I think that both the US and Canada need to build East/West and North/South high speed rail lines, and cost be damned. These could be the new national dream. It would revitalize the economy the way the Hoover Dam and other mega projects (like WWII) did.
A good start would be a New York to Montreal high speed corridor.
A Halifax to Vancouver line would be amazing, you could get across the country in what, 8 to 10 hours?
The mechanism that teh scientologists use is called a Galvanic Skin Response reader. It simply measures the amount of sweat on your hands. The amount of sweat on your hands doesn't mean much. It could be a hot day, or you could be a little nervous (for any reason) or you could simply be John McCain. Back in the day they actually used these home made machines that used tin cans!
GSR's are somewhat useful, they use them in lie detectors, but there is also a lot of evidence that lie detectors, which are infinitely more sophisticated than a simple GSR are pretty much useless themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_skin_response
Sorry, I can't tell if you are being ironic or are just some kind of maniac.
He shut down some web sites. No one died.
Thank-you for your thoughtful comments!
Oh man, that's sad. This guy is a hero. But he is also a "drug criminal" and therefore MUST PURSUED AND DESTROYED.
He probably didn't pay his income tax either.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/logs.html
He'll be on tomorrow 8:45 AM EST. If you can't get CBC on the radio or XM, the show will be podcast at the link above.
There is only one thing that deters anyone from doing anything and that is the certainty, or near certainty of punishment. If I run at the wall head down, I will be punished for sure, so I don't that. If I smoke I may get away with it, not everyone who smokes dies or gets sick as a result. This is what most people miss about punishment, they think it's the degree and punishment, when it's the likelihood of punishment that counts.
No one would smoke if 80% of them died in 30 minutes.
No, you are correct. Canada has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, as well as 20% of the fresh water. As the middle east burns, and aquifers in the US dry up, the invasion and occupation of Canada is a virtual certainty. It would take a few months of propaganda to get everyone worked up and then just a few days to defeat the military, which is tiny. Canada has no nuclear weapons, so it will be a 'cakewalk'.
This is not a moral question it is a question of resources and survival. If it were a moral question I should point out that Canadians believe in abortion, many of them are not even Christians, they have a socialist government and trade with Cuba. There are also hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in Canada, which is a threat to the security of American. They club baby seals to death too. And did I mention that they have lots of oil?
See "Canadian Bacon" if you need any more proof.
And that's why they was rioting in the streets and massive demonstrations against the government.
http://uktv.co.uk/history/item/aid/570636
How were they "hypocrites"?
I am holding on. I guess we differ on the definition. The British considered Washington a 'rebel' and today would call him a "terrorist" for sure, you cannot argue with that. The "armies against armies" only came later in the rebellion, prior to that it was small groups of people rebelling against the existing governmental structure.
The fact the Ayers tried to avoid casualties is actually good evidence that he was not a "terrorist". A terrorist is someone who uses fear or "terror" to advance their political goals. Blowing up buildings may be a form of terrorism, but it's very mild in comparison to some of the acts we see today. I think if you read about what he said and did, his goal was not inspire terror, but to fight what he saw as an evil and unjust government that was in the process of slaughtering 1.5 to 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians. His goal was the overthrow of that government. There was a time, around 1968, when that seemed possible.
And please be careful; if your definition of terrorism hinges on whether or not there is a "formally declared" war, then the USA is a terrorist state.
If the criteria is the use of violence against non combatants is important then the "terror" bombings of WWII against German cities, and the later bombing of Hanoi, et al, were "terrorist" acts, so it looks like there are a lot of terrorists out there, including of course McCain and a lot of vets.
It's a silly dichotomy anyway. Terrorism is really what the other guy does - right. "We" are "good". "They" are "bad".
Here is the CIA definition:
Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
* The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
* The term 'international terrorism' means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
* The term 'terrorist group' means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.
I think if you have a close look at the history of the American revolution you will find many instances of 'terrorism' as defined by the CIA.
Here is the loophole. In Canada a young offender's record is expunged after a period of time, after which they are allowed exactly the same rights and privileges as any other Canadian. This protects them from the self-righteous, who would seek to punish them - forever.
"...the bill would apply only to accused persons "convicted" of the offence, thus excluding from its reach offenders who were found "not criminally responsible" by reason of a mental disorder or who were "found guilty" as young offenders, or who were granted an absolute or conditional discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code."
They have the same law in Canada, not sure how his book relates exactly to the law.
There are loopholes though, even in America. Buhs has written a book and profited from it.
"By precluding convicted offenders from profiting from their crimes, Bill C-220 would reinforce a fundamental value of Canadian society that criminals should not profit from their crimes. It would also reinforce and give effect to the adage that "crime does not pay." The bill would deem the proceeds received for accounts of criminal acts to be "proceeds of crime" for the purposes of Part XII.2 of the Criminal Code, thus subjecting such proceeds to a forfeiture order under section 462.37. It would also disentitle offenders from having copyright in their works, thus preventing them from receiving royalties from book sales, movie deals and televised interviews. Bill C-220 would not prevent offenders from telling their story. It would simply ensure that they derived no benefit from it."
