Well I really can't see how that helps your case... You keep doing the same thing. You don't really present arguments. You just keep saying how matured you are, etc. Serving in the US Navy doesn't mean jack to me because I'm not American and I don't even like water. But I should expect that, by serving, you above other people should know that your senior rank officers are no do-goodies. And that many of them wouldn't hesitate in using all means possible - including all Polaris, Poseidon and Trident ballistic missiles - to accomplish their objectives. Even if that meant a preemptive nuclear first-strike on a foreign sovereign country.
Like I posted before, your former president was quite clear on that. But I can understand all that. What I can't understand is why people like you keep trying to convince everybody that the earth is square when the whole world outside your bubble sees that it's round. That attitude is really annoying. Specially after your little adventures throughout the world, as in Iraq and Afghanistan recently or South America and Southeast Asia in more distant times. Going back on topic, if there is a country that has proven - by using them on civilian populations with no warning, pretty much a war crime if you ask me - that it shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons that country is the US. Of course nobody is going to take them from you, and the people you elect will continue, for the most part, to do what they've been doing. That's just the way our world works.
But please, we do not need your crappy morals and distorted sense of justice. Don't forget we have a different perspective from which, I might add, your rhetoric seems as outdated as it seems ridicule. To the outside world, the US is perceived as the most aggressive nation on the planet. But then again, I suspect this won't change your mind. And that's exactly why the people you call terrorists keep doing what they do. Life goes on my submariner friend. If you ask me, I also find the world of Linux boxes much more interesting and rewarding than real world politics which is nothing more than a bunch of emotions and cultural nuances quartering poor reason. No hard feelings though.
Hey server-boy, take a peek outside the bubble. But take your meds with you because you might faint. It's like smoking for the first time: it kinda takes your breath away but then it feels good.
Instead of wasting time asking people to grow up, why don't you grow your culture and actually see the world from a FOX-news-different perspective? Maybe read a book or two about something other than Linux boxes... It's one thing to express your opinion no matter if it's only propaganda. It's another to presume you're right because you're more mature .
P.S.: The serious problem with your government are people like you that support it's irrational policies.
Huh... You might wanna take a look at my upper post that has a quote from "The Assault on Reason" pal. Then you can also ask Al Gore about the view he has from fantasy land and perhaps he'll even consider joining the world of the sane and take the meds you're prescribing...
The Bush White House announced in 2002 that, for the first time, the United States was making it a part of our deterrence strategy to consider using nuclear weapons in a first strike attack against non-nuclear states. This radical and reckless doctrine of nuclear preemption actually creates an incentive for other nations to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible so that they can respond if America does launch a first-strike, an active possibility according to the Bush team.
(pg. 170, Hardback. Bold mine)
But, most people would agree that they are less likely (no matter how small that probability may be) to launch a first strike than the US
There, fixed it for ya. *sigh* I wonder where have you people been in the last eight years...
Well, I'm sure a lot of people in the world would agree that putting the whole US armed forces in the hands of G.W. Bush is also insanely irresponsible. And yet Americans did it twice...
Like the man said, clean up your own backyard. Unless, of course, you don't give a fuck about fairness or justice and just want to keep the upper hand on the matter of dirty backyards...
I use that term for lack of a better one to describe what I want to say. It's my fault though. English is not my native language and I sometimes lack vocabulary to express myself unambiguously. Perhaps I'm not grasping the precise meaning of "techies" but I'm thinking engineers. And, since you mention it, I indeed think engineers are generally more smart than lawyers. But that's not what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that science generally makes a whole more sense than most laws, because it rests on what I called "scientific reasoning": no space for mystification, prejudice, incoherence and deceit. All arguments are examined, criticized and eventually accepted or dropped in the most rational way possible. This is what I wanted to describe as "scientific reasoning". Pretty much like how Sagan would describe it but, unfortunately, I don't have the gift of Writing as he did.
BTW, I would be most interested in getting you started on Sagan and anthropology. Seriously. I have much respect for the man but he wasn't perfect. I think he would be the first to want to know as well.
