No, but if it exploded, it would be difficult to cover-up, no? Covering up a nuke being transported in a bomber is one thing, covering up a glass parking lot where once was that nice island called Hawaii is another.
With Obama leading the US? Whether nuclear retribution would be a good or bad thing is debatable, but as long as Obama's president, I don't think it's going to happen. That is, unless it's the US that gets nuked, in which case he'd likely get impeached and voted out of office again for allowing his own country to get nuked by his inaction.
All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing, after all.
They likely are using secret nuke proof bunkers anyways. They just don't want you to know about them, preferring to tell people they have all their headquarters around DC.
We should not intervene in the current crisis in Iran. If the overwhelming majority of Iranians (like the overwhelming majority of Poles) truly support democracy, human rights, and peace with Israel, then a liberal Western democracy will arise -- without any violence.
Nonviolent resistance/civil disobedience/etc only works against enemies which see themselves as "civilized". Gandi succeeded against the British because they had an image to keep. The Iranian government, however, has no trouble with murder, rape and torturing people to death (as long as it's done by the state at least), so your great civil disobedience won't help you there.
Your enemies don't care about your overwhelming military superiority. And they know you're fooling yourself if you think there's no chance of injury or death on your side.
So, casualties may be unavoidable. But at least casualties on *your* side are. If you secure your borders properly and make sure people don't fly planes into your skyscrapers.
Whether drones are a good thing or not is debatable; it mainly depends on how much you pithy your enemy. Drone pilots will be a lot less "sensitive" about killing people on their screens; it'll probably be a lot like a game to them. The merit of this is debatable as well though...
The ultra violent action game doesn't hold that strong a position even in the PC market. The most popular items in PC Games. Updated hourly.
Problem is, the German government's definition of "ultra violent video games" varies from the one most people have. We all know about Beckstein comparing the uncensored version of Counter Strike to child pornography...or the censorship of Half Life (1). And the German rating organization (the USK) is a puppet organization controlled by politicians like that - just take a look at what they do: even a lot of T-rated games are rated 16+ or 18+ in Germany, just because you use a gun to kill your enemies.
On a semi-related note, has anybody else already noticed how these pesky USK signs on the boxes seem to grow lately? They almost claim a whole quarter of the front for them...well, just another reason why buying games in German or Austrian shops is a very bad idea (which is a bad idea anyways thanks to prices and taxes). Too good that it isn't like that in the USA.
Umm... why? It's completely harmless. As in, unless you're smoking huge amounts of the stuff every day, it has essentially no negative health consequences (particularly if consumed using a water pipe or vaporizer).
That's not entirely true. Yes, the health risks and benefits of Cannabis are still under debate, but so far, it has been proven that the substance can affect you both positively and negatively, and I wouldn't say the positive effects outweigh the negative effects (especially considering that there may be a link between pot smoking and various mental illnesses).
No... they don't. I don't know a single, solitary pot user who goes out of their way to try and rope in other people. And they *definitely* don't walk around handing out pot to people... it's too damned expensive!
Well, this is a matter of personal experience then I guess. The Cannabis users I know keep talking about how cool it is constantly and try to make social events out of their consumption sessions. Might vary from country to country too.
Bah, the public image toward drugs isn't going to change simply because the laws change. Alcohol abuse, while perfectly legal, is stigmatized, as is cigarette consumption, pain killer abuse, and so forth. What makes you think that legalizing pot would suddenly change societal morays when the existence of any number of other legal drugs has not?
If you'd legalize Marijuana, more and more people would start using it, as it's much more easily available - which results in the public image slowly changing. Marijuana would soon become similar to Alcohol - "a little bit now and then, that's all ok, especially on social events".
So you don't trust people to make their own decisions regarding drug consumption? Sounds to me like you might have self-control issues. I mean, speaking for myself, I've never felt compelled to move on to harder drugs, nor have any of my pot-using friends.
No, I don't. Sure, there are people who know how much is good for them and how much would be, well, too much. I've met these people, and they are usually quite ok - but then, I also met people who are not, people who do not just use, but abuse Cannabis.
Quite honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but... you just sound incredibly naive. Marijuana isn't a gateway drug (again, just ask those in Amsterdam).
This might depend a lot on personal experience, I guess, but I've seen it to be otherwise. As said, of course there are people who are fully capable of controlling their drug habits. But at least here in my country, they are not the majority among the Cannabis users I know.
Just for the record - I may sound a lot more anti-Cannabis than I actually am: I've got no problem with the people who use drugs but can control their consumption habits, at least as long as they don't go around praising their drugs. But as long as our society cannot even solve all the problems alcohol and cigarettes cause, I don't think we should legalize another drug.
