Prevention of being destroyed is different than the Promise of retaliation. One works always, the other works only against the sane. and is based on an ASSumption of others' motivations and psychology. Preventing war is also different from preventing destruction, and occur on two different playing sides of the same playing field.
The bumper on your car is for reducing impact, which benefits you and the other person (at least from what results I have heard, the second part does sound rather silly). Either way, it protects you and prevents damage. A "cold war" method would be to eliminate the bumper, and instead install a shotgun (not like ablative(sp?) armour) in the car that fires at the offending person who wrecked into you, even if it was a tree... damn tree! take THAT!
Perhaps for preventing destruction, your car has an early detection system, IR or something. But to prevent the accident from happening in the first place, it behoves you and others on the road to learn how to drive correctly. Drive a little defensively, pay attention to surroundings, don't be an ass, etc...
It has been awhile since Poli-sci, but I thought that one of the main reasons, or perhaps one of the main justifications, of the electoral college was to help solve the problem of inneffecient exchange of information, since there was no TV, radio, internet, etc. this made it rather hard to get accurate information everywhere without having the kind of "signal loss" much like in the children's game of "gossip". The reprecussions spoken of, were known at the time (again, this is from what I can currently recall), but deemed an acceptable trade off. Obviously this is not the case now.
The question is, what is the exact mission of the Airborne Laser project? If it is indeed engineered (read: planned) to be used around the clock -- meaning that many aircraft are in the air at all times, then that is a step in the right direction. As far as the listening stations go, many might be interested in knowing that according to some recent reports published by DoD, there is a need for more because of a large (their words) number of gaps or silent zones. This of course, was basically a request for support and thus funding, but still...
Another problem I see with the deterent mindset is that it is just that, a deterent. Like many others have said since the 50's, "no country in their right mind would yadda yadda yadda". The flaw in this is that the statement is TRUE. No one in their right mind would launch a nuke against us, for fear of retaliation. But terrorists do not strike many, including myself, as being very rational or "in their right mind", rather they are cowards with weapons. I am for a real defense, and I simply do not see what we have as a defense, it is the threat of retaliatory offense, nothing more....
Now, I have this plan for a space borne platform, that is linked to all other ground, air, sea, and space defense stations. This will all use a form of distributed processing, and will have its central node as the space platform. Since it is too expensive to have many people monitor every section of the planet, this will require some rather breakthrough decision algorithms. Perhaps some form of AI, maybe I'll use this little chip I found in a factory. No, don't worry about the "AI killing humanity thing" because I installed some really spiffy Microsoft products as the central OS.
"What, you have detected multiple mirv's but require me to reboot in order to better calculate them... OK" "ahhhh, blue screen of death, blue screen of death!"
Wow, I had no idea that I, a libertarian, was afraid of black helicopters from the government. Now, I AM afraid of black helicopters from the evil corporations, but ummm, wait... corporations.... government... one has limitless and legal authority, and has no accountability... one is funded privately and has no control over me... DAMN! I lost track of what I was saying.
Either way, libertarianism is not a cover all, it is a cover everyone. While cute sometimes when everyone labels things "left" and "right", one really does see, when one actually will research facts, that those labels are often interchangeable depending on the spin people want to put on it. As far as the elimination of church and state, no immigrations comment, I just have to say that that is NOT a libertarian view. As far as the rest, that pretty much defines what the founding fathers wanted. Libertarians are just the ones who are not hypocritical. Libertarians do not say "racism is bad" and then instigate a racist policy, under the guise of equality. To say otherwise is akin to arguing that the earth is a pyramid shaped block of frozen hydrogen sitting in a giants display case. You can disagree with specific ideas, and you can argue sides of how which one is most effective, and which one is the most ethical and/or legal. However, the important thing is to make sure you get the facts right.
cheers
the mix between a leader doing what the majority wants and what is right has been plaguing mankind for a LOOOONG time.
Any number of examples and arguments for both "sides" can be used. However the obvious thing to do is look at what others have said about it and done about it. After all, that is how we operate in most other aspects. You don't teach medicine by just teaching the most current research, thus re-inventing the wheel each time. Same with this.
The solutions our founding fathers came up with, was to have a written set of laws that were in turn limited and steered by a underlying set of default "rules"... the constitution. We may look at this issue, like many others, and point out short term, or clustered statistical results and come to the conclusion the entire picture is based on that limited set. Or, we could use the constitution as a guideline.
The founders of the constitution and the countries government, knew that it was the big picture that was the most important picture of all. I personally don't want my kids looking at porn, and so it is reasonable to be concerned that they can do that when away from my care. However, a blanket restrictive policy does not work. It doesn't prevent them from gaining access to porn, it makes it more attractive to the kiddies, and it has the side-effect of blocking out real sites used for research, news, etc...
Add to this, that it basically says "Fsck You" to everyone else. My idea of morality might be different than someone elses, it is not my, and therefor the governments, say in that.
My personal proposal is for it to be handled by individual institutions. Maybe setting up accounts with card readers or some such thing. The problem is finding ways to prevent ways of getting around it... fools always defeat foolproof devices.
Simply from a perspective of timing, yes, this is indeed ironic.
Now the big question is not if they are currently contradicting themselves... which they are not. The real question is whether after the commission gives their findings and factual based opinions, will that same congress listen to them. If they do not, then it would indeed be contradicing.
This is not just semantics, what this indicates is that at least in name, congress is trying to gather facts to base decisions on, which is very good. The biggest and best thing of all, though, is that this indicates a time when we can contact our representatives, point to the fact finding commission, and throw in the usual assortment of how this will become part of the problem, not the solution. Simply put, if you feel strongly about this, then you should make every effort to have your voice heard. If you write a letter, perhaps point out that it would be completely unethical for congress to ignore the commisions findings, just because they "don't like" the results. (Not to mention juvenille and immature)
At the VERY least, this indicates some are trying in congress. However, congress will not know how you feel, unless you let them know.
