I heartily recommend 'The Origins of Virtue' and I've heard that his even earlier work, 'The Red Queen' is also worth a look.
Another author, one who deals with one of the more amusing areas of EP, is Jared Diamond in his work 'Why is Sex Fun?'. (It's truly fascinating to know just how different people are in their sexual behaviour from most other animals, and to understand why. No I am not advocating bestiality, nor have I ever tried it or wanted to.) In fact, I'd recommend any of his work, although much of it's off-topic to this discussion. Rather like this comment, in fact.
>If these Boeing and NASA Engineers (I'm an >engineer now too, BTW) want to piss away my tax >money, they should have a seargeant there >putting his jungle boot up their ass to find it.
How exactly do you piss huge LOX canisters up your own butt-hole? And what hope has any sergeant alive got of extracting them with a jungle boot? Sorry, I know you might not find this funny, but I just love the sick images your statement conjured up.
>Pretty funny that something so big can depend on something so small
Sorry to take up the obvious line here, but:
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe, the horse was lost. For want of a horse, the rider was lost. For want of a rider, the message was lost. For want of a message, the battle was lost. For want of a battle, the war was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
Put simply, the devil has always been in the detail.
>There are only 2 absolute results to all >theories. They're either proven, or broken
I actually agree with the importance of proving/disproving theories, but it must be pointed out that there is no absolute proof or disproof - and don't try reductio ad absurdum, we've heard it all before.
I say we should try Io - the chances of our bacteria surviving there are just as slim, and I like what I've seen of it so far. However, jupiter has the preferential argument that some of our bacteria might well have got there already anyway, and not just from the probe we dropped into it a while back. Earth has been leaking bacteria into space for 100s of millions of years (at the very least) and Jupiter has a very big gravity well. Admittedly, these bacteria will have had to survive for a lot longer in space, but some varieties might just have been tough enough.
Hell, Europa could have been contaminated the same way too although it's a smaller gravity well. If it has been though, it would be fascinating to know that bacteria are capable of that kind of inter-planetary travel, so there's still no reason to contaminate it. And Jupiter is not a good subject for such study, mainly because of that prior probe.
>Just the pictures of the Io volcanoes are making >history, and the entire world can all enjoy them >now;
I agree - the pictures are amazing, so let's got some close-ups with a kamikaze crash landing. Plus there seems to be little enough chance of life in that habitat, and if there is, our bacteria won't contaminate it because they'll be toast.
Hey man, I love obfuscation. Mainly because I'm blatently better at it than my professors - there's nothing like quoting an appallingly written but on-topic sentence to really p*** them off, but leave them nothing within their mark-scheme to touch it. (Like, have you ever heard of 'reverse inversional combinorality'? Stroke of genius.)
Damn right. I go into a kind of energy overload on Red Bull - running for a couple of miles for the hell of it, and that kind of thing - which is why I recommend balancing it with lots of alcohol.
They do some ill shit to plant crops these days too. Gallons of pesticide, fungicide, and herbicide (with certain GM crops) go into all those nice 'healthy' vegetables you ate last night. Organic isn't really much better - then your food is simply diseased, rather than poisoned. And biological control, rather than pesticides, is also a nightmare for the environment whatever they say.
The answer - don't be squeamish, just enjoy yourself and eat a whole mixture. Hopefully you won't get a toxic build-up of any one substance, except maybe caffeine and alcohol.
I've never tried Jolt (I don't think we get it over here in the UK) but as I'm no great fan of cola, I imagine I'd prefer sweet black coffee, or failing that Red Bull.
You're quite right about it being safe to store hydrogen for fuel cells in other chemical forms, such as methanol, which does not burn as easily as and releases less energy when it does than petrol (sorry, gasoline - I forgot we speak Merkin on this list). Methanol is also quite popular as an option with those oil companies who also deal in natural gas, which might well be one of the reasons why methanol fuelled fuel cell vehicles look like being the first we'll get.
It's not the only one though - as well as the safety reasons given above in consideration of fire, methanol is also much easier to store and transport than hydrogen, is available in large quantities, is less toxic than petrol/gasoline or diesel, and doesn't release much in the way of pollution.
First off, don't use a computer. Politicians get piles and piles of mass-produced letters and a hand-written letter, which cannot be mass-produced in this way, is litterally worth hundreds of print-outs. So blow the dust off your pen, and get scrawling as neatly as you can (unless you've forgotten how).
Secondly, be forceful. State specifically that you are 'very seriously concerned' or words to that effect. The people who vet what the MP actually reads generally throw the more wishy-washy fare straight in the bin.
