> And with that teck there is no way to get back. I say we hit the stars in 1000 years
Nice try, but we have to start somewhere: you have to crawl before you can walk. It's not like just waiting 1000 years will magically bridge a gap in travel technology. The first steps that' to you, "do no good" have to be taken before anything worthwhile can happen. If you put off beginning now, all you have is a precedent to keep pushing it back, until there is a REAL need to leave Earth and we don't have enough time to finish the technology that you didn't think was important.
> Well that has never stopped Slashdot before from their quest to gain the Almighty Buck.
So that's why I got this bill from them to use what I thought was a completely free message board (no, advertising does not count as a cost)... Fucking moron.
> We need a more effective vector for change than voting.
Unfortunately, just about the only successful way is revolution. Good luck with that. (Not that I would mind, but don't expect me to be in the first wave)
That's such a bullshit argument, I can't believe I keep seeing it. You are saying that only Democrat-leaning people would vote for a Libertarian, and that's absolute bullshit. If it weren't for Libertarianism, I'd still be a Republican and probably voting for Bush (not because he's any good, but because I'd still be much less informed probably & would rather vote for the devil I know over the one I don't). So in this case, a vote for LP is a vote AGAINST GOP.
You are wrong. HAHA, got you! Well, you said to... I think you've got a good grasp of the topics covered (better than I, probably), but this concerns me:
> Gun owners mistrusts law enforcement to protect them and their property and want to defend themselves. Thats it. Anything more they say is fluff.
There are police officers who own guns (personal, not issued) and don't necessarily mistrust their own agencies (although, being "in," they probably should). Same goes for ex-military types and just plain collectors. I am guessing that you live in a city. One word: hunters. They don't necessarily mistrust any law enforcement, and don't even own guns for protection -- only for "sport." Regardless of your opinion on the "sportsmanship" in hunting, mistrust of LEOs doesn't enter into it, for a normal hunter.
I, OTOH, would own a gun solely for protection. I don't feel the need to hunt (but am totally for another's right to hunt safely). Of course, I don't feel unsafe in any way that a gun would help, so I don't own one. I also happen to live in an area where you don't need to lock your doors (although I do, having recently moved here from a slightly less rural/rustic area).
Using your wording in that paragraph, I could say that you are Paranoid/Delusional simply because you lump all gun owners together as agents against the state (I know you didn't, but it could be construed that way out of context). Not all gun owners are equal.
If they own a gun inside city limits & do not hunt. Well, then your description is more accurate, but still not correct.
Whew, glad you found that quickly... After reading your initial reply, I was about to get pretty upset about it -- I forgot about the required subscription (I don't watch enough TV to warrant paying for a TiVo, but still think it's a great invention). As for mangling the EQ, do they send out firmware updates over their net? That's the only thing I could think of.
> the party not in power tends to coopt the ideals responsbile for that third party's success, thereby vaulting into the Majority party status. The third party then falls away, as it has been absorbed.
Did your thesis also look at what happened afterward? Say party Q incorporated Party X's ideas to gain votes & crush X. After X is gone, did Q retain those ideals or toss them after they weren't needed any more?
> Implementing a system that encourages fringe candidates is a bad practice over time, because it gives fringe candidates more clout
You haven't given a reason why this is a bad thing though. If the "fringe" candidate is such a whacko, he won't get voted in. If he really is on the fringe, only fringe voters (a small percent). However, it actually gives people a real choice to elect someone who is actually different.
EVEN, if by chance, a whacko really is elected, we have checks & balances to keep him from doing anything REALLY bad, and if all else fails, we still have impeachment (although that should be used as an absolute last resort).
> One of the major parties tends to absorb the key issues of third parties and run with them.
And if they don't? We get the current situation where they are ignored and forced out of public eye by spending money and passing laws to make it impossible to see anyone else.
We need to defend the rights of due process even if the accused has publicly admitted to serial murder. If his rights are stepped over, anyone's rights can be stepped over. Now, if any person is truly guilty of a crime, they should be punished in a reasonable manner after they have been proven guilty in a court of law (or through some other legal process; settling, plea bargaining, whatever).
Geez, it was in the summary, and in the first visible post... The upgrade will basically be free, so no, it is not a business strategy (I do realize that was probably a joke...)
You seem to be reading more into the comment than was intended... I wasn't really attacking anyone, I was attacking the idea that my rights should be restricted for any reason. It's not immature, it's the way it should be. I am supposedly free, and it's supposed to be an "inalienable right," but I am not free, far from it, and there is nowhere to go where I am allowed to be free, or else I would leave & never bother you again.