BTW, I personally agree with the folks below (uhh, depending on how you list messages) that say that it should be up to the counties and cities. The federal government should only be making recommendations, not laws regarding this.
I still don't understand why Bush is refered to as stupid, yet Gore is not... or even worse, Gore is smart.
Well, maybe flunking isn't all that important, but as a simple point of comparison it definetely asks for some consideration. And if bush's "promised" plans are stupid, yet gores are not, I do not trust this persons ability to think in a scientific manner.
The "have seen the light" about welfare reform is a semi-accurate statement. On one hand, we have the administration vetoing and opposing reform earlier, yet more recently began to give in. Good for them... well, actually good for everyone. On the other hand, we have the promises of welfare and social security reform in 1992, yet the only things that have happened have been opposed by clinton/gore and other democrats. It seems to me, that along with all the other broken promises of all politicians, people would not be so taken and led by words.
If one is a scientist and wishes to study what has worked and what has not (effects) than it would behove one to not listen to the words as much as the underlying meaning and plan. I can say I will make pigs grow wings and fly, but until I either show you a plan, or a prototype flying pig... it is just words. Plus, if in the past I have made many such promises, (not to mention that at the same time promised to another group that I was against genetic manipulation of animals) but not delivered, then that sets a record.
Also important is to remember that a beaurocrat is a beaurocrat, whether in government or business. The difference is that government beaurocrats enjoy a lack of accountability. If a business hurts you, you can sue for reperation, and maybe even press criminal charges. Not with the government, most of it anyways.
Then again, if the media told everyone that bush was a child molestor, people would believe it. Sheep. Some sheep have degrees, some have high paying jobs, but most are just sheep. When people judge one candidate on a basis, then don't judge another on the same basis, then that shows a lack of logical thinking and using a logical process. If someone supports gore, fine.... don't make justifications and excuses for his incompetence, dishonesty, and sleaziness. Same with bush or any other.
Politics and the american public remind me of football. Supporters of one team will always call "unfair" if the ref makes a call against their team, no matter what the instant replay shows. (ego is a very strong thing) Yet, 15 minutes later will jump up and shout WOOHOO if the ref does the same thing to the opposing team. They justify that as being fair and balanced. I guess I consider myself a ref, not a fan. And right now I see both teams wearing very similar jerseys. However I have noticed a lot more fouls and cheating on one team. Being the ref, I don't make excuses for either one, but I sure get annoyed at the fans who are so one sided.
while not using the word, "invent" it definitely stinks of B.S. and taking credit for something he NEVER did. The internet was already created, it was already privatized in most aspects, and algore was simply a member of the group that looked at that kind of stuff.
But of course, why stop there, he has BS'd on SOOOOOO many things. He has taken credit for so many things that either he voted/spoke against, didn't even understand it, was never aware of it, or just happened to be around when "it" happened that I loose count.
I am at least glad you are not voting for him, but if Nader vanished, I guess you would vote for algore, since you said you support algore more than Bush.
Apparantly, character is only important when a Republican that has done something naughty is under your guns. I have yet to hear any reason for algore being better than bush. Keep in mind that the reasons must be unique to bush.
In other words, no stupid Suzan Surandan (sp?) crap about being against bush but for algore because of the death penalty.... what?!?!?!
BTW, I don't support either of them, because they both want to increase government control of EVERYTHING, just in different proportions. algore wants to increase the size, cost, and intrussiveness of the government more than any other time (not just total amount, but proportionally.... with the exception of the prohibition era in respects to legislated morality)
bush is critized for not knowing facts off the top of his head, yet it is OK to make lies up to make yourself look like the "brilliant student" that barely passed school.
As an example, lets take affirmative action. algore uses FUD to scare people into "trusting" him and going against bush, often stating that only he [algore] CARES for minorities. Well, since affirmative action has been proven inneffective, and has caused more racial intolerance, hate, envy and racial attitudes in the workplace as well as home... it would be reasonable to conclude that affirmative action is not the way to go. algore and his mindless, emotional, and illogical supporters are akin to a group of stupid animals next to a tank filled with sharks. Moronically, they fling themselves into the vat to "solve" the problem of the mortality rate of themselves from sharks. The sharks have NO problem with this, and are continuously well fed. Upon seeing this, the stupid animals [democrats and republicans] begin fighting each other, pushing themselves with even more fervor into the water. Then it becomes election time, and the decision makers of the stupid animals begin telling of their exploits. One group tells how they "care" about all stupid animals, even though they are the very ones who throw the innocent stupid animals in the tank. The next group has slowly begun to develop some reasoning skills, and has cut back on thowing in innocents, yet still manages not to grasp the full picture. Then you have all the stupid animals that support the first group. Why? Well, because they have no pattern recognition (sometimes refered to as the basic element of the simplest form of intellegence) and let them selves be led by pretty, lying words, pretty ties, appearances on MTV, scare tactics and FUD, and sensationalism. Next, the other group is sort of clued in, but yet can't shake the tendency to be sometimes led like sheep.
But then, a voice of reason calls out. It calls from a group of animals that are crawling down the ladder to the ground. They all say how they think this is all pointless, and that it is foolish and illogical to support or enact programs that do more harm than good. Unfortunately, their voice is filtered out by the sycophant stupid animals working as the media, and never heard. Also, since both groups up top have passed so many laws taking away freedom and accountability, it is illegal for the smart animals to climb down. Yes, they can ask for permission, but it is never given, and they are thrown in the tank anyway.
So, I would say that if the facts speak of a program's complete inneficiency, and tells us all that it is part of the problem not the solution... well, then don't support it in any form, or the people that support it.
Now about Nader... I have read and seen how he speaks out against the evil of corporations, but what about any other group. the government is basically just one big, disorganized, expensive, corrupt, and inept corporation... one that we do not have any choice but to pay homage to. Will Nader actually bring back individual liberty and freedom, or will he just do what the democRATS do, and enforce his own views on everyone else?