Given the problems caused by criminalization (organized crime, high prison population rates, issues with tainted drugs, etc), the question you should be asking is, is this theoretical harm you're worried about worse than the harm currently being caused by criminalization. Given the experiences in Amsterdam, I'd say the answer is almost certainly "no".
Then decriminalize possession, or make people *using* the drug do a few days of public service. I agree that there's no need to throw them into jail (which is actually quite contraproductive), but they certainly should be discouraged from using Marijuana.
And as an aside, why are you so afraid of people "getting high"? If they aren't harming anyone (and your average pot user is entirely harmless), who are you to judge?
See, if these people would stay in their own homes and smoke some pot now and then, I almost couldn't care less. They'd probably consume their drugs regardless of them being illegal or not, or (more likely) just take other drugs - you cannot combat drug use effectively through anything else than education. But they won't just quietly smoke their pot. They will spread their habit, be it through encouraging others or even handing around samples. The public image slowly shifts towards "taking (soft) drugs is okay", and this is (at least in my opinion) a quite dangerous thing. Slippery slope. Today, it's already cigarettes and alcohol, which without any doubt cause harm to yourself and often to other people as well. Tomorrow, it's Marijuana, which might probably overall be less harmful than aforementioned drugs, but will give people dangerous ideas - ideas which may lead them to consuming other not-quite-as-harmless drugs.
Also, [rant]Seemingly, the mods are on drugs again (lame pun not intended), as obviously, they're confusing "-1 Flamebait" for "-1 Strongly Disagree" again *eyeroll*. But hey, this is Slashdot.[/rant]
Aren't alcohol and cigarettes alone not already enough of a problem? I'm not saying Marijuana intoxication is worse than Alcohol intoxication, but frankly said, I don't think we need more stuff that allows people getting high on it at all. We've got more than enough troubles, do we need another drug causing them?
They had the software, they just didn't have the "proper" one. The DVD did demand some special codec, I believe, which was somehow connected to it's DRM.
But the Co$ did *not* add any viewpoints. They tried to censor criticism of Scientology or otherwise promote their cult. They have a long history of vandalism and warnings. Banning people from editing Wikipedia is usually a last resort if every other measure fails, and in this case, the ban was more than warranted in my opinion.
As I've said above already, free speech does not apply here. Free speech may give you the right to spread your lies in your own conversations or media, but *not* in media owned by somebody else. When you want to edit Wikipedia, stay within the rules.
"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone* can edit. *not including people who constantly make disruptive edits and keep breaking the established rules". What the Co$ was doing wasn't exercising their right to free speech, they were vandalizing a website with spreading lies. Free speech means you can lie in your own mediums and when talking to people, but does not include the right to lie in a medium you do not own, because there, you have to operate within the rules that apply to everybody.
And would that really be a bad thing? I wouldn't even say it was a bad thing if it wasn't used for curing diseases but actually enhancing human beings beyond their natural capabilities. To fully embrace the potential of the human race, we cannot stop with modifying our surroundings - we will also have to modify ourselves.
I'm an atheist as well, but imo, you can't compare Scientology with other religions. While other religions may ultimately have less-than-noble agendas as well, especially the lower-ranking priests often do a lot of good things. It's mainly the higher ups who misuse the church for their own personal desires, be it gaining power or gaining wealth or just keeping the people quiet.
Scientology, in contrary, lacks these "good people in a inherently bad organization". Scientology "priests" just lure people in to generate more profit, nothing else.
Also, the Bible, while essentially being a load of fiction, still contains some teachings which have value to them. Not everything is about being the "opiate of the people", although much indeed is (one of the few points I agree on with the commies).
As far as AI goes, the validity of computers as life forms has been successfully argued up the wazoo, but I will always stubbornly believe that computers will never have true individual consciousness as biological organisms do.
Why? When it comes down to it, the human brain is just a extremely complex biomachine. Sure, it's unlikely that we we'll be fully able to emulate a Human brain tomorrow, but eternity is a quite long time. Eventually, the brain will be all mapped and understand, and technology will be able to recreate such a mechanism without any doubt. It's just a matter of time (and how fast we can program software capable of advanced learning processes).
Slashdot Mirror
No, but if it exploded, it would be difficult to cover-up, no? Covering up a nuke being transported in a bomber is one thing, covering up a glass parking lot where once was that nice island called Hawaii is another.
With Obama leading the US? Whether nuclear retribution would be a good or bad thing is debatable, but as long as Obama's president, I don't think it's going to happen. That is, unless it's the US that gets nuked, in which case he'd likely get impeached and voted out of office again for allowing his own country to get nuked by his inaction.
All evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing, after all.