Thirdly, write a reasonable amount - not too long, or it will be judged as a waste of time, but not too short or they won't take you seriously.
Fourthly, focus on one specific area. Don't above all express a general grievance with the MP's or his party's policy, just make it absolutely clear what you're trying to say.
Fifth, if you know of any good references on the subject (preferably not net-based) stick them in - the MP is unlikely to look them up, but they will make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
I know this seems really obvious, but you wouldn't believe how many people just print off half-thought out letters which could never, ever, get through the system.
This technology will significantly increase the potential feeling of reality derived from a virtual environment. The computer screen will seem like a window into another world, and computer art will be able to ascend to grand new heights. However, computer games addiction rates might also increase. As all computing technology improves, people will lose all capacity to handle the world outside of a computer. They will be reduced to formless, drooling blobs, their eyes never budging an inch from the images on their screens. Or did I just describe you?
>I imagine they would imediately fall down, to >the center of Earths gravity and suck our molten >core dry.
Well, actually, if there really was a black hole, 'down' would immediately become towards it, so it would be more like the Earth falling into the hole than vice versa. What a pleasant thought - everything and everyone being united in one spot. That's togetherness for you.
If the WTO is subjuect to excessive corporate influence, then it should be adjusted to change this. It should not be left to governments to sort out the issues for themselves, because of the increased chances of protectionism and increased exploitation of the 3rd world which would result from this. Incidentally, some governments, such as the US, are also widely held to be strongly influenced by corporate lobby groups.
Increasingly in past years, the growing power of the NGO lobby groups has provided a counterweight to the corporate interest, visible both at the national and international levels (particularly with what happened at Seattle). I don't know where the balance should be struck, but I don't actually think the current situation is all that bad.
I'm sorry, that particular statement was inspired by the parent article which suggested that the EU was really objecting to Win2K on the grounds that it was 'Made in America'.
Incidentally, the bad press about Microsoft from abroad often also creates a bit of flak for other American companies as Microsoft is seen by xenophobes (to whom I do not belong - the only 'other' I seriously dislike is intolerant people) as so quintessentially American.
...that a lot of countries would leave trade disputes up to the WTO. In this particular case, there may be some justification, but in a lot of others big countries and groups of countries have taken steps without the authority of the worldwide bodies which rule on the matter. Examples include US retaliatory duties for European banana favouritism and NATO's cililian-slaughtering bombardment of Yugoslavia. Action in these two cases could only legally have been taken by the WTO and the UN security council respectively, yet international law was flouted by countries who seem to think themselves above it. I wish those responsible would grow up and realise that vigilante action is no more acceptable on the international than the local stage. I wish.
Personally, I think that the US has to look at its track record for killing civilians, directly and indirectly, through its military action. Looking at a more recent topic (which if you look at my other posts you'll see is on my mind today) the US refusal to risk their bombers in Kosovo by using them in a way that helped accuracy ensured that at least one train loaded with civilians were hit (to justify this accident, NATO doubled the speed of the tape to make it understandable that the pilot hadn't seen the train coming), a convoy of Kosovo refugees was bombed with an estimated 70 to 75 casualties, and the wrong country was sometimes hit.
As an aside, if NATO hadn't gone to war in Kosovo, I personally believe that the situation could have been settled at the negotiation table, owing to some crucial parts of the Rembrouillet Agreement which had been signed by both parties.
The funny thing about NATO's involvement with Kosovo was that, as well as being illegal, immoral, setting a dangerous precedent, and slaughtering innocent civilians, it also cost $50,000 apiece for every man, woman and child living there. A big chunk of that was spent by the USA, so in the end the country didn't profit from it. The only people who did were the military as conflicts justify further spending. Maybe the Kosovo taught NATO countries that they should think a little more next time? Well, in that case it clearly gave every pig in the world a pair of wings too - can't you see them?
Military action does have its place, but only when authorised by the United Nations Security Council or in self-defence. Otherwise it's illegal. And almost invariably immoral.
The use of force which you defended in Kosovo was illegal, contravening the UN charter (which has the stipulations described above), and the NATO treaty (which said that NATO could only use force in defence of one of its own member states). The method of force was also illegal - cluster bombs (of which about 350 were used) are against the Geneva Convention.