You obviously don't know anything about the 60's. At the time, people under 40 mostly supported the Weathermen, because they knew then that their government did not represent them and was in the employ of the military industrial complex.
And he was not a "terrorist" -- he was a revolutionary. There is a difference. Washington was a revolutionary. The difference between them is that Washington won.
As for your analysis as proof. Are your really that stupid? Yes, yes, you are.
You are right, I should have been more specific, I was talking about how you communicate with the device. Music is, and probably always will be sound based. Although the cochlear implant for the profoundly deaf works by directly stimulating the nerves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implants
It doesn't necessarily have to be neurological signals, it could be something like Morse code, more or less binary signals that we could, with some training learn to understand the way we currently understand language. It would be really hard for an adult to do this, but the plastic mind of a child could acquire that capability easily.
The input could be auditory, but ideally there would be some kind of direct mind / device interface.
Good point, I have a Sansa too, and used to have a little Creative Zen. it plays music when I push a button. That's what I want. I am not sure though if Woz meant the iPod in particular, or small mp3 players in general.
There will alway be poseurs who want an iPod or whatever most expensive "look at me" equivalent. A Smart car will do 99% of what a BMW will do, but will it get attention, girls, and the like?
Surely, as the components in electronics continue to shrink in physical size, we will be able to integrate our various devices into one single unit that "does everything".
Eventually, and it's not too far down the road, sans global catastrophe, we will wear our devices or have them implanted. The interface will fade away into a voice controlled, device that actually works and that would be intelligent. I could just say "call Dave" and the device would know which Dave, based on time, situational awareness, context and the like. I say voice control but that too would only be an interim step, the ultimate maturation of such a device would controlled directly by a neural interface.
The sole remaining problem would be the display. Interim displays would project data and or images directly on the retina, and again a mature device will interface directly with the brain. Of course this tech would eliminate screens both large and small, which, in terms of our increasingly threatened environment, will be a good thing, perhaps even a new beginning for mankind.
That is exactly why Joseph Conrad said that the worst crime is hypocrisy, because not only only are you doing wrong, you are pretending that you are a good guy on top of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that both the US and Canada need to build East/West and North/South high speed rail lines, and cost be damned. These could be the new national dream. It would revitalize the economy the way the Hoover Dam and other mega projects (like WWII) did. A good start would be a New York to Montreal high speed corridor. A Halifax to Vancouver line would be amazing, you could get across the country in what, 8 to 10 hours?
The mechanism that teh scientologists use is called a Galvanic Skin Response reader. It simply measures the amount of sweat on your hands. The amount of sweat on your hands doesn't mean much. It could be a hot day, or you could be a little nervous (for any reason) or you could simply be John McCain. Back in the day they actually used these home made machines that used tin cans! GSR's are somewhat useful, they use them in lie detectors, but there is also a lot of evidence that lie detectors, which are infinitely more sophisticated than a simple GSR are pretty much useless themselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_skin_response
Sorry, I can't tell if you are being ironic or are just some kind of maniac. He shut down some web sites. No one died. Thank-you for your thoughtful comments!
Well they could always hire nuns.
Isn't that illegal?
Oh man, that's sad. This guy is a hero. But he is also a "drug criminal" and therefore MUST PURSUED AND DESTROYED. He probably didn't pay his income tax either.
http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/logs.html He'll be on tomorrow 8:45 AM EST. If you can't get CBC on the radio or XM, the show will be podcast at the link above.
Please don't post your sexual fantasies here, try the nambla forum...
Yes, and it only took 8 years. What a genius.
There is only one thing that deters anyone from doing anything and that is the certainty, or near certainty of punishment. If I run at the wall head down, I will be punished for sure, so I don't that. If I smoke I may get away with it, not everyone who smokes dies or gets sick as a result. This is what most people miss about punishment, they think it's the degree and punishment, when it's the likelihood of punishment that counts. No one would smoke if 80% of them died in 30 minutes.
No, you are correct. Canada has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world, as well as 20% of the fresh water. As the middle east burns, and aquifers in the US dry up, the invasion and occupation of Canada is a virtual certainty. It would take a few months of propaganda to get everyone worked up and then just a few days to defeat the military, which is tiny. Canada has no nuclear weapons, so it will be a 'cakewalk'. This is not a moral question it is a question of resources and survival. If it were a moral question I should point out that Canadians believe in abortion, many of them are not even Christians, they have a socialist government and trade with Cuba. There are also hundreds of thousands of Muslims living in Canada, which is a threat to the security of American. They club baby seals to death too. And did I mention that they have lots of oil? See "Canadian Bacon" if you need any more proof.
And that's why they was rioting in the streets and massive demonstrations against the government. http://uktv.co.uk/history/item/aid/570636 How were they "hypocrites"?