So, basically, as an atheist, I could just get me a free $1000? Nice. Where can I sign up?
If *you*'d rtfa, you'd find out that her brain has the capacity of a toddler. So, no 16 year old mind.
...am quite happy *not* to have sure nobody's looking when entering my password, thank you.
They likely are using secret nuke proof bunkers anyways. They just don't want you to know about them, preferring to tell people they have all their headquarters around DC.
...lame "Idle is pants" pun here.
Italy? Uh, yeah. They have one if not *the* most corrupt government in all of western Europe.
Apart from that (and your sig; offtopic - care to explain why embryonic stem cell research is so bad?) I guess I'd agree with your post though.
No, that was Majestic 12. The CIA shot Kennedy.
We should not intervene in the current crisis in Iran. If the overwhelming majority of Iranians (like the overwhelming majority of Poles) truly support democracy, human rights, and peace with Israel, then a liberal Western democracy will arise -- without any violence.
Nonviolent resistance/civil disobedience/etc only works against enemies which see themselves as "civilized". Gandi succeeded against the British because they had an image to keep. The Iranian government, however, has no trouble with murder, rape and torturing people to death (as long as it's done by the state at least), so your great civil disobedience won't help you there.
Your enemies don't care about your overwhelming military superiority. And they know you're fooling yourself if you think there's no chance of injury or death on your side.
So, casualties may be unavoidable. But at least casualties on *your* side are. If you secure your borders properly and make sure people don't fly planes into your skyscrapers.
Whether drones are a good thing or not is debatable; it mainly depends on how much you pithy your enemy. Drone pilots will be a lot less "sensitive" about killing people on their screens; it'll probably be a lot like a game to them. The merit of this is debatable as well though...
Maybe he'd also lose his sick fantasies if there was no way to live them out.
Re:RapeLay, all I have to say is "...and nothing of value was lost." Sorry, I believe in free speech, but some things just go a little bit too far.
The ultra violent action game doesn't hold that strong a position even in the PC market. The most popular items in PC Games. Updated hourly.
Problem is, the German government's definition of "ultra violent video games" varies from the one most people have. We all know about Beckstein comparing the uncensored version of Counter Strike to child pornography...or the censorship of Half Life (1). And the German rating organization (the USK) is a puppet organization controlled by politicians like that - just take a look at what they do: even a lot of T-rated games are rated 16+ or 18+ in Germany, just because you use a gun to kill your enemies.
On a semi-related note, has anybody else already noticed how these pesky USK signs on the boxes seem to grow lately? They almost claim a whole quarter of the front for them...well, just another reason why buying games in German or Austrian shops is a very bad idea (which is a bad idea anyways thanks to prices and taxes). Too good that it isn't like that in the USA.
Umm... why? It's completely harmless. As in, unless you're smoking huge amounts of the stuff every day, it has essentially no negative health consequences (particularly if consumed using a water pipe or vaporizer).
That's not entirely true. Yes, the health risks and benefits of Cannabis are still under debate, but so far, it has been proven that the substance can affect you both positively and negatively, and I wouldn't say the positive effects outweigh the negative effects (especially considering that there may be a link between pot smoking and various mental illnesses).
No... they don't. I don't know a single, solitary pot user who goes out of their way to try and rope in other people. And they *definitely* don't walk around handing out pot to people... it's too damned expensive!
Well, this is a matter of personal experience then I guess. The Cannabis users I know keep talking about how cool it is constantly and try to make social events out of their consumption sessions. Might vary from country to country too.
Bah, the public image toward drugs isn't going to change simply because the laws change. Alcohol abuse, while perfectly legal, is stigmatized, as is cigarette consumption, pain killer abuse, and so forth. What makes you think that legalizing pot would suddenly change societal morays when the existence of any number of other legal drugs has not?
If you'd legalize Marijuana, more and more people would start using it, as it's much more easily available - which results in the public image slowly changing. Marijuana would soon become similar to Alcohol - "a little bit now and then, that's all ok, especially on social events".
So you don't trust people to make their own decisions regarding drug consumption? Sounds to me like you might have self-control issues. I mean, speaking for myself, I've never felt compelled to move on to harder drugs, nor have any of my pot-using friends.
No, I don't. Sure, there are people who know how much is good for them and how much would be, well, too much. I've met these people, and they are usually quite ok - but then, I also met people who are not, people who do not just use, but abuse Cannabis.
Quite honestly, and don't take this the wrong way, but... you just sound incredibly naive. Marijuana isn't a gateway drug (again, just ask those in Amsterdam).
This might depend a lot on personal experience, I guess, but I've seen it to be otherwise. As said, of course there are people who are fully capable of controlling their drug habits. But at least here in my country, they are not the majority among the Cannabis users I know.