Do you believe that the 'end', which in this case NATO claimed was an end to the persecution of the Kosovans by Milosevic, justified breaking international law? If the outcome had been positive, you might perhaps have had a point. Instead, the bombing killed 2000 Serb civilians, between 500 and 1500 Serb troops, a large number of Kosovan civilians, triggered the massive escalation of Serbian persecution of the Kosovans and caused a huge refugee exodus. Even today the vioence hasn't ended, except now instead of Serbians doing the persecution, it's the Kosovans who are killing, assaulting, robbing and driving away the Serbs and Roma. They also cannot be held to blame, as this whole situation was preventable in the first place, as I will go on to describe.
The Serbs had agreed to crucial points in the Rembrouillet agreement before the war which would have put an end to the persecution. However, NATO then added some unacceptable demands, such as what amounted to the full NATO occupation of Serbia (or possibly Yugoslavia - I forget whether Montenegro was mentioned). When Milosevic refused, the bombing began.
I will finish by paraphrasing (since I forget the exact quote) Nelson Mandela, who said that NATO and Milosevic were equally at fault. It's time that we saw his point.
Thanks to our current anathema for letting soldiers get killed in action as opposed to innocent civilians through the use of less discriminate methods, most western military casualties die in training. If more of the training is virtual, less soldiers will die/be incapacitated, which is a good thing not only from the soldiers' point of view but also from the taxpayers'. Which might go some way to balancing out the expense of installation.
I also hope it will teach pilots to spot when a target is hostile and when it is (a) a train loaded with Serb civilians (b) a Kosovan refugee column or (c) British troops.
Thanks to our current anathema for letting soldiers get killed in action as opposed to innocent civilians through the use of less discriminate methods, most western military casualties die in training. If more of the training is virtual, less soldiers will die/be incapacitated, which is a good thing not only from the soldiers' point of view but also from the taxpayers'. Which might go some way to balancing out the expense of installation.
I also hope it will teach pilots to spot when a target is hostile and when it is (a) a train loaded with Serb civilians (b) a Kosovan refugee column or (c) British troops.
I said by the current administration, not by 'The Republic of China). This is a very different thing to what the KMT were when they held China (And for most of the time that they held Taiwan) because it is democratic, instead of autocratic.
Slashdot Mirror
I heartily recommend 'The Origins of Virtue' and I've heard that his even earlier work, 'The Red Queen' is also worth a look.
Another author, one who deals with one of the more amusing areas of EP, is Jared Diamond in his work 'Why is Sex Fun?'. (It's truly fascinating to know just how different people are in their sexual behaviour from most other animals, and to understand why. No I am not advocating bestiality, nor have I ever tried it or wanted to.) In fact, I'd recommend any of his work, although much of it's off-topic to this discussion. Rather like this comment, in fact.
>If these Boeing and NASA Engineers (I'm an
>engineer now too, BTW) want to piss away my tax
>money, they should have a seargeant there
>putting his jungle boot up their ass to find it.
How exactly do you piss huge LOX canisters up your own butt-hole? And what hope has any sergeant alive got of extracting them with a jungle boot? Sorry, I know you might not find this funny, but I just love the sick images your statement conjured up.
>Pretty funny that something so big can depend on something so small
Sorry to take up the obvious line here, but:
For want of a nail, the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe, the horse was lost.
For want of a horse, the rider was lost.
For want of a rider, the message was lost.
For want of a message, the battle was lost.
For want of a battle, the war was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
Put simply, the devil has always been in the detail.
>There are only 2 absolute results to all >theories. They're either proven, or broken
I actually agree with the importance of proving/disproving theories, but it must be pointed out that there is no absolute proof or disproof - and don't try reductio ad absurdum, we've heard it all before.
I say we should try Io - the chances of our bacteria surviving there are just as slim, and I like what I've seen of it so far. However, jupiter has the preferential argument that some of our bacteria might well have got there already anyway, and not just from the probe we dropped into it a while back. Earth has been leaking bacteria into space for 100s of millions of years (at the very least) and Jupiter has a very big gravity well. Admittedly, these bacteria will have had to survive for a lot longer in space, but some varieties might just have been tough enough.
Hell, Europa could have been contaminated the same way too although it's a smaller gravity well. If it has been though, it would be fascinating to know that bacteria are capable of that kind of inter-planetary travel, so there's still no reason to contaminate it. And Jupiter is not a good subject for such study, mainly because of that prior probe.
>Just the pictures of the Io volcanoes are making
>history, and the entire world can all enjoy them
>now;
I agree - the pictures are amazing, so let's got some close-ups with a kamikaze crash landing. Plus there seems to be little enough chance of life in that habitat, and if there is, our bacteria won't contaminate it because they'll be toast.
