiculous article (LOTS of people eat insects, its just not culturally western) discusses this because its a stupid question. You cant just snap your fingers and change culture like that.
Thats an awful idea, do you realize how bad the latency would be? What happens when one service is consistently behind the other, do you just allow the data to constantly be in an inconsistent state between your "stripes"? What happens if one provider is down-- do you allow the volume to remain "on" during the outage, and if so, where are you going to store the parity information until it comes back up?
And all of this for what benefit?
Youre basically taking the issues that arise in a mixed-hardware RAID, and amplifying them about a hundred times, and then throwing in TCP just to make things really exciting. You would end up with all of the bad parts of RAID 0, and none of the good ones (since one stripe is no good to you unless the other arrives immedately after, which can hardly be guaranteed over TCP).
It seems like the most surefire way for Google to "be evil" in people's eyes is to have special offers and go the extra mile. Offer google reader for free for years with a cutoff date? Evil! Offer free netflix, with a cutoff date? Evil! Donate to charity-- but only SOME of your assets? Evil!
Apparently the only way for them not to be evil is to only ever donate the entirety of their assets, offer services in perpetuity, and ever make any money whatsoever.
But they seem to be unable to actually apply it in practice. When it comes time to actually force the goverment to obey the law, they show their true colors as authoritarians.
No, youve nailed it. Trying to see the other point of view is so passe on slashdot; just call them authoritarian and be done with it. Never mind that the vast majority of folks I know who call themselves conservative are about as far away value wise from authoritarianism as you can get.
Somehow raymorris made a very insightful, balanced, and fair post, and you managed to garner very little from it, opting instead to turn this into a massive debate on why socialism is the answer.
Somehow eugenics discussions always end up with the state telling some people they may not have children.
Sorry, that will always be abominable.
I have seen you argue quite emphatically on a number of topics on this forum. I find it very hard to reconcile your claimed disbelief in free will with the time you spend trying to convince others of something.
I also find it hard to discern what you might mean by "freedom" if you deny free will, or your objection to being coerced (since, lacking free will, you never have a say in anything anyways).
Addendum:
Soybean protein is a "complete protein" since it provides all of the essential amino acids for human nutrition.[12][13] Soybean protein is essentially identical to that of other legume pulses (that is to say, legume proteins in general consist of 7S and 11S storage proteins), and is one of the least expensive sources of dietary protein.[14] For this reason, soy is important to many vegetarians and vegans.
Im also an idiot for implying that yogurt wasnt an animal protein, which it certainly is.
My point is that no, they are not. Some of the amino acids are the same, some are different--it completely depends on WHICH protein you are eating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein
Generally, proteins derived from animal foods (meats, fish, poultry, cheese, eggs, yogurt, and milk) are complete, though gelatin is an exception.[1] Proteins derived from plant foods (legumes, grains, and vegetables) tend to have less of one or more essential amino acid.[6] Some are notably low, such as corn protein, which is low in lysine and tryptophan.[10]
As I recall, soy protein looked pretty good, but I do not know if it is complete.
Freedom of religion is violated by faith based initiatives.
This is only the case if you deny free will.
Freedom of religion just means that noone shall coerce you regarding religion. Speaking your mind, for the record, is not coercion.
What makes you think it?
The number of times I have seen someone admit that they were wrong (without pressure / coercion) pales in comparision to the number of times someone has been wrong but has continued defending themselves.
It only takes a casual look around the world, and within one's own character, to realize this is true. Someone calls you out as wrong, the first instinct isnt "AM i wrong?", but "how can I refute him". This is part of human nature, and I havent really found anything to indicate that it isnt universal; though certainly some people are quite good at stuffing that defensive posture into the back of their mind and are more humble.
Not sure why you slipped in that little list, but are you by any chance looking at this problem from quite far to the right? I've noticed a tendency of ideologues (rather than ethical pragmatists) to view everyone as evil hypocrites by nature, and to use that as an excuse for their worldview.
I dont know if I'd say Im far right, because I can recognize that even "leftist" programs will accomplish some good (I just tend to think it not worth the cost), but yes, and its interesting you would say it like that. Im currently in a Poli Sci class, and there was a video on "realism" where the speaker described it as basically what you said-- a cynical worldview that everyone is NOT intrinsically good, but intrinsically self-interested and self-justifying. This idea seems to be foreign to a lot of folks I know that I assume to be more to the left-- certainly a number of students in the class appear to never have even thought of the world in those terms.
Folks on the right appear cold and unsympathetic in public policy because (If I can generalize) they DO tend to view the world cynically, as a cold and hostile place. We dont want publicly funded social welfare programs because we see the potential for abuse as through the roof, and the spending as driven by idealism rather than grounded in the reality of both budget and human nature.
Folks on the left (and this is how it seems to me) seem to want to assume the best; that cooperation is not only possible, but easily obtainable, and that we should not only aim for the stars, but actively work towards some ideal world that we surely can achieve. It appears to be a worldview that hopes and dreams that maybe a utopia that looks like communism could be possible, if only we could get rid of the elements that undermine it.