Just for the record - I may sound a lot more anti-Cannabis than I actually am: I've got no problem with the people who use drugs but can control their consumption habits, at least as long as they don't go around praising their drugs. But as long as our society cannot even solve all the problems alcohol and cigarettes cause, I don't think we should legalize another drug.
Given the problems caused by criminalization (organized crime, high prison population rates, issues with tainted drugs, etc), the question you should be asking is, is this theoretical harm you're worried about worse than the harm currently being caused by criminalization. Given the experiences in Amsterdam, I'd say the answer is almost certainly "no".
Then decriminalize possession, or make people *using* the drug do a few days of public service. I agree that there's no need to throw them into jail (which is actually quite contraproductive), but they certainly should be discouraged from using Marijuana.
And as an aside, why are you so afraid of people "getting high"? If they aren't harming anyone (and your average pot user is entirely harmless), who are you to judge?
See, if these people would stay in their own homes and smoke some pot now and then, I almost couldn't care less. They'd probably consume their drugs regardless of them being illegal or not, or (more likely) just take other drugs - you cannot combat drug use effectively through anything else than education. But they won't just quietly smoke their pot. They will spread their habit, be it through encouraging others or even handing around samples. The public image slowly shifts towards "taking (soft) drugs is okay", and this is (at least in my opinion) a quite dangerous thing. Slippery slope. Today, it's already cigarettes and alcohol, which without any doubt cause harm to yourself and often to other people as well. Tomorrow, it's Marijuana, which might probably overall be less harmful than aforementioned drugs, but will give people dangerous ideas - ideas which may lead them to consuming other not-quite-as-harmless drugs.
Also, [rant]Seemingly, the mods are on drugs again (lame pun not intended), as obviously, they're confusing "-1 Flamebait" for "-1 Strongly Disagree" again *eyeroll*. But hey, this is Slashdot.[/rant]
Aren't alcohol and cigarettes alone not already enough of a problem? I'm not saying Marijuana intoxication is worse than Alcohol intoxication, but frankly said, I don't think we need more stuff that allows people getting high on it at all. We've got more than enough troubles, do we need another drug causing them?
They had the software, they just didn't have the "proper" one. The DVD did demand some special codec, I believe, which was somehow connected to it's DRM.
Here you go.
But the Co$ did *not* add any viewpoints. They tried to censor criticism of Scientology or otherwise promote their cult. They have a long history of vandalism and warnings. Banning people from editing Wikipedia is usually a last resort if every other measure fails, and in this case, the ban was more than warranted in my opinion.
As I've said above already, free speech does not apply here. Free speech may give you the right to spread your lies in your own conversations or media, but *not* in media owned by somebody else. When you want to edit Wikipedia, stay within the rules.
"High-profile organization" does not necessarily equate "good organization". The Co$ may be a cult, but nonetheless a quite large and influential one.
"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone* can edit. *not including people who constantly make disruptive edits and keep breaking the established rules". What the Co$ was doing wasn't exercising their right to free speech, they were vandalizing a website with spreading lies. Free speech means you can lie in your own mediums and when talking to people, but does not include the right to lie in a medium you do not own, because there, you have to operate within the rules that apply to everybody.
And would that really be a bad thing? I wouldn't even say it was a bad thing if it wasn't used for curing diseases but actually enhancing human beings beyond their natural capabilities. To fully embrace the potential of the human race, we cannot stop with modifying our surroundings - we will also have to modify ourselves.
I'm an atheist as well, but imo, you can't compare Scientology with other religions. While other religions may ultimately have less-than-noble agendas as well, especially the lower-ranking priests often do a lot of good things. It's mainly the higher ups who misuse the church for their own personal desires, be it gaining power or gaining wealth or just keeping the people quiet.
Scientology, in contrary, lacks these "good people in a inherently bad organization". Scientology "priests" just lure people in to generate more profit, nothing else.
Also, the Bible, while essentially being a load of fiction, still contains some teachings which have value to them. Not everything is about being the "opiate of the people", although much indeed is (one of the few points I agree on with the commies).
As far as AI goes, the validity of computers as life forms has been successfully argued up the wazoo, but I will always stubbornly believe that computers will never have true individual consciousness as biological organisms do.
Why? When it comes down to it, the human brain is just a extremely complex biomachine. Sure, it's unlikely that we we'll be fully able to emulate a Human brain tomorrow, but eternity is a quite long time. Eventually, the brain will be all mapped and understand, and technology will be able to recreate such a mechanism without any doubt. It's just a matter of time (and how fast we can program software capable of advanced learning processes).