I clicked the right button, thank you. I know you didn't say that "lawyers are smart, everyone else is dumb". And I didn't mean to imply the opposite in case you wonder. I just wanted to say that the fact that lawyers - and other classes too - pretty much lack the principles of scientific reasoning makes it hard for us that have it, to understand the matters in which they are specialists, and makes it hard for them sometimes to understand our perspective which, I must say, is most of the times right. Something as basic as a syllogism poses difficulties to a lot of wanna be lawyers around here. Could be that teaching here sucks - which it does - but the basic principle still applies to all "non-scientific" areas students. And this has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. It has all to do with the kind of education you get. I, for one, consider myself lucky of having a scientific background. It helps me a lot in sorting out what's probably true from what's certainly false in all things life. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions but still, I think the rule applies quite generally.
Re:Wow! Who ever would have guessed that!?
on
You Are Not a Lawyer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
yeah well, I don't know how it works back where you live but where I live, the university is considered top in law teaching. I have plenty of friends that study law. I can tell you that they are as stupid and as clueless about everything as they could be, as opposed to engineering students that manage to actually learn something and develop their intelligence . I'm not saying that law students are stupid or dumb. I'm saying that if they are stupid and dumb, law studying won't make them any brighter.
I reckon this is quite an unfounded statement but it's what I deal with on a daily basis... The thing is, I'm not happy at all with the idea that I'm going to be defended and tried by someone who can't grasp boolean logic basics and calls it "chinese" or "code". As of law being abstract, what about, say, the Command Processor design pattern for abstraction?
Seriously, have you ever read their books? Their teacher's writings? I've never read US law school material, but around here? There are words in it I don't even think can be translated. There is no discussion. Teachers (they have to be addressed as Mr. Professor Doctor - literal translation) are complete masters of the student's fate. There is no scientific discussion. Enough rant though. Bottom line is: law is complicated because most people making laws and applying laws are perfectly ignorant of the most basic principles of logic and they don't have the slightest clue of what critical thinking and scientific method is. Combine the awareness of these principles with the internal know-how of how courts, investigations and police works and, there, you have a top lawyer. This works really easy for doctors too (M.D.'s)...
Maybe not every one on Slashdot are evolutionists but those that are, are, whether you like it or not, correct. At least they're as correct as they can be, since evolution by selection is pretty much the only theory that actually has some kind of proof to support it.
As a matter of fact, my screensaver actually implements a kind of evolution by selection algorithm.
You can obviously believe in whatever you want but, please, don't say that we evolutionists are not correct. At least not until you have proof that we aren't.
I think you are missing the point. While the laws endorsed by science may appear dogmatic they are not. Take Newton's model for example. It was dogmatic if you didn't bother to understand it. Then came Einstein. And now relativity is the dogmatic law. Until a better theory comes along. Basically science seems dogmatic because a) it has very good reasons and b) because you don't bother to understand those reasons. Believe me! or rather go find it yourself!
Well pal go and read your history textbooks. And when you find how full of bullshit they are, and when you find how that bullshit is only to cover up for even worse bullshit, perhaps you'll get back to the Silmarillion.
It's not even comparable... While the textbooks you refer are what a lot of people did compiled by one person, the Silmarillion is a (hi)story about what a lot of people, invented by one person, did, compiled by one person. It's a hell of a work. People talk of parallel universes and I'm yet to see one as developed and beautiful as the one Tolkien made. Hey, you try it!
I agree. That's what I understood from TFA of yesterday or whenever... This is terrible for the credibility of scientific institutions. Now, the creationists, for example, will argue that scientists are so hard-headed and anti-religious that they force people to resign while they share the same scientific thoughts only because they are people of the cloth.
Unfortunately this is true. Hearing the word creationism with classroom made them go hysterical and act incoherently. Like the great Douglas Adams said: Don't Panic!
Indeed... Sometimes I wonder how naive people can be...
For starters, it is irrelevant whether Iraq had any WMD or not. Saddam hadn't shown any will or intention to use them against the US or any close US ally. And since the US also has (for real) plenty of WMDs, there goes the moral argument. It was none of its business.
But even if it was, I think it became pretty obvious that he had no WMDs since he didn't used them against a foreign invader like the US.. What would he have them for then? To kill children and women only? Come on... The US is a great nation, and I respect it's people but sometimes it becomes pretty obvious why someone says "No one has ever lost money underestimating American intelligence" The current president and his entourage certainly did not...