"There is nothing more closed-minded than an open-minded liberal" Basically, liberals are the same tune, but with a couple of different buzz-words directed at a different group of people.
Liberals... I will never understand the liberal mentality of, "Tolerate all, except for those we disagree with and don't like"
But, then again, I try to live by the golden rule, which says "do unto other, as you would have them do unto you", not the modern version... "spread hate and lies in order to further your agenda, so that you may hypocritically single out people to oppress, all in the name of equality and justice" or perhaps it would be better to say, "I perceived a wrong done to someone of my group, therefore I will retaliate on another innocent person of another group, one that had NOTHING to do with the perceived fantasy wrong I witnessed."
I hate elections because it always brings out the idiots and hypocrits.
and they now know that at least one presidential candidate is an idiot
Ummm, just one? OK, I guess all those QUOTES of algore were made up by the vast right-wing conspiracy.... with a look-alike that went to all those shows, interviews, and PR shindigs on the White House lawn.
I had actually thought the white was from all the socks that were lost throughout the years, and that the red was from all the uniform tunics of those poor landing party guys in Star Trek.
Next they will say that Santa is really a out of work Elvis impersonator tyring to find his next wedding gig.
good for linux, and every other aspect of opensouce that this is irrelevant. Otherwise it would mean that the OpenSouce movement is weak and pathetic and must rely on unconstitutional attacks on other companies to make itself look better. Like that bully in school that was just a scared little boy, he could only feel superior by embarrassing others (bringing them down, not pushing himself up).
And since/. is full of intelligent and logical people full of reasoning skills, we all know how foolish it would be to support such an attack on a company like M$, no matter how much we despise them. After all, history shows these attacks hurt us more than them, and in the end do nothing to "stop" company X from doing what it has been doing.
recording video streams to hard disk question
on
Nokia Media Terminal
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone know if it is feasable to record raw video data to a hard disk without having to tune it in.
For example:
watch one channel, record another (tuned), like with current TV + VCR systems, but then take a dump... data dump that is of another channel. Yes, I know, you are saying "well if you are specifing a channel, then you are tunning it in". I really don't know much about this, just wondering.
Now if they made a PC card that tuned in up to, say 10 channels at once, and then could store these other channels as big blocks of MPEG-2 (at least from what I remember of DVB), then you could watch them later. I just don't know what the max number of tuners on one card is... or what the output (for saving not current viewing) is.
Well, it isn't just the EVIL corporations... pretty much any time you have a group of lazy but greedy idiots together, something like this happens. This already has happened on many levels here, but most of the morons inside the beltway usually follow suit soon after some other country pulls this crap.
This is yet another example why welfare... whether personal(social), corporate, or foreign, is bad.
And as someone pointed out above, does anyone, including the German policy makers, actually believe any royalties are going to make it to the majority of artists.... maybe some of the artists that are the corporate bitches, but not any musicians that like their independence and dignity.
Imagine asking a question about this to ol' George W.... most likely you would not get an answer. However, we could always depend on our ol' buddy ALGORE! He would give you every POSSIBLE answer. The more contradictory the better, even saying he will "fight" for things in ways that are mutually exclusive.
of course, the sad part is the sheer number of stupid gullible fools that will believe him. By the way, to any algore supportersj, I just happen to have some spare titles to the Golden Gate bridge, good forest land on Mars, and the Lincoln Bedroom... all for real cheap:)
I bet if algore promised a group of trekkies that he not only would build a fleet of starships, but he had already put the finished touches on a FTL propulsion system, the nation would believe it.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Be guided buy your heart, but THINK with your BRAIN!
maybe it is the low sugar in my blood, but this has to be one of the most hypocritical things I have seen in quite some time.
Don't get me wrong, I believe people that work hard to design and develop something have every right to demand at the very least, recognition. I personally think that is kinda weak in most instances, but I do back the other persons right to demand it. Yet, I see stuff here that is really just a cut-and-paste from RIAA or MPAA or other crappy organization.
It is extremely funny and ironic, though that the site name is Hobbes. Besides the philosopher, I am refering to the old Calvin n' Hobbes.... Remember that game they would play, "Calvin Ball".
What a great game, because not only did you make up the rules as you went along to best suit you, but you could change them at any time, as well. In essence you could engineer rules around you, to fit you, and only you for whatever circumstance you saw fit. This level of hypocracy and complete lack of pattern recognition, logic or reason is truly depressing.
I really can't stand all the pathetic emotional over-reactions and double-standards like this, but then again, maybe it is just me.
Lets all jump on the patent band wagon folks!
I have applied for patents for these words:
book
computer
the
a or an
spam
e-[word]
caffeine
[word].h
post
subm it
preview
And these letters:
a,d,e,h,i,k,j,m,n,o,p,s,t,u,y,z
Furthermore, due to my extensive research and marketing, I own the patents for these items of intellectual property:
4 chamber heart design
Cerebellum
a bone protected spinal cord
opposable thumbs
fingers
reproductive organs
the reproductive process
all cholesterol based hormones
the Right eye
depth perception from binocular vision
the Closed Circulation Concept (TM)
emotional over-reacting (bought from the Democrats back in 1992; pending lawsuit against them underway!)
errect posture (and the word "erect"(TM)
beer and any yeast fermentation
the Immune System (TM)
Furthermore, I have sent in for a patent for the genetic codes (not just the process of finding and utilizing derived products from) of the current kingdoms:
actually the choice is not between big government and big business, but in personal freedom and liberty vs. control (by anyone)
I think it is silly how many will defend government and cast people as "conspiracy theorists" if they champion adding accountability to government, but yet if these same group of "conspirators" quit government, then made a large company, and did the VERY SAME things they did in government. Then the accusations would cease.
Common sense dictates that it is the granting of power and suppresion of accountability that gives businesses control. Eliminate the power base, you eliminate the control.