> computers are nowhere near a 'brand new' thing, they're very nearly an eighth the age of the united states itself.
HAHAHAAHAAAAA, THAT's FUNNY. Ahem. THE UNITED STATES IS ALMOST A BRAND-NEW THING. It's very obvious that you are American (not an insult, so am I) because you seem to imply that nothing happened before the U.S. was around. The United States is one of the newest countries in existence, so 8 generations in the U.S. is nothing, compared to everything that happened before it. Computers have been around.. what, 50 years? The Earth is (at extremely ignorant estimations) 10,000 or (at normal estimations) 5bil(?) years old. Humans have been around hundreds of thousands of years. Civilizations... Don't even know, but a long time. Yes, 50 years ago is BRAND NEW.
> because you are stuck on some immature fantasy of cyber anarchy.
You must be relatively new to the Internet then. It's not just my fantasy. It's the way the network was created, the way it was intended. Then, as soon as business strongarmed its way onto the net, they started whining because it was working as intended and they had no control. ON PURPOSE. Then other people decided to force the existing network users into the way THEY wanted it to be, just because they had money. Forcing others to act differently because you aren't getting your way is immature, in my opinion.
> the world needs to adhere to your standards, opinions and morals, because you have some 'pot at the end of the rainbow' vision that nobody but yourself sees.
What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything like that, you are putting words into my mouth. There is no "end" of the rainbow, BTW (and I don't mean literally either). What I asked is that OTHER PEOPLE don't force THEIR standards, opinions, and morals ON ME. They can act however they want, but once they start forcing me to change (assuming everything I do does not interfere with another's livelyhood), they are infringing on my rights. There is no vision involved, I am simply reacting to the idea that something I was able to do before is suddenly illegal just because someone "said so," and not because it is wrong.
> it doesn't sound like you've thought your impulsive little tyrades through very fully.
It seems like you haven't READ my entire "tyrade" through, as one thing you conveniently ignored was where I said this: > > it is my right to use my computer however I want, as long as that use doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.'
Breaking copyright was already a violation of law, no new laws were needed just because the medium changed. Illegally copying music was already illegal.
> if i don't start using computers fully i am going to die?
Again, you conveniently ignored part of my comment, even though YOU QUOTED IT. > > or at least quit whining when the rest of us adapt and you refuse to.'
I said you can choose to live in the past if you want, but that's not what I want. I want to be able to use these devices that were created, so don't fucking whine to me about what I do, unless it hurts you in some way. (NOW, I'm riled up -- it's hard to hold an argument when you read what you want to read & ignore the rest.)
And what the hell was that other thing you posted, it made absolutely no sense. Were you seriously spending time with someone else talking about my/. post, or did you just make that up, or what? It doesn't even follow my ideas at all, it just seems like a random post out of nowhere.
> most species appear suddenly in the fossil record
You do realize that our "fossil record" contains an EXTREMELY small number of species? The conditions have to be right for a fossil to be created. There are certainly a number of species that have existed & we'll never know about it because no fossils were left behind. Oh, and that fossil record spans a pretty huge amount of time, so nothing it it happens "suddenly." "Suddenly" is about 200,000 years.
> Be that as it may. there had to be a point where the first hominid couldn't interbreed with the other creatures around it
Try again. Evolution is a process, not a step. Sure, there was a point where a given species couldn't interbreed with the species they came from, maybe a hundred generations back, and possibly a similar species in a different area, but they don't interact. That's why there isn't the whole spectrum of species but mostly distinct ones. They originated in different areas.
> If my prior research with our species holds true, they'd walk right by me without another look.
Interesting... I wonder if that power can be harnessed to create great new camouflage for our military. Geek-o-flage. Of course, that does require the enemy to be all female, and we know that the reverse isn't necessarily true -- men will still look at unattractive women, but women are primarily vain bitches (sense any hostility?:)
> If there is nothing to this Book, why the vemon directed towards it?
Umm... Because it's an insult to science, and particularly the scientists involved in research, to claim that all their work is futile and, in some cases, that it is evil/against God's will. Let's say your job is to research new ways to make gutters (just a random example). Let's say the major religion of your country claims it's against their moral law for water to be redirected, because water is holy & not at your will. So they start publicly bashing your work -- how the hell are you SUPPOLED to feel? After a few decades of harassment, you would get pretty upset, even to the point of venomous.