Hey man, I love obfuscation. Mainly because I'm blatently better at it than my professors - there's nothing like quoting an appallingly written but on-topic sentence to really p*** them off, but leave them nothing within their mark-scheme to touch it. (Like, have you ever heard of 'reverse inversional combinorality'? Stroke of genius.)
>Ouch, Red Bull. That stuff is lethal.
Damn right. I go into a kind of energy overload on Red Bull - running for a couple of miles for the hell of it, and that kind of thing - which is why I recommend balancing it with lots of alcohol.
They do some ill shit to plant crops these days too. Gallons of pesticide, fungicide, and herbicide (with certain GM crops) go into all those nice 'healthy' vegetables you ate last night. Organic isn't really much better - then your food is simply diseased, rather than poisoned. And biological control, rather than pesticides, is also a nightmare for the environment whatever they say.
The answer - don't be squeamish, just enjoy yourself and eat a whole mixture. Hopefully you won't get a toxic build-up of any one substance, except maybe caffeine and alcohol.
I've never tried Jolt (I don't think we get it over here in the UK) but as I'm no great fan of cola, I imagine I'd prefer sweet black coffee, or failing that Red Bull.
You're quite right about it being safe to store hydrogen for fuel cells in other chemical forms, such as methanol, which does not burn as easily as and releases less energy when it does than petrol (sorry, gasoline - I forgot we speak Merkin on this list). Methanol is also quite popular as an option with those oil companies who also deal in natural gas, which might well be one of the reasons why methanol fuelled fuel cell vehicles look like being the first we'll get.
It's not the only one though - as well as the safety reasons given above in consideration of fire, methanol is also much easier to store and transport than hydrogen, is available in large quantities, is less toxic than petrol/gasoline or diesel, and doesn't release much in the way of pollution.
First off, don't use a computer. Politicians get piles and piles of mass-produced letters and a hand-written letter, which cannot be mass-produced in this way, is litterally worth hundreds of print-outs. So blow the dust off your pen, and get scrawling as neatly as you can (unless you've forgotten how).
Secondly, be forceful. State specifically that you are 'very seriously concerned' or words to that effect. The people who vet what the MP actually reads generally throw the more wishy-washy fare straight in the bin.
Thirdly, write a reasonable amount - not too long, or it will be judged as a waste of time, but not too short or they won't take you seriously.
Fourthly, focus on one specific area. Don't above all express a general grievance with the MP's or his party's policy, just make it absolutely clear what you're trying to say.
Fifth, if you know of any good references on the subject (preferably not net-based) stick them in - the MP is unlikely to look them up, but they will make you sound like you know what you're talking about.
I know this seems really obvious, but you wouldn't believe how many people just print off half-thought out letters which could never, ever, get through the system.
This technology will significantly increase the potential feeling of reality derived from a virtual environment. The computer screen will seem like a window into another world, and computer art will be able to ascend to grand new heights. However, computer games addiction rates might also increase. As all computing technology improves, people will lose all capacity to handle the world outside of a computer. They will be reduced to formless, drooling blobs, their eyes never budging an inch from the images on their screens. Or did I just describe you?
>I imagine they would imediately fall down, to
>the center of Earths gravity and suck our molten
>core dry.
Well, actually, if there really was a black hole, 'down' would immediately become towards it, so it would be more like the Earth falling into the hole than vice versa. What a pleasant thought - everything and everyone being united in one spot. That's togetherness for you.
If the WTO is subjuect to excessive corporate influence, then it should be adjusted to change this. It should not be left to governments to sort out the issues for themselves, because of the increased chances of protectionism and increased exploitation of the 3rd world which would result from this. Incidentally, some governments, such as the US, are also widely held to be strongly influenced by corporate lobby groups.
Increasingly in past years, the growing power of the NGO lobby groups has provided a counterweight to the corporate interest, visible both at the national and international levels (particularly with what happened at Seattle). I don't know where the balance should be struck, but I don't actually think the current situation is all that bad.
I'm sorry, that particular statement was inspired by the parent article which suggested that the EU was really objecting to Win2K on the grounds that it was 'Made in America'.
Incidentally, the bad press about Microsoft from abroad often also creates a bit of flak for other American companies as Microsoft is seen by xenophobes (to whom I do not belong - the only 'other' I seriously dislike is intolerant people) as so quintessentially American.
>I would think that Brussels could also provide a :)
>law that it is illegal to sell a crap product to
>people while telling them that its great
I think there's something about that in the trade descriptions act in the UK already.