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/
for someone who is more into showing you facts and letting you decide who is EVIL and who is not, not just telling you what to think or feel....and who can finish a sentence without saying "evil corporations..."
...I think the original suits against them are pathetic and wrong. Wrong for 2 main reasons:
The wrong things are being addressed in court
this whole anti-trust crap is self-defeating and has been proven to be completely ineffective
I have always thought that many were screwed for the simple reason that they bought a product that was not what they paid for. If you buy something that obviously does not work, you should get your money back, and if that piece of crap caused you to loose revenue, then that crap's producer should pay you. Especially if it can be proven, the toughy here, that they had knowledge of the problems but refused to repair them, covered them up, etc. but yet would not refund money. (regardless of the 60 or 90 day crap... or whatever it is)
On the subject of accountability for macro virus damage, see the above paragraph. If they knew of the loopholes and didn't promptly warn and then fix them, that is one thing. However, saying that because M$ added some functionality that was later turned into a security vulnerability, and that this means they are responsible is very erroneous. Plus, that sounds a bit like the suit against Napster for "providing the means" for illegal distribution. Lets not be hypocrits, now.
As an example, lets take UPS:
Lets say that UPS ordered a fleet of Fords. Then found that after their modifications and integrating them into the existing UPS fleet, that they didn't work, UPS would be plenty pissed. Furthermore, they would be due not only the money back from the purchase, but any associated costs of integration, modification, and maybe, big maybe, even operation costs. This is important, because of companies that payed for the installation of the software, as well as the galacticly large amount of time (money) and maybe supplies (more money, duh!) that it took to continually rig it to loosely resemble a working product. Then we have the obvious loss of data, the time it takes to regenerate that, and any projected loss of revenue from things such as down-time, loosing customers who think you are incompetent (like my spelling).
However, back to the UPS analogy. If someone hotwires a bunch of the new trucks, then that is not Ford's fault. Unless of course, the area that is frequently hot-wired is not only very easily accessable and exploitable, but Ford KNEW about it and didn't report or fix it. (hard to prove negligence or even malice in this case though)
Foreign bureaus have been cut significantly, and now there's countless hour-long news magazine shows with sensationalized stories about medical issues and bizarre crimes
Then there are the explosive rigged gas tanks that apparently are a danger to everyone who buys them....
Well, duh! Anyone who drives around running into things with some primer charges attached to the side of their gas tanks, is a fool!
Everyone knows you put them on the front and rear bumber of the truck. This is for many reasons, not the least of which is to scare the poop out of anyone who you barely hit, hits you, or taps you when parallel parking! The major advantage, however, is to to apply counter force for those anti-tank and other highly explosive rounds that are lobbed at you in war zones like:
Detroit
Los Angeles
Washington D.C. (the "gun free" zone!)
and sometimes New York or Houston
on the right track I suppose
on
Techno Jacket
·
· Score: 2
That ski-jacket is a step in the right direction, IMHO. I'm thinking along the lines of body warming, temperature detecting (core temp too if you combined a speaker and thermometer for your ear) Put some of the spec-ops throat mic's in, a radio transponder for locating, and motion capturing devices for recharging the powersupply, and this would become a must for Helo-skiiers... or whatever its called (jumping off helocopters on a virgin mountain).
For the pranksters, you could include ultrasonic speakers to cause a little avalanche to eliminate the competition (in competitions of course!).
Then of course, there are night vision goggles... just because. And to put a Dune spin on things, lets add some gas collector/converter in your pants. Just think, everytime you fart, you recharge your gas powered burner (which is in your emergency kit). So burritos for everyone, before you mount up!
Actually, back to a more serious note, I can see this kind of technology being put into those folks' polar wear... you know, those guys that like to explore the North and South 'poles'. I could personally use some of that for diving.
However, I think most of those are silly, but I wouldn't be suprised at all if it caught on with some looser group that defines success as having the latest, not necessarily the greatest!
Please Mr. Katz, don't beat me with your superior moral view of freedoms and rights. Especially since by beating me or the "EVIL EMPIRE" known as corporations, you are thus guilty of the very crime you seem to be shaking your "angst" against.
I don't buy music because it is too expensive, way too expensive. I choose not to steal either. I think it is pathetic how many people rant and rave with their little justifications about fighting the man, liberating the music and/or culture, and being the social Robin Hoods that are just acting for the betterment of society and life throughout the planet. Use those brains you are so proud of and THINK, stop making decisions based on emotion, then analyzing them with some form of pseudo-logic. If you can't afford it and want to change it, then educate your fellow man, person, or whatever. Remember, it is "Right to life, liberty, and PURSUIT of happiness," I have no right to force you to do anything against your will, unless you are interferring with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of someone else. Theft is theft, and is defined by taking what is not yours without the consent of the person you are taking it too. All economies work on this principle, by counting the buying as an exchange on not just goods, but an agreement between the two parties, you and the owner, thus changing ownership.
Now, why is it that people then take what is not theirs, without the owners' consent, and actually against it, but throw a string of irrellevant justifications out... are these justifications to really convince everyone else, or convince yourself?
Music, cars, beer, even sex is not a right... it is a priviledge. If I came and "liberated" your wife's oppressed sexuality, your dog and cat, your car, lived in your house, drank all your beer, and did this every few days, you would be plenty mad I'm sure. I could use the very same childish excuses as you do with mp3's, software, and so on.
On the subject of justifications, a little clarification. When some l33t idiot starts raging about this, his/her newest "movement", and sticks up a couple of bands that say they like the free distribution of their stuff, that is NEVER an argument for the same practice for music that is by bands that DO NOT like it. That is merely a good start. Indeed you should praise these bands, and if they have a manager that supports it, then praise and reward the manager as well. Speak out all you want, but remember to educate others in WHY you think this is better, and WHY you think this will benefit the band, management, and consumer alike. If you force yourself on anyone, you are a Fascist Pig that deserves the same fate that was handed down at Nuremberg.