Yes, gutters is a silly example, but no sillier, in my eyes, than claiming that some unknowable being is going to smite us if we don't believe in him and wants his followers to ensure that even the ones who do not believe in him remain ignorant of anything else. If a scientific hypothesis is proven wrong, it can be modified or removed. When a biblical situation is proven wrong, instead of revising their views, many Christians (not all, but at least the ones in question here) simply hold even more firm to their ignorance and shout louder that I'm going to hell.
> vampiric aliens can't stand the smell of garlic. But... if they're not undead, I guess I'm screwed.
I'll pass on the easy "not undead"=="really dead" line and go for the not-so-funny.
Maybe the aliens can't stand bad breath? You never know (well, maybe not "never," exactly). Even if you were never a Boy Scout, you should still "Be Prepared," so chow down on the garlic and breath heavily on the aliens.
> Hey maybe a bunch of females just thought it looked sexy.
Hrm, you may actually have a point there. Standing upright & taller, with your chest out, makes you look bigger. The bigger the male looks, the more prepared he seems in protecting the female & children. So yes, actually, that may be a contributing reason for bipedalism.
> I'd much sooner believe in the bible, than sit around waiting for this trilogy of miracles to take place.
So... you prefer a million farfetched miracles to be your truth over a "miracle" that isn't a miracle at all, but a natural happenstance? This, of course, leaves out the variable of your vast ignorance, in that this probably wasn't a mutation at all... And even if it were, that both parents don't have to have a trait for it to be passed on to future generations...
Slashdot Mirror
> And with that teck there is no way to get back. I say we hit the stars in 1000 years
Nice try, but we have to start somewhere: you have to crawl before you can walk. It's not like just waiting 1000 years will magically bridge a gap in travel technology. The first steps that' to you, "do no good" have to be taken before anything worthwhile can happen. If you put off beginning now, all you have is a precedent to keep pushing it back, until there is a REAL need to leave Earth and we don't have enough time to finish the technology that you didn't think was important.
> Well that has never stopped Slashdot before from their quest to gain the Almighty Buck.
So that's why I got this bill from them to use what I thought was a completely free message board (no, advertising does not count as a cost)... Fucking moron.
> We need a more effective vector for change than voting.
Unfortunately, just about the only successful way is revolution. Good luck with that. (Not that I would mind, but don't expect me to be in the first wave)
> 2. Kerry's OWN WORDS contradict what you just linked to, if we go with your interpretation.
We're talking about Kerry here... that can apply to just about anything he's ever publicly said.
(this is not an endorsement for Bush)
> b) You want to retain Bush in office.
That's such a bullshit argument, I can't believe I keep seeing it. You are saying that only Democrat-leaning people would vote for a Libertarian, and that's absolute bullshit. If it weren't for Libertarianism, I'd still be a Republican and probably voting for Bush (not because he's any good, but because I'd still be much less informed probably & would rather vote for the devil I know over the one I don't). So in this case, a vote for LP is a vote AGAINST GOP.
> Tell me if I am wrong..
You are wrong. HAHA, got you! Well, you said to... I think you've got a good grasp of the topics covered (better than I, probably), but this concerns me:
> Gun owners mistrusts law enforcement to protect them and their property and want to defend themselves. Thats it. Anything more they say is fluff.
There are police officers who own guns (personal, not issued) and don't necessarily mistrust their own agencies (although, being "in," they probably should). Same goes for ex-military types and just plain collectors. I am guessing that you live in a city. One word: hunters. They don't necessarily mistrust any law enforcement, and don't even own guns for protection -- only for "sport." Regardless of your opinion on the "sportsmanship" in hunting, mistrust of LEOs doesn't enter into it, for a normal hunter.
I, OTOH, would own a gun solely for protection. I don't feel the need to hunt (but am totally for another's right to hunt safely). Of course, I don't feel unsafe in any way that a gun would help, so I don't own one. I also happen to live in an area where you don't need to lock your doors (although I do, having recently moved here from a slightly less rural/rustic area).
Using your wording in that paragraph, I could say that you are Paranoid/Delusional simply because you lump all gun owners together as agents against the state (I know you didn't, but it could be construed that way out of context). Not all gun owners are equal.
If they own a gun inside city limits & do not hunt. Well, then your description is more accurate, but still not correct.
> According to this post,
Whew, glad you found that quickly... After reading your initial reply, I was about to get pretty upset about it -- I forgot about the required subscription (I don't watch enough TV to warrant paying for a TiVo, but still think it's a great invention). As for mangling the EQ, do they send out firmware updates over their net? That's the only thing I could think of.