I am holding on. I guess we differ on the definition. The British considered Washington a 'rebel' and today would call him a "terrorist" for sure, you cannot argue with that. The "armies against armies" only came later in the rebellion, prior to that it was small groups of people rebelling against the existing governmental structure. The fact the Ayers tried to avoid casualties is actually good evidence that he was not a "terrorist". A terrorist is someone who uses fear or "terror" to advance their political goals. Blowing up buildings may be a form of terrorism, but it's very mild in comparison to some of the acts we see today. I think if you read about what he said and did, his goal was not inspire terror, but to fight what he saw as an evil and unjust government that was in the process of slaughtering 1.5 to 3 million Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians. His goal was the overthrow of that government. There was a time, around 1968, when that seemed possible. And please be careful; if your definition of terrorism hinges on whether or not there is a "formally declared" war, then the USA is a terrorist state. If the criteria is the use of violence against non combatants is important then the "terror" bombings of WWII against German cities, and the later bombing of Hanoi, et al, were "terrorist" acts, so it looks like there are a lot of terrorists out there, including of course McCain and a lot of vets. It's a silly dichotomy anyway. Terrorism is really what the other guy does - right. "We" are "good". "They" are "bad". Here is the CIA definition: Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d): * The term 'terrorism' means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. * The term 'international terrorism' means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country. * The term 'terrorist group' means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism. I think if you have a close look at the history of the American revolution you will find many instances of 'terrorism' as defined by the CIA.
Here is the loophole. In Canada a young offender's record is expunged after a period of time, after which they are allowed exactly the same rights and privileges as any other Canadian. This protects them from the self-righteous, who would seek to punish them - forever. "...the bill would apply only to accused persons "convicted" of the offence, thus excluding from its reach offenders who were found "not criminally responsible" by reason of a mental disorder or who were "found guilty" as young offenders, or who were granted an absolute or conditional discharge under section 730 of the Criminal Code."
They have the same law in Canada, not sure how his book relates exactly to the law. There are loopholes though, even in America. Buhs has written a book and profited from it. "By precluding convicted offenders from profiting from their crimes, Bill C-220 would reinforce a fundamental value of Canadian society that criminals should not profit from their crimes. It would also reinforce and give effect to the adage that "crime does not pay." The bill would deem the proceeds received for accounts of criminal acts to be "proceeds of crime" for the purposes of Part XII.2 of the Criminal Code, thus subjecting such proceeds to a forfeiture order under section 462.37. It would also disentitle offenders from having copyright in their works, thus preventing them from receiving royalties from book sales, movie deals and televised interviews. Bill C-220 would not prevent offenders from telling their story. It would simply ensure that they derived no benefit from it."
And you have NEVER broken the law. I assume you live in a cave and eat bugs for a living.
It's easy just stick to Yahoo! LOL
Don't forget unforgiving, robotic cowards. Robocop was a movie, not a manual.
You obviously don't know anything about the 60's. At the time, people under 40 mostly supported the Weathermen, because they knew then that their government did not represent them and was in the employ of the military industrial complex. And he was not a "terrorist" -- he was a revolutionary. There is a difference. Washington was a revolutionary. The difference between them is that Washington won. As for your analysis as proof. Are your really that stupid? Yes, yes, you are.
You are right, I should have been more specific, I was talking about how you communicate with the device. Music is, and probably always will be sound based. Although the cochlear implant for the profoundly deaf works by directly stimulating the nerves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implants
It doesn't necessarily have to be neurological signals, it could be something like Morse code, more or less binary signals that we could, with some training learn to understand the way we currently understand language. It would be really hard for an adult to do this, but the plastic mind of a child could acquire that capability easily. The input could be auditory, but ideally there would be some kind of direct mind / device interface.
The Mothership, it's hoovering above the planet even as we speak! And it sucks too!
Good point, I have a Sansa too, and used to have a little Creative Zen. it plays music when I push a button. That's what I want. I am not sure though if Woz meant the iPod in particular, or small mp3 players in general. There will alway be poseurs who want an iPod or whatever most expensive "look at me" equivalent. A Smart car will do 99% of what a BMW will do, but will it get attention, girls, and the like?
Surely, as the components in electronics continue to shrink in physical size, we will be able to integrate our various devices into one single unit that "does everything". Eventually, and it's not too far down the road, sans global catastrophe, we will wear our devices or have them implanted. The interface will fade away into a voice controlled, device that actually works and that would be intelligent. I could just say "call Dave" and the device would know which Dave, based on time, situational awareness, context and the like. I say voice control but that too would only be an interim step, the ultimate maturation of such a device would controlled directly by a neural interface. The sole remaining problem would be the display. Interim displays would project data and or images directly on the retina, and again a mature device will interface directly with the brain. Of course this tech would eliminate screens both large and small, which, in terms of our increasingly threatened environment, will be a good thing, perhaps even a new beginning for mankind.
That is exactly why Joseph Conrad said that the worst crime is hypocrisy, because not only only are you doing wrong, you are pretending that you are a good guy on top of it.