If this happened I might actually start watching it. I havent watched X-files since last season. But then, I am wierd in that I actually feel jerked around when it seems most episodes were written by two different people.
One for the first half, witty, entertaining, suspensful and ORIGINAL, then Bobo the monkey comes in and finishes up for him.
its kinda like blue-balls, 'cept....different!
my view of X-files lately (minus this last year of course... since I haven't bothered):
Mulder: "...this conspiracy is everywhere, touching the entire earths population... Scuzzy, are you listening to me?" Scully: "What, were you droning again? Yeah, whatever, I need proof and scientific method, blah, blah, blah... unless of course YOU are the sceptical one, then I will be all over this crap!" Mulder: "Uhhh, why can't we ever be casted in a cooperative role, and actually both believe or disbelieve in something at the SAME TIME, and not spend the ENTIRE episode convincing each other of something stupid...?" Scully: "WHAT?! You mean actually treat episode plots as cohesive, more than just vague references? MOULDer, you're not actually suggesting..." Mulder: "Yes, I think it would be nice for our characters, and the supporting characters as well, to actually be cognizant of events outside of each individual episode... Imagine if everytime a massive city sized spacecraft, or some such conspiracy related nick-nack, appeared over thousands or millions, that they would actually remember it, and peoples' outlook would change..." ENTER LARGE SPACECRAFT WITH SEVERAL MILLION WITNESSES... BEHAVING IN SUCH A WAY THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT IT IS ALIEN Scully: "WOW!" Mulder: "Hey, you were conscience this time!" Scully: "Don't worry, I will press this "History eraser button" and everyone will forget this ever happened... except for you, of course. What a block-head" Mulder: "Not again! Good Grief!"
Slashdot Mirror
The bumper on your car is for reducing impact, which benefits you and the other person (at least from what results I have heard, the second part does sound rather silly). Either way, it protects you and prevents damage. A "cold war" method would be to eliminate the bumper, and instead install a shotgun (not like ablative(sp?) armour) in the car that fires at the offending person who wrecked into you, even if it was a tree... damn tree! take THAT!
Perhaps for preventing destruction, your car has an early detection system, IR or something. But to prevent the accident from happening in the first place, it behoves you and others on the road to learn how to drive correctly. Drive a little defensively, pay attention to surroundings, don't be an ass, etc...
It has been awhile since Poli-sci, but I thought that one of the main reasons, or perhaps one of the main justifications, of the electoral college was to help solve the problem of inneffecient exchange of information, since there was no TV, radio, internet, etc. this made it rather hard to get accurate information everywhere without having the kind of "signal loss" much like in the children's game of "gossip". The reprecussions spoken of, were known at the time (again, this is from what I can currently recall), but deemed an acceptable trade off. Obviously this is not the case now.
Now, I have this plan for a space borne platform, that is linked to all other ground, air, sea, and space defense stations. This will all use a form of distributed processing, and will have its central node as the space platform. Since it is too expensive to have many people monitor every section of the planet, this will require some rather breakthrough decision algorithms. Perhaps some form of AI, maybe I'll use this little chip I found in a factory. No, don't worry about the "AI killing humanity thing" because I installed some really spiffy Microsoft products as the central OS.
"What, you have detected multiple mirv's but require me to reboot in order to better calculate them... OK" "ahhhh, blue screen of death, blue screen of death!"
Just curious, and my brain is rather fried right now from trying to fix my network, so I really can't remember what they have done.
Either way, libertarianism is not a cover all, it is a cover everyone. While cute sometimes when everyone labels things "left" and "right", one really does see, when one actually will research facts, that those labels are often interchangeable depending on the spin people want to put on it. As far as the elimination of church and state, no immigrations comment, I just have to say that that is NOT a libertarian view. As far as the rest, that pretty much defines what the founding fathers wanted. Libertarians are just the ones who are not hypocritical. Libertarians do not say "racism is bad" and then instigate a racist policy, under the guise of equality. To say otherwise is akin to arguing that the earth is a pyramid shaped block of frozen hydrogen sitting in a giants display case. You can disagree with specific ideas, and you can argue sides of how which one is most effective, and which one is the most ethical and/or legal. However, the important thing is to make sure you get the facts right. cheers
Any number of examples and arguments for both "sides" can be used. However the obvious thing to do is look at what others have said about it and done about it. After all, that is how we operate in most other aspects. You don't teach medicine by just teaching the most current research, thus re-inventing the wheel each time. Same with this.
The solutions our founding fathers came up with, was to have a written set of laws that were in turn limited and steered by a underlying set of default "rules"... the constitution. We may look at this issue, like many others, and point out short term, or clustered statistical results and come to the conclusion the entire picture is based on that limited set. Or, we could use the constitution as a guideline.
The founders of the constitution and the countries government, knew that it was the big picture that was the most important picture of all. I personally don't want my kids looking at porn, and so it is reasonable to be concerned that they can do that when away from my care. However, a blanket restrictive policy does not work. It doesn't prevent them from gaining access to porn, it makes it more attractive to the kiddies, and it has the side-effect of blocking out real sites used for research, news, etc...
Add to this, that it basically says "Fsck You" to everyone else. My idea of morality might be different than someone elses, it is not my, and therefor the governments, say in that.
My personal proposal is for it to be handled by individual institutions. Maybe setting up accounts with card readers or some such thing. The problem is finding ways to prevent ways of getting around it... fools always defeat foolproof devices.
Now the big question is not if they are currently contradicting themselves... which they are not. The real question is whether after the commission gives their findings and factual based opinions, will that same congress listen to them. If they do not, then it would indeed be contradicing.