I think you're seeing it from the wrong side. While it is true you find harder drugs alongside cannabis, that is because they're all illegal. If you sell cannabis and fancy becoming a major drug dealer then why not sell other drugs too? Anyway crime tends to agglutinate so to speak...
To the literal crook interpretation fans I have a question then. Let us picture a country (any country) where criticizing whoever holds the power is illegal (see Turkey and Attaturk, though he's already dead). Now, picture them as crooks. Because that's what they are, are they not? All crooks. Doesn't sound that good now does it? Someones crooks are others freedom fighters then I guess...
Re:Firefox Damage Control Is More Than Enough
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
Man, you guys are worse than old women...
So first it was Win vs. Lin: endless, though not pointless discussions about which one's better. OK it's classic and kinda of even funny.
But give us a break please! So Google released a browser. Cool! There's another browser! That's it!
It seems a lot o people are scared as if Google is going to kill Firefox! OMFG! Panic! Let's insult Google and Chrome and the rest of the world! Aaahh!
Please... You don't like it, you don't use it! Besides Chrome is new. Of course it has no themes! Of course it has no extensions! Duh! It stands alone for now. It's plain stupid to compare it to a Firefox that is not new, and definitely not alone with thousands of plug-in developers and users. At least wait for a couple months before panicking...
Something funny though is that both the OSes and browsers war, Apple and it's OSX and Safari tend to keep very low profiles... Maybe because they rule?
discard the flamebaitin'... but you guys deserve it. Although I'm not new here, I'm starting to understand trolls...
Well I don't know either. But it sure is one of my favorite activities listening to music while stoned. It seems I can enjoy more details and the subtleness of the music...
The problem, my fellow smoker, isn't when you act like an idiot...
The problem is when you act differently from what the majority thinks is not idiotic at any given point...
Take us, for example. 40 years ago, no one would call us idiots for smoking. Non-smokers would get that adjective faster than us... But now, from nowhere the anti-smoke paranoia has taken over the world! You can't smoke anywhere. And the argument given is not that it is for your own good! It's because others shouldn't breathe your smoke... This is flat hypocrisy...
When I leave home every day, why do I have to breathe an air polluted by all those anti-smokers? Huh? I don't I have the right to see dodo's anymore? Why do I even have to listen and put up with them shouting and making trouble when they're all drunk?
I think common sense is what should be cultivated. Because when you make laws to replace it, then it disappears. And now, wherever is legal for me to smoke, I'll smoke no matter who's around me... babies, old people, whatever...
One last thing. Some time ago, I read in the paper what the head man of Social Security here said about why wouldn't tobacco simply be forbidden. Apparently if everyone here stopped smoking, the SS system would collapse because there isn't enough money to pay retirement pensions for everyone...
Here in Portugal, it is the state that pays retirement pensions through social security. So basically, since they can't support us all, they're letting us die! But still we have to pay higher and higher taxes on tobacco. On our death.
This is all BS. If the thing kills you then forbid it once and for all...
I tend to disagree with you though. You chose self-replication as the definition of Life. Of all the definitions, it is the one I find best. But, in fact, GP's right. It is basically just systems evolving into different systems, some more complex, others more simple. Life could well be just our noun for extremely complex (all self-replicant in this planet...) systems. But the fact is that we don't have the slightest clue of what extraterrestrial life looks like. We don't even know if it replicates itself... Aside from carbon based, DNA coded systems we know nothing...
I do believe, though, that we will be able to create life. Maybe just not as we envision or define it. And I think computers and AI - namely Artificial Life;) - are the way to it. All we need is hard work, smart thoughts and a bit of luck...
Yeah well the Bear is making it's move. And while everybody is busy with olympics - and more - in China, Russia keeps pulling it's strings. My guess is we're soon to have another power to rise. And it's not China. It's Russia. Again. The big bear is waking up back from it's recovery sleep. Only this time it isn't red. It's grey. Adapted to modern politics, armed with all kinds of democracy, genocide and freedom vocabularies. And no one can do nothing about it... They are playing it by our rules. And that's something the West should worry about... A corrupt, capitalist, democratic Russia...