> At the end of the day there's no difference.
:)
Ah, you were being more subtle than I am accustomed to
> the party not in power tends to coopt the ideals responsbile for that third party's success, thereby vaulting into the Majority party status. The third party then falls away, as it has been absorbed.
Did your thesis also look at what happened afterward? Say party Q incorporated Party X's ideas to gain votes & crush X. After X is gone, did Q retain those ideals or toss them after they weren't needed any more?
> Implementing a system that encourages fringe candidates is a bad practice over time, because it gives fringe candidates more clout
You haven't given a reason why this is a bad thing though. If the "fringe" candidate is such a whacko, he won't get voted in. If he really is on the fringe, only fringe voters (a small percent). However, it actually gives people a real choice to elect someone who is actually different.
EVEN, if by chance, a whacko really is elected, we have checks & balances to keep him from doing anything REALLY bad, and if all else fails, we still have impeachment (although that should be used as an absolute last resort).
> One of the major parties tends to absorb the key issues of third parties and run with them.
And if they don't? We get the current situation where they are ignored and forced out of public eye by spending money and passing laws to make it impossible to see anyone else.
> It helps quite a bit when the one major party knows full well that no one else can afford to spend as much.
I think you mean "both major parties," not just one.
> We are not defending him. We are defending you.
Wow, oh wow -- Beautifully said!
We need to defend the rights of due process even if the accused has publicly admitted to serial murder. If his rights are stepped over, anyone's rights can be stepped over. Now, if any person is truly guilty of a crime, they should be punished in a reasonable manner after they have been proven guilty in a court of law (or through some other legal process; settling, plea bargaining, whatever).
> If we all just flew off the handle half-cocked
You must be ne... Err... "PhilHibbs (4537)" Never mind. Anyway
> A bug that causes old users to pay to upgrade?
Geez, it was in the summary, and in the first visible post... The upgrade will basically be free, so no, it is not a business strategy (I do realize that was probably a joke...)
> the Nintendo GameCube has a Class I laser housed inside a Class I case
Copied & pasted from the article (well, the google cache of it):
> Namely that the Nintendo GameCube has a Class II laser housed inside a Class I case
I don't know the difference between Class I & Class II lasers, but I assume there is one, probably significant.
You seem to be reading more into the comment than was intended... I wasn't really attacking anyone, I was attacking the idea that my rights should be restricted for any reason. It's not immature, it's the way it should be. I am supposedly free, and it's supposed to be an "inalienable right," but I am not free, far from it, and there is nowhere to go where I am allowed to be free, or else I would leave & never bother you again.
/. post, or did you just make that up, or what? It doesn't even follow my ideas at all, it just seems like a random post out of nowhere.
> computers are nowhere near a 'brand new' thing, they're very nearly an eighth the age of the united states itself.
HAHAHAAHAAAAA, THAT's FUNNY. Ahem. THE UNITED STATES IS ALMOST A BRAND-NEW THING. It's very obvious that you are American (not an insult, so am I) because you seem to imply that nothing happened before the U.S. was around. The United States is one of the newest countries in existence, so 8 generations in the U.S. is nothing, compared to everything that happened before it. Computers have been around.. what, 50 years? The Earth is (at extremely ignorant estimations) 10,000 or (at normal estimations) 5bil(?) years old. Humans have been around hundreds of thousands of years. Civilizations... Don't even know, but a long time. Yes, 50 years ago is BRAND NEW.
> because you are stuck on some immature fantasy of cyber anarchy.
You must be relatively new to the Internet then. It's not just my fantasy. It's the way the network was created, the way it was intended. Then, as soon as business strongarmed its way onto the net, they started whining because it was working as intended and they had no control. ON PURPOSE. Then other people decided to force the existing network users into the way THEY wanted it to be, just because they had money. Forcing others to act differently because you aren't getting your way is immature, in my opinion.
> the world needs to adhere to your standards, opinions and morals, because you have some 'pot at the end of the rainbow' vision that nobody but yourself sees.
What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything like that, you are putting words into my mouth. There is no "end" of the rainbow, BTW (and I don't mean literally either). What I asked is that OTHER PEOPLE don't force THEIR standards, opinions, and morals ON ME. They can act however they want, but once they start forcing me to change (assuming everything I do does not interfere with another's livelyhood), they are infringing on my rights. There is no vision involved, I am simply reacting to the idea that something I was able to do before is suddenly illegal just because someone "said so," and not because it is wrong.