This is not just semantics, what this indicates is that at least in name, congress is trying to gather facts to base decisions on, which is very good. The biggest and best thing of all, though, is that this indicates a time when we can contact our representatives, point to the fact finding commission, and throw in the usual assortment of how this will become part of the problem, not the solution. Simply put, if you feel strongly about this, then you should make every effort to have your voice heard. If you write a letter, perhaps point out that it would be completely unethical for congress to ignore the commisions findings, just because they "don't like" the results. (Not to mention juvenille and immature)
At the VERY least, this indicates some are trying in congress. However, congress will not know how you feel, unless you let them know.
BTW, I personally agree with the folks below (uhh, depending on how you list messages) that say that it should be up to the counties and cities. The federal government should only be making recommendations, not laws regarding this.
cheers
Well, maybe flunking isn't all that important, but as a simple point of comparison it definetely asks for some consideration. And if bush's "promised" plans are stupid, yet gores are not, I do not trust this persons ability to think in a scientific manner.
The "have seen the light" about welfare reform is a semi-accurate statement. On one hand, we have the administration vetoing and opposing reform earlier, yet more recently began to give in. Good for them... well, actually good for everyone. On the other hand, we have the promises of welfare and social security reform in 1992, yet the only things that have happened have been opposed by clinton/gore and other democrats. It seems to me, that along with all the other broken promises of all politicians, people would not be so taken and led by words.
If one is a scientist and wishes to study what has worked and what has not (effects) than it would behove one to not listen to the words as much as the underlying meaning and plan. I can say I will make pigs grow wings and fly, but until I either show you a plan, or a prototype flying pig... it is just words. Plus, if in the past I have made many such promises, (not to mention that at the same time promised to another group that I was against genetic manipulation of animals) but not delivered, then that sets a record.
Also important is to remember that a beaurocrat is a beaurocrat, whether in government or business. The difference is that government beaurocrats enjoy a lack of accountability. If a business hurts you, you can sue for reperation, and maybe even press criminal charges. Not with the government, most of it anyways.
Then again, if the media told everyone that bush was a child molestor, people would believe it. Sheep. Some sheep have degrees, some have high paying jobs, but most are just sheep. When people judge one candidate on a basis, then don't judge another on the same basis, then that shows a lack of logical thinking and using a logical process. If someone supports gore, fine.... don't make justifications and excuses for his incompetence, dishonesty, and sleaziness. Same with bush or any other.
Politics and the american public remind me of football. Supporters of one team will always call "unfair" if the ref makes a call against their team, no matter what the instant replay shows. (ego is a very strong thing) Yet, 15 minutes later will jump up and shout WOOHOO if the ref does the same thing to the opposing team. They justify that as being fair and balanced. I guess I consider myself a ref, not a fan. And right now I see both teams wearing very similar jerseys. However I have noticed a lot more fouls and cheating on one team. Being the ref, I don't make excuses for either one, but I sure get annoyed at the fans who are so one sided.
nt
while not using the word, "invent" it definitely stinks of B.S. and taking credit for something he NEVER did. The internet was already created, it was already privatized in most aspects, and algore was simply a member of the group that looked at that kind of stuff.
But of course, why stop there, he has BS'd on SOOOOOO many things. He has taken credit for so many things that either he voted/spoke against, didn't even understand it, was never aware of it, or just happened to be around when "it" happened that I loose count.
I am at least glad you are not voting for him, but if Nader vanished, I guess you would vote for algore, since you said you support algore more than Bush.
Apparantly, character is only important when a Republican that has done something naughty is under your guns. I have yet to hear any reason for algore being better than bush. Keep in mind that the reasons must be unique to bush.
In other words, no stupid Suzan Surandan (sp?) crap about being against bush but for algore because of the death penalty.... what?!?!?!
BTW, I don't support either of them, because they both want to increase government control of EVERYTHING, just in different proportions. algore wants to increase the size, cost, and intrussiveness of the government more than any other time (not just total amount, but proportionally.... with the exception of the prohibition era in respects to legislated morality)
bush is critized for not knowing facts off the top of his head, yet it is OK to make lies up to make yourself look like the "brilliant student" that barely passed school.
As an example, lets take affirmative action. algore uses FUD to scare people into "trusting" him and going against bush, often stating that only he [algore] CARES for minorities. Well, since affirmative action has been proven inneffective, and has caused more racial intolerance, hate, envy and racial attitudes in the workplace as well as home... it would be reasonable to conclude that affirmative action is not the way to go. algore and his mindless, emotional, and illogical supporters are akin to a group of stupid animals next to a tank filled with sharks. Moronically, they fling themselves into the vat to "solve" the problem of the mortality rate of themselves from sharks. The sharks have NO problem with this, and are continuously well fed. Upon seeing this, the stupid animals [democrats and republicans] begin fighting each other, pushing themselves with even more fervor into the water. Then it becomes election time, and the decision makers of the stupid animals begin telling of their exploits. One group tells how they "care" about all stupid animals, even though they are the very ones who throw the innocent stupid animals in the tank. The next group has slowly begun to develop some reasoning skills, and has cut back on thowing in innocents, yet still manages not to grasp the full picture. Then you have all the stupid animals that support the first group. Why? Well, because they have no pattern recognition (sometimes refered to as the basic element of the simplest form of intellegence) and let them selves be led by pretty, lying words, pretty ties, appearances on MTV, scare tactics and FUD, and sensationalism. Next, the other group is sort of clued in, but yet can't shake the tendency to be sometimes led like sheep.
But then, a voice of reason calls out. It calls from a group of animals that are crawling down the ladder to the ground. They all say how they think this is all pointless, and that it is foolish and illogical to support or enact programs that do more harm than good. Unfortunately, their voice is filtered out by the sycophant stupid animals working as the media, and never heard. Also, since both groups up top have passed so many laws taking away freedom and accountability, it is illegal for the smart animals to climb down. Yes, they can ask for permission, but it is never given, and they are thrown in the tank anyway.