A symbiotic relationship between a virus and some other being? Yeah... Could be, I guess... If it worked for mitochondriae and chloroplasts, why not?
Assuming so leads to the question of what was the female cell? If sperm evolved from a virus, what was the purpose of the egg? It surely wasn't there waiting for some virus to come and infect it...
Make no mistake, I don't think I - or anyone else, for that matter - can claim to be wise enough to condemn someone to death, mainly because it is irreversible.
And I see your point. But I also find it unfair, for example, things like someone keeps robbing an old man's store time and time again until the old man decides to booby trap it's window with a shotgun and kills or wounds the thief and goes to jail for it. This has happened. Now, if the thief hadn't done anything illegal he would still be breathing... From my point of view, he killed himself...
Well, I'm not American and my country is pretty much a joke democracy, not in the sense that it is authoritarian but in the sense that is run by a particular kind of people retarded in some mystical mediterranean french-copied way that you would only understand if you lived there.
Anyway, it seems logical to me that the best candidate would always be the one closest to science and scientists, an actual scientist would be perfect. Pity there's not much of them... I think it was probably one of worst things of the last 50 years Al Gore lost the election against GWB. I think we're (that's right, we) gonna pay that for a long time.
One last thing, I find somewhat disturbing the fact that a country so powerful that it can change and influence things everywhere in the globe and yet no one but it's citizens can influence it... Not that I'm offering a solution, nor am I saying it is an easy one... But it sure is something someone will have to work out...
Well, the solution to violent crime - and other issues - is pretty obvious. It's education.
That said, we all know everyone prefers to watch some stupid game on tv than actually learn something...
Around here - Portugal - they've decided that the right to life is always more important than any other, including private property. Meaning? I can go rob someones place and he can't shoot me unless I threaten his life... God, my country sucks...
Slashdot Mirror
Like I posted before, your former president was quite clear on that. But I can understand all that. What I can't understand is why people like you keep trying to convince everybody that the earth is square when the whole world outside your bubble sees that it's round. That attitude is really annoying. Specially after your little adventures throughout the world, as in Iraq and Afghanistan recently or South America and Southeast Asia in more distant times. Going back on topic, if there is a country that has proven - by using them on civilian populations with no warning, pretty much a war crime if you ask me - that it shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons that country is the US. Of course nobody is going to take them from you, and the people you elect will continue, for the most part, to do what they've been doing. That's just the way our world works.
But please, we do not need your crappy morals and distorted sense of justice. Don't forget we have a different perspective from which, I might add, your rhetoric seems as outdated as it seems ridicule. To the outside world, the US is perceived as the most aggressive nation on the planet. But then again, I suspect this won't change your mind. And that's exactly why the people you call terrorists keep doing what they do. Life goes on my submariner friend. If you ask me, I also find the world of Linux boxes much more interesting and rewarding than real world politics which is nothing more than a bunch of emotions and cultural nuances quartering poor reason. No hard feelings though.
P.S.: The serious problem with your government are people like you that support it's irrational policies.
Huh... You might wanna take a look at my upper post that has a quote from "The Assault on Reason" pal. Then you can also ask Al Gore about the view he has from fantasy land and perhaps he'll even consider joining the world of the sane and take the meds you're prescribing...
The Bush White House announced in 2002 that, for the first time, the United States was making it a part of our deterrence strategy to consider using nuclear weapons in a first strike attack against non-nuclear states. This radical and reckless doctrine of nuclear preemption actually creates an incentive for other nations to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible so that they can respond if America does launch a first-strike, an active possibility according to the Bush team.
(pg. 170, Hardback. Bold mine)
But, most people would agree that they are less likely (no matter how small that probability may be) to launch a first strike than the US
There, fixed it for ya. *sigh* I wonder where have you people been in the last eight years...
Well, I'm sure a lot of people in the world would agree that putting the whole US armed forces in the hands of G.W. Bush is also insanely irresponsible. And yet Americans did it twice... Like the man said, clean up your own backyard. Unless, of course, you don't give a fuck about fairness or justice and just want to keep the upper hand on the matter of dirty backyards...
Someone should print this and give it away everywhere.