> it doesn't sound like you've thought your impulsive little tyrades through very fully.
It seems like you haven't READ my entire "tyrade" through, as one thing you conveniently ignored was where I said this:
> > it is my right to use my computer however I want, as long as that use doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.'
Breaking copyright was already a violation of law, no new laws were needed just because the medium changed. Illegally copying music was already illegal.
> if i don't start using computers fully i am going to die?
Again, you conveniently ignored part of my comment, even though YOU QUOTED IT.
> > or at least quit whining when the rest of us adapt and you refuse to.'
I said you can choose to live in the past if you want, but that's not what I want. I want to be able to use these devices that were created, so don't fucking whine to me about what I do, unless it hurts you in some way. (NOW, I'm riled up -- it's hard to hold an argument when you read what you want to read & ignore the rest.)
And what the hell was that other thing you posted, it made absolutely no sense. Were you seriously spending time with someone else talking about my
> most species appear suddenly in the fossil record
You do realize that our "fossil record" contains an EXTREMELY small number of species? The conditions have to be right for a fossil to be created. There are certainly a number of species that have existed & we'll never know about it because no fossils were left behind. Oh, and that fossil record spans a pretty huge amount of time, so nothing it it happens "suddenly." "Suddenly" is about 200,000 years.
> Be that as it may. there had to be a point where the first hominid couldn't interbreed with the other creatures around it
Try again. Evolution is a process, not a step. Sure, there was a point where a given species couldn't interbreed with the species they came from, maybe a hundred generations back, and possibly a similar species in a different area, but they don't interact. That's why there isn't the whole spectrum of species but mostly distinct ones. They originated in different areas.
> If my prior research with our species holds true, they'd walk right by me without another look.
:)
Interesting... I wonder if that power can be harnessed to create great new camouflage for our military. Geek-o-flage. Of course, that does require the enemy to be all female, and we know that the reverse isn't necessarily true -- men will still look at unattractive women, but women are primarily vain bitches (sense any hostility?
> If there is nothing to this Book, why the vemon directed towards it?
Umm... Because it's an insult to science, and particularly the scientists involved in research, to claim that all their work is futile and, in some cases, that it is evil/against God's will. Let's say your job is to research new ways to make gutters (just a random example). Let's say the major religion of your country claims it's against their moral law for water to be redirected, because water is holy & not at your will. So they start publicly bashing your work -- how the hell are you SUPPOLED to feel? After a few decades of harassment, you would get pretty upset, even to the point of venomous.
Yes, gutters is a silly example, but no sillier, in my eyes, than claiming that some unknowable being is going to smite us if we don't believe in him and wants his followers to ensure that even the ones who do not believe in him remain ignorant of anything else. If a scientific hypothesis is proven wrong, it can be modified or removed. When a biblical situation is proven wrong, instead of revising their views, many Christians (not all, but at least the ones in question here) simply hold even more firm to their ignorance and shout louder that I'm going to hell.
> So that means the giant black obelisk in my neighborhood
/.
Hmm... If that happens, I wonder if the community will attempt to sue the cosmos under zoning laws or planned community BS...
Just another stupid idea, brought to you via
> vampiric aliens can't stand the smell of garlic. But... if they're not undead, I guess I'm screwed.
I'll pass on the easy "not undead"=="really dead" line and go for the not-so-funny.
Maybe the aliens can't stand bad breath? You never know (well, maybe not "never," exactly). Even if you were never a Boy Scout, you should still "Be Prepared," so chow down on the garlic and breath heavily on the aliens.
> the monster that's been hiding in my closet
Do you mean this monster?
> Hey maybe a bunch of females just thought it looked sexy.
Hrm, you may actually have a point there. Standing upright & taller, with your chest out, makes you look bigger. The bigger the male looks, the more prepared he seems in protecting the female & children. So yes, actually, that may be a contributing reason for bipedalism.
> And therefore for their predators to observe them.
Well, a good predator would have noticed the monkey whether it was on two or four legs, so it just gives the monkey a slight advantage.
> I'd much sooner believe in the bible, than sit around waiting for this trilogy of miracles to take place.
So... you prefer a million farfetched miracles to be your truth over a "miracle" that isn't a miracle at all, but a natural happenstance? This, of course, leaves out the variable of your vast ignorance, in that this probably wasn't a mutation at all... And even if it were, that both parents don't have to have a trait for it to be passed on to future generations...