...that a lot of countries would leave trade disputes up to the WTO. In this particular case, there may be some justification, but in a lot of others big countries and groups of countries have taken steps without the authority of the worldwide bodies which rule on the matter. Examples include US retaliatory duties for European banana favouritism and NATO's cililian-slaughtering bombardment of Yugoslavia. Action in these two cases could only legally have been taken by the WTO and the UN security council respectively, yet international law was flouted by countries who seem to think themselves above it. I wish those responsible would grow up and realise that vigilante action is no more acceptable on the international than the local stage. I wish.
Personally, I think that the US has to look at its track record for killing civilians, directly and indirectly, through its military action. Looking at a more recent topic (which if you look at my other posts you'll see is on my mind today) the US refusal to risk their bombers in Kosovo by using them in a way that helped accuracy ensured that at least one train loaded with civilians were hit (to justify this accident, NATO doubled the speed of the tape to make it understandable that the pilot hadn't seen the train coming), a convoy of Kosovo refugees was bombed with an estimated 70 to 75 casualties, and the wrong country was sometimes hit.
As an aside, if NATO hadn't gone to war in Kosovo, I personally believe that the situation could have been settled at the negotiation table, owing to some crucial parts of the Rembrouillet Agreement which had been signed by both parties.
The funny thing about NATO's involvement with Kosovo was that, as well as being illegal, immoral, setting a dangerous precedent, and slaughtering innocent civilians, it also cost $50,000 apiece for every man, woman and child living there. A big chunk of that was spent by the USA, so in the end the country didn't profit from it. The only people who did were the military as conflicts justify further spending. Maybe the Kosovo taught NATO countries that they should think a little more next time? Well, in that case it clearly gave every pig in the world a pair of wings too - can't you see them?
Did you see the Simpson's episode with the monkey's paw?
Military action does have its place, but only when authorised by the United Nations Security Council or in self-defence. Otherwise it's illegal. And almost invariably immoral.
The use of force which you defended in Kosovo was illegal, contravening the UN charter (which has the stipulations described above), and the NATO treaty (which said that NATO could only use force in defence of one of its own member states). The method of force was also illegal - cluster bombs (of which about 350 were used) are against the Geneva Convention.
Do you believe that the 'end', which in this case NATO claimed was an end to the persecution of the Kosovans by Milosevic, justified breaking international law? If the outcome had been positive, you might perhaps have had a point. Instead, the bombing killed 2000 Serb civilians, between 500 and 1500 Serb troops, a large number of Kosovan civilians, triggered the massive escalation of Serbian persecution of the Kosovans and caused a huge refugee exodus. Even today the vioence hasn't ended, except now instead of Serbians doing the persecution, it's the Kosovans who are killing, assaulting, robbing and driving away the Serbs and Roma. They also cannot be held to blame, as this whole situation was preventable in the first place, as I will go on to describe.
The Serbs had agreed to crucial points in the Rembrouillet agreement before the war which would have put an end to the persecution. However, NATO then added some unacceptable demands, such as what amounted to the full NATO occupation of Serbia (or possibly Yugoslavia - I forget whether Montenegro was mentioned). When Milosevic refused, the bombing began.
I will finish by paraphrasing (since I forget the exact quote) Nelson Mandela, who said that NATO and Milosevic were equally at fault. It's time that we saw his point.
Thanks to our current anathema for letting soldiers get killed in action as opposed to innocent civilians through the use of less discriminate methods, most western military casualties die in training. If more of the training is virtual, less soldiers will die/be incapacitated, which is a good thing not only from the soldiers' point of view but also from the taxpayers'. Which might go some way to balancing out the expense of installation.
I also hope it will teach pilots to spot when a target is hostile and when it is (a) a train loaded with Serb civilians (b) a Kosovan refugee column or (c) British troops.
Thanks to our current anathema for letting soldiers get killed in action as opposed to innocent civilians through the use of less discriminate methods, most western military casualties die in training. If more of the training is virtual, less soldiers will die/be incapacitated, which is a good thing not only from the soldiers' point of view but also from the taxpayers'. Which might go some way to balancing out the expense of installation.
I also hope it will teach pilots to spot when a target is hostile and when it is (a) a train loaded with Serb civilians (b) a Kosovan refugee column or (c) British troops.
BTW, I'm British.
I said by the current administration, not by 'The Republic of China). This is a very different thing to what the KMT were when they held China (And for most of the time that they held Taiwan) because it is democratic, instead of autocratic.