Im not sure how relevant any of that is, but I hope you find it interesting, and if you want to offer any corrections on how I view the leftist mindset, I would appreciate it; I think the hardest thing about really dialoging "across the aisle" is the huge difficulty in really understanding where someone is coming from at a visceral level.
I think you are overestimating the executive branch. FBI, NSA, DHS are all executive branch, and the exec only has the power to "execute" laws. Congress could pass a law that not only defunds the NSA, but makes its US operations illegal. Bam, theyre gone, and have no power to threaten anyone.
It astounds me that people act like the president is where the power lies. Certainly presidents past and present have made power grabs, but they do not ultimately have the power to defy congress, nor, really, does anyone. Congress can even in extreme situations overrule the supreme court by passing amendments.
No-one has any idea how many people this disaster has, or will, cause.
Im pretty sure radiation experts know what the dosages were in, around, and at a distance from the plant, and it is well documented what levels of radiation do what to the human body.
There were two workers who went into the plant during the meltdown to access the core who got doses that could be described as "concerning"; they were treated at a hospital and I believe released the same day. Only 3 workers (including the two I mentioned) recieved a dose over 100mSv; Wikipedia notes
In 2012 the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation stated that for typical background radiation levels (1-13 mSv per year) it's not possible to account for any health effects and for exposures under 100 mSv
The amount of hysteria here is unbelievable. For the record,
10 to 30 mSv -single full-body CT scan[17][18]
68 mSv -estimated maximum dose to evacuees who lived closest to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents
More people die in coal mining accidents every year than have died from reactor meltdowns in the last 20.
Maybe we should reconsider coal?
Source: (modified to bullet form)
Comparing the historical safety record of civilian nuclear energy with other forms of electrical generation, Ball, Roberts, and Simpson, the IAEA, and the Paul Scherrer Institute found in separate studies that during the period from 1970 to 1992,
The thing is, coal is rarely as "exciting" or "spectacular" as nuclear: nuclear plants go down in a big way, and so when someone dies everyone sees it. Coal mining deaths (never mind the "on the job" coal plant deaths) are a fact of life, and noone notices that sort of thing.
Yes, brilliant idea. A US organization threatening congress-- THAT would go well. Im not sure you realize the extent of the power that Congress has to make life difficult for the NSA if it wanted to.
They have convinced themselves that they are good people on no basis whatsoever,
All people do this, and I am continually amazed when people make comments like GP, wondering how someone can live with certain actions.
Its as if they think the "big bads" of the 20th century (Mao, Stalin, et al) thought they were bad guys. Never underestimate the ability of humans to rationalize and justify their actions. Note that this means each person should be continually on guard for when they have convinced themselves that something abhorrent is actually justifiable.
What happened is that you apparently dont know the difference between operating system vulnerabilities, and someone gaining unauthorized access to a forum.
No love for Total Annihilation?
Honestly I liked the campaign mode of SC1 better anyways, but maybe thats because I never had a 3do and only played UQM single player.
what good is the right to free speech, if your speech can never affect public policy?
"The right to have your opinion automatically enshrined in law" has never been in a right. You have more ability to get political speech out today than ever before, and I would argue that Obama's election and reelection is a pretty big example of people making their voice heard --free speech definitely played an enormous role in both races. Zimmerman is being defended by law enforcement against the threats you mention, and honestly hes probably keeping a low profile because the media is full of bloodsucking lampreys.
No but youre right, apathy all the way man. Screw rights, embrace oblivion.
The NSA can simply mark all documents involved secret and congress will be effectively blocked from the ability to track the de-fund.
That is incorrect. Im fairly certain that congress can compel basically anyone they want to testify, even if it has to be in a closed session.
As dysfunctional as they are, a united congress is the most powerful entity in the US. The president's "power" is that he isnt divided; however he cannot compel anyone to testify, control budgets, or change laws.
I dont believe the FISA court has jurisdiction over the congressional budget. If congress defunds them, theyre defunded.
The United States of America is the shining example of totalitarianism in the world today.
We have a major problem with the constitution being seen as completely irrelevant (see Obama's decision that he can unilaterally override legislation with Obamacare / immigration; the idea that the fed has the constitutional right to mandate healthcare; the idea that state governments have the right to prohibit firearm posession; etc ad nauseam).
That said, I have a strong feeling you've never been to a totalitarian government, and have no idea what youre talking about. All governments tend towards totalitarianism, but we're pretty far from it. Part of the issue with "nothing but complaints" is that people get this ridiculous idea that "we've lost, we have no freedoms, and we're already a dictatorship". Guess what, no we're not, we still have a large number of rights, and battles over a lot of them are STILL being fought.
So next time the discussion over gun control or the first amendment or the 4th amendment comes up, rather than saying "think of the children" and conceding, and rather than saying "we've lost' and giving up, try actually standing up for the principle and letting it affect how you vote. I have a strong feeling that this defeatism is a lot of the reason so many people dont vote, and you really should not be complaining about slacktivism on the one hand and encouraging apathy on the other.
Given a screen size, they are "equivalent" and somewhat interchangeable. Also, when dealing with scaling images, you really cant talk of pixel density without meaning "resolution"; on-screen widgets arent going to be aware of or able to interact with the pixel density.