So, I would say that if the facts speak of a program's complete inneficiency, and tells us all that it is part of the problem not the solution... well, then don't support it in any form, or the people that support it.
Now about Nader... I have read and seen how he speaks out against the evil of corporations, but what about any other group. the government is basically just one big, disorganized, expensive, corrupt, and inept corporation... one that we do not have any choice but to pay homage to. Will Nader actually bring back individual liberty and freedom, or will he just do what the democRATS do, and enforce his own views on everyone else?
"There is nothing more closed-minded than an open-minded liberal" Basically, liberals are the same tune, but with a couple of different buzz-words directed at a different group of people.
Liberals... I will never understand the liberal mentality of, "Tolerate all, except for those we disagree with and don't like"
But, then again, I try to live by the golden rule, which says "do unto other, as you would have them do unto you", not the modern version... "spread hate and lies in order to further your agenda, so that you may hypocritically single out people to oppress, all in the name of equality and justice" or perhaps it would be better to say, "I perceived a wrong done to someone of my group, therefore I will retaliate on another innocent person of another group, one that had NOTHING to do with the perceived fantasy wrong I witnessed." I hate elections because it always brings out the idiots and hypocrits.
what a moron.
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org
Next they will say that Santa is really a out of work Elvis impersonator tyring to find his next wedding gig.
And since /. is full of intelligent and logical people full of reasoning skills, we all know how foolish it would be to support such an attack on a company like M$, no matter how much we despise them. After all, history shows these attacks hurt us more than them, and in the end do nothing to "stop" company X from doing what it has been doing.
For example:
watch one channel, record another (tuned), like with current TV + VCR systems, but then take a dump... data dump that is of another channel. Yes, I know, you are saying "well if you are specifing a channel, then you are tunning it in". I really don't know much about this, just wondering.
Now if they made a PC card that tuned in up to, say 10 channels at once, and then could store these other channels as big blocks of MPEG-2 (at least from what I remember of DVB), then you could watch them later. I just don't know what the max number of tuners on one card is... or what the output (for saving not current viewing) is.
guess I gotta do some research now!
damn you /.
got me all interested in something now
This is yet another example why welfare... whether personal(social), corporate, or foreign, is bad.
And as someone pointed out above, does anyone, including the German policy makers, actually believe any royalties are going to make it to the majority of artists.... maybe some of the artists that are the corporate bitches, but not any musicians that like their independence and dignity.
Imagine asking a question about this to ol' George W.... most likely you would not get an answer. However, we could always depend on our ol' buddy ALGORE! He would give you every POSSIBLE answer. The more contradictory the better, even saying he will "fight" for things in ways that are mutually exclusive.
of course, the sad part is the sheer number of stupid gullible fools that will believe him. By the way, to any algore supportersj, I just happen to have some spare titles to the Golden Gate bridge, good forest land on Mars, and the Lincoln Bedroom... all for real cheap :)
I bet if algore promised a group of trekkies that he not only would build a fleet of starships, but he had already put the finished touches on a FTL propulsion system, the nation would believe it.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
Be guided buy your heart, but THINK with your BRAIN!
Vote Harry Browne for President
of course, so was prohibition, income tax, etc...
Don't get me wrong, I believe people that work hard to design and develop something have every right to demand at the very least, recognition. I personally think that is kinda weak in most instances, but I do back the other persons right to demand it. Yet, I see stuff here that is really just a cut-and-paste from RIAA or MPAA or other crappy organization.
It is extremely funny and ironic, though that the site name is Hobbes. Besides the philosopher, I am refering to the old Calvin n' Hobbes.... Remember that game they would play, "Calvin Ball".
What a great game, because not only did you make up the rules as you went along to best suit you, but you could change them at any time, as well. In essence you could engineer rules around you, to fit you, and only you for whatever circumstance you saw fit. This level of hypocracy and complete lack of pattern recognition, logic or reason is truly depressing. I really can't stand all the pathetic emotional over-reactions and double-standards like this, but then again, maybe it is just me.
book
computer
the
a or an
spam
e-[word]
caffeine
[word].h
post
subm it
preview
And these letters:
a,d,e,h,i,k,j,m,n,o,p,s,t,u,y,z
Furthermore, due to my extensive research and marketing, I own the patents for these items of intellectual property:
4 chamber heart design
Cerebellum
a bone protected spinal cord
opposable thumbs
fingers
reproductive organs
the reproductive process
all cholesterol based hormones
the Right eye
depth perception from binocular vision
the Closed Circulation Concept (TM)
emotional over-reacting (bought from the Democrats back in 1992; pending lawsuit against them underway!)
errect posture (and the word "erect"(TM)
beer and any yeast fermentation
the Immune System (TM)
Furthermore, I have sent in for a patent for the genetic codes (not just the process of finding and utilizing derived products from) of the current kingdoms:
animal
plant
these are ALL retroactive, so pay up!!!!!
I think it is silly how many will defend government and cast people as "conspiracy theorists" if they champion adding accountability to government, but yet if these same group of "conspirators" quit government, then made a large company, and did the VERY SAME things they did in government. Then the accusations would cease.
Common sense dictates that it is the granting of power and suppresion of accountability that gives businesses control. Eliminate the power base, you eliminate the control.
http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/ for someone who is more into showing you facts and letting you decide who is EVIL and who is not, not just telling you what to think or feel. ...and who can finish a sentence without saying "evil corporations..."
The wrong things are being addressed in court
this whole anti-trust crap is self-defeating and has been proven to be completely ineffective
I have always thought that many were screwed for the simple reason that they bought a product that was not what they paid for. If you buy something that obviously does not work, you should get your money back, and if that piece of crap caused you to loose revenue, then that crap's producer should pay you. Especially if it can be proven, the toughy here, that they had knowledge of the problems but refused to repair them, covered them up, etc. but yet would not refund money. (regardless of the 60 or 90 day crap... or whatever it is)
On the subject of accountability for macro virus damage, see the above paragraph. If they knew of the loopholes and didn't promptly warn and then fix them, that is one thing. However, saying that because M$ added some functionality that was later turned into a security vulnerability, and that this means they are responsible is very erroneous. Plus, that sounds a bit like the suit against Napster for "providing the means" for illegal distribution. Lets not be hypocrits, now.