BTW, I would be most interested in getting you started on Sagan and anthropology. Seriously. I have much respect for the man but he wasn't perfect. I think he would be the first to want to know as well.
I clicked the right button, thank you. I know you didn't say that "lawyers are smart, everyone else is dumb". And I didn't mean to imply the opposite in case you wonder. I just wanted to say that the fact that lawyers - and other classes too - pretty much lack the principles of scientific reasoning makes it hard for us that have it, to understand the matters in which they are specialists, and makes it hard for them sometimes to understand our perspective which, I must say, is most of the times right. Something as basic as a syllogism poses difficulties to a lot of wanna be lawyers around here. Could be that teaching here sucks - which it does - but the basic principle still applies to all "non-scientific" areas students. And this has nothing to do with being smart or dumb. It has all to do with the kind of education you get. I, for one, consider myself lucky of having a scientific background. It helps me a lot in sorting out what's probably true from what's certainly false in all things life. Obviously there are plenty of exceptions but still, I think the rule applies quite generally.
I reckon this is quite an unfounded statement but it's what I deal with on a daily basis... The thing is, I'm not happy at all with the idea that I'm going to be defended and tried by someone who can't grasp boolean logic basics and calls it "chinese" or "code". As of law being abstract, what about, say, the Command Processor design pattern for abstraction?
Seriously, have you ever read their books? Their teacher's writings? I've never read US law school material, but around here? There are words in it I don't even think can be translated. There is no discussion. Teachers (they have to be addressed as Mr. Professor Doctor - literal translation) are complete masters of the student's fate. There is no scientific discussion. Enough rant though. Bottom line is: law is complicated because most people making laws and applying laws are perfectly ignorant of the most basic principles of logic and they don't have the slightest clue of what critical thinking and scientific method is. Combine the awareness of these principles with the internal know-how of how courts, investigations and police works and, there, you have a top lawyer. This works really easy for doctors too (M.D.'s)...
As a matter of fact, my screensaver actually implements a kind of evolution by selection algorithm. You can obviously believe in whatever you want but, please, don't say that we evolutionists are not correct. At least not until you have proof that we aren't.
I think you are missing the point. While the laws endorsed by science may appear dogmatic they are not. Take Newton's model for example. It was dogmatic if you didn't bother to understand it. Then came Einstein. And now relativity is the dogmatic law. Until a better theory comes along. Basically science seems dogmatic because a) it has very good reasons and b) because you don't bother to understand those reasons. Believe me! or rather go find it yourself!
Well pal go and read your history textbooks. And when you find how full of bullshit they are, and when you find how that bullshit is only to cover up for even worse bullshit, perhaps you'll get back to the Silmarillion. It's not even comparable... While the textbooks you refer are what a lot of people did compiled by one person, the Silmarillion is a (hi)story about what a lot of people, invented by one person, did, compiled by one person. It's a hell of a work. People talk of parallel universes and I'm yet to see one as developed and beautiful as the one Tolkien made. Hey, you try it!
I agree. That's what I understood from TFA of yesterday or whenever... This is terrible for the credibility of scientific institutions. Now, the creationists, for example, will argue that scientists are so hard-headed and anti-religious that they force people to resign while they share the same scientific thoughts only because they are people of the cloth. Unfortunately this is true. Hearing the word creationism with classroom made them go hysterical and act incoherently. Like the great Douglas Adams said: Don't Panic!
For starters, it is irrelevant whether Iraq had any WMD or not. Saddam hadn't shown any will or intention to use them against the US or any close US ally. And since the US also has (for real) plenty of WMDs, there goes the moral argument. It was none of its business. But even if it was, I think it became pretty obvious that he had no WMDs since he didn't used them against a foreign invader like the US.. What would he have them for then? To kill children and women only? Come on... The US is a great nation, and I respect it's people but sometimes it becomes pretty obvious why someone says "No one has ever lost money underestimating American intelligence" The current president and his entourage certainly did not...
I think you're seeing it from the wrong side. While it is true you find harder drugs alongside cannabis, that is because they're all illegal. If you sell cannabis and fancy becoming a major drug dealer then why not sell other drugs too? Anyway crime tends to agglutinate so to speak... To the literal crook interpretation fans I have a question then. Let us picture a country (any country) where criticizing whoever holds the power is illegal (see Turkey and Attaturk, though he's already dead). Now, picture them as crooks. Because that's what they are, are they not? All crooks. Doesn't sound that good now does it? Someones crooks are others freedom fighters then I guess...
lol.
Please... You don't like it, you don't use it! Besides Chrome is new. Of course it has no themes! Of course it has no extensions! Duh! It stands alone for now. It's plain stupid to compare it to a Firefox that is not new, and definitely not alone with thousands of plug-in developers and users. At least wait for a couple months before panicking...
Something funny though is that both the OSes and browsers war, Apple and it's OSX and Safari tend to keep very low profiles... Maybe because they rule?
discard the flamebaitin'... but you guys deserve it. Although I'm not new here, I'm starting to understand trolls...
Well I don't know either. But it sure is one of my favorite activities listening to music while stoned. It seems I can enjoy more details and the subtleness of the music...
Take us, for example. 40 years ago, no one would call us idiots for smoking. Non-smokers would get that adjective faster than us... But now, from nowhere the anti-smoke paranoia has taken over the world! You can't smoke anywhere. And the argument given is not that it is for your own good! It's because others shouldn't breathe your smoke... This is flat hypocrisy...
When I leave home every day, why do I have to breathe an air polluted by all those anti-smokers? Huh? I don't I have the right to see dodo's anymore? Why do I even have to listen and put up with them shouting and making trouble when they're all drunk?
I think common sense is what should be cultivated. Because when you make laws to replace it, then it disappears. And now, wherever is legal for me to smoke, I'll smoke no matter who's around me... babies, old people, whatever...
One last thing. Some time ago, I read in the paper what the head man of Social Security here said about why wouldn't tobacco simply be forbidden. Apparently if everyone here stopped smoking, the SS system would collapse because there isn't enough money to pay retirement pensions for everyone...
Here in Portugal, it is the state that pays retirement pensions through social security. So basically, since they can't support us all, they're letting us die! But still we have to pay higher and higher taxes on tobacco. On our death. This is all BS. If the thing kills you then forbid it once and for all...
I do believe, though, that we will be able to create life. Maybe just not as we envision or define it. And I think computers and AI - namely Artificial Life ;) - are the way to it. All we need is hard work, smart thoughts and a bit of luck...
Yeah well the Bear is making it's move. And while everybody is busy with olympics - and more - in China, Russia keeps pulling it's strings. My guess is we're soon to have another power to rise. And it's not China. It's Russia. Again. The big bear is waking up back from it's recovery sleep. Only this time it isn't red. It's grey. Adapted to modern politics, armed with all kinds of democracy, genocide and freedom vocabularies. And no one can do nothing about it... They are playing it by our rules. And that's something the West should worry about... A corrupt, capitalist, democratic Russia...
Assuming so leads to the question of what was the female cell? If sperm evolved from a virus, what was the purpose of the egg? It surely wasn't there waiting for some virus to come and infect it...
Make no mistake, I don't think I - or anyone else, for that matter - can claim to be wise enough to condemn someone to death, mainly because it is irreversible. And I see your point. But I also find it unfair, for example, things like someone keeps robbing an old man's store time and time again until the old man decides to booby trap it's window with a shotgun and kills or wounds the thief and goes to jail for it. This has happened. Now, if the thief hadn't done anything illegal he would still be breathing... From my point of view, he killed himself...
Anyway, it seems logical to me that the best candidate would always be the one closest to science and scientists, an actual scientist would be perfect. Pity there's not much of them... I think it was probably one of worst things of the last 50 years Al Gore lost the election against GWB. I think we're (that's right, we) gonna pay that for a long time.
One last thing, I find somewhat disturbing the fact that a country so powerful that it can change and influence things everywhere in the globe and yet no one but it's citizens can influence it... Not that I'm offering a solution, nor am I saying it is an easy one... But it sure is something someone will have to work out...
That said, we all know everyone prefers to watch some stupid game on tv than actually learn something...
Around here - Portugal - they've decided that the right to life is always more important than any other, including private property. Meaning? I can go rob someones place and he can't shoot me unless I threaten his life... God, my country sucks...