As an example, lets take UPS:
Lets say that UPS ordered a fleet of Fords. Then found that after their modifications and integrating them into the existing UPS fleet, that they didn't work, UPS would be plenty pissed. Furthermore, they would be due not only the money back from the purchase, but any associated costs of integration, modification, and maybe, big maybe, even operation costs. This is important, because of companies that payed for the installation of the software, as well as the galacticly large amount of time (money) and maybe supplies (more money, duh!) that it took to continually rig it to loosely resemble a working product. Then we have the obvious loss of data, the time it takes to regenerate that, and any projected loss of revenue from things such as down-time, loosing customers who think you are incompetent (like my spelling).
However, back to the UPS analogy. If someone hotwires a bunch of the new trucks, then that is not Ford's fault. Unless of course, the area that is frequently hot-wired is not only very easily accessable and exploitable, but Ford KNEW about it and didn't report or fix it. (hard to prove negligence or even malice in this case though)
Then there are the explosive rigged gas tanks that apparently are a danger to everyone who buys them....
Well, duh! Anyone who drives around running into things with some primer charges attached to the side of their gas tanks, is a fool!
Everyone knows you put them on the front and rear bumber of the truck. This is for many reasons, not the least of which is to scare the poop out of anyone who you barely hit, hits you, or taps you when parallel parking! The major advantage, however, is to to apply counter force for those anti-tank and other highly explosive rounds that are lobbed at you in war zones like:
Detroit
Los Angeles
Washington D.C. (the "gun free" zone!)
and sometimes New York or Houston
For the pranksters, you could include ultrasonic speakers to cause a little avalanche to eliminate the competition (in competitions of course!).
Then of course, there are night vision goggles... just because. And to put a Dune spin on things, lets add some gas collector/converter in your pants. Just think, everytime you fart, you recharge your gas powered burner (which is in your emergency kit). So burritos for everyone, before you mount up!
Actually, back to a more serious note, I can see this kind of technology being put into those folks' polar wear... you know, those guys that like to explore the North and South 'poles'. I could personally use some of that for diving.
However, I think most of those are silly, but I wouldn't be suprised at all if it caught on with some looser group that defines success as having the latest, not necessarily the greatest!
I don't buy music because it is too expensive, way too expensive. I choose not to steal either. I think it is pathetic how many people rant and rave with their little justifications about fighting the man, liberating the music and/or culture, and being the social Robin Hoods that are just acting for the betterment of society and life throughout the planet. Use those brains you are so proud of and THINK, stop making decisions based on emotion, then analyzing them with some form of pseudo-logic. If you can't afford it and want to change it, then educate your fellow man, person, or whatever. Remember, it is "Right to life, liberty, and PURSUIT of happiness," I have no right to force you to do anything against your will, unless you are interferring with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of someone else. Theft is theft, and is defined by taking what is not yours without the consent of the person you are taking it too. All economies work on this principle, by counting the buying as an exchange on not just goods, but an agreement between the two parties, you and the owner, thus changing ownership.
Now, why is it that people then take what is not theirs, without the owners' consent, and actually against it, but throw a string of irrellevant justifications out... are these justifications to really convince everyone else, or convince yourself?
Music, cars, beer, even sex is not a right... it is a priviledge. If I came and "liberated" your wife's oppressed sexuality, your dog and cat, your car, lived in your house, drank all your beer, and did this every few days, you would be plenty mad I'm sure. I could use the very same childish excuses as you do with mp3's, software, and so on.
On the subject of justifications, a little clarification. When some l33t idiot starts raging about this, his/her newest "movement", and sticks up a couple of bands that say they like the free distribution of their stuff, that is NEVER an argument for the same practice for music that is by bands that DO NOT like it. That is merely a good start. Indeed you should praise these bands, and if they have a manager that supports it, then praise and reward the manager as well. Speak out all you want, but remember to educate others in WHY you think this is better, and WHY you think this will benefit the band, management, and consumer alike. If you force yourself on anyone, you are a Fascist Pig that deserves the same fate that was handed down at Nuremberg.
One for the first half, witty, entertaining, suspensful and ORIGINAL, then Bobo the monkey comes in and finishes up for him.
its kinda like blue-balls, 'cept....different!
my view of X-files lately (minus this last year of course... since I haven't bothered):
Mulder: "...this conspiracy is everywhere, touching the entire earths population... Scuzzy, are you listening to me?"
Scully: "What, were you droning again? Yeah, whatever, I need proof and scientific method, blah, blah, blah... unless of course YOU are the sceptical one, then I will be all over this crap!"
Mulder: "Uhhh, why can't we ever be casted in a cooperative role, and actually both believe or disbelieve in something at the SAME TIME, and not spend the ENTIRE episode convincing each other of something stupid...?"
Scully: "WHAT?! You mean actually treat episode plots as cohesive, more than just vague references? MOULDer, you're not actually suggesting..."
Mulder: "Yes, I think it would be nice for our characters, and the supporting characters as well, to actually be cognizant of events outside of each individual episode... Imagine if everytime a massive city sized spacecraft, or some such conspiracy related nick-nack, appeared over thousands or millions, that they would actually remember it, and peoples' outlook would change..."
ENTER LARGE SPACECRAFT WITH SEVERAL MILLION WITNESSES... BEHAVING IN SUCH A WAY THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT IT IS ALIEN
Scully: "WOW!"
Mulder: "Hey, you were conscience this time!"
Scully: "Don't worry, I will press this "History eraser button" and everyone will forget this ever happened... except for you, of course. What a block-head"
Mulder: "Not again! Good Grief!"