And it's things like "feeling the pain" and sympathy that tends to lead to greater suffering.
After 9/11, we *had* to do something. 'Cause we all felt the pain of those who lost someone. We couldn't let them die in vain. So what did we do? Something rational like acknowledge the loss and move on?
No.
We had to avenge the dead. We had to be sure no one else would "feel the pain" of event such as this again. We acted rather irrationally and found some target to lash out at. Look where we are at now. That sympathy did so much good and eased so much suffering didn't it?
Misguided sympathy and empathy leads only to more suffering. It may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside when you think how morally superior you are because you allow emotional thinking to overtake rational thought more than the person next to you but that doesn't make the world all warm and fuzzy. People need to move on and get to the things that need to be done. If that happens to be continue with life as usual, so be it. Sitting around being paralyzed by your sympathy for all the suffering in the world doesn't help anyone.
Those of you without sympathy for the suffering are the ones that need to be lined up and shot on sight. Wow, way to be sympathetic to people that have had friends, loved ones and relatives killed by firing squads.
That's all we need are officials getting direct inspiration from 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, it's bad enough already with their ideas inspired by missing the sarcasm of everyone that has read those books.
Lousy soldiers are better than no soldiers when you've got something to gain.
In a culture where anything short of total and unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the government is akin to treason (how can you support your country if you don't support your government?) creating 'volunteers' is all too easy.
Create social situations where the only likely way to obtain higher education is through a military system and paycheck and you'll have a steady stream of 'volunteers'.
Plus, the worse the soldier the better (and more expensive) gear they need. Which is great when you make that gear.
And even with our advanced military there are still things that can only be done with boots on the ground. That is where the conscripts will go. The tank drivers, jet pilots and other highly technical (and limited in number) positions can be filled by the actual volunteers.
War on terror, war on drugs, war to spread democracy (a system you cannot successfully force on a population) create a situation which will continually provide a threat which we need to defend our "homeland" (too bad "motherland" and "fatherland" were already taken) from.
Bang the drums and sound the horns! We need troops to keep the evil people over there and not over here! They hate us for our freedom (a little late on that one in my opinion)! Citizen, don't you want to keep your family, friends and homeland safe from these terrors? Only those that support the enemy wouldn't want to stop them on their own soil...
As long as there are politicians that need an enemy to scare the masses into re-electing them and large corporations that finance politicians that expect their kick-back there will be war.
Soldiers are the instruments of war. The ones playing the cadence are the politicians.
Soldiers will be 'created' if none exist and the politicians want a war.
You were whining that you didn't have enough time to police your brood's internet use. You want to inconvenience other people (and at someone else's expense) to make your life easier.
If they weren't on the net, what would they be doing? Wouldn't (or shouldn't) you be supervising those activities as well? How does the internet make your situation special enough to warrant outside intervention.
And yes, I am suggesting that parents (and especially prospective parents, as it isn't to late to easily rectify the situation) plan ahead for the future. Kids cost time and money. You need both to effectively raise them without being a drain on the rest of society. If you don't have the time or the financial means to support whatever size brood you're aiming for, or if there is a good chance that your economic or temporal situation will change at some point before the kids can be independent, it is nothing short of complete and utter irresponsibility on seeing to their well-being if you are not prepared to meet the full cost of raising and supporting them.
The idea that parents should actively supervise and participate in their children's Internet usage SOUNDS good, but in practice it means two things: I have to spend all of my free time watching what my kids do on the net (leaving me no time for slashdot!), and I have to severely limit their Internet usage.
This is especially problematic for parents with more than one or two children. I have four (ages 6 through 14), all of whom spend a significant time on the net. I limit them to 90 minutes per day of computer time, including school work, and while many people consider that excessively restrictive, it would still mean that I have to spend six hours per day watching them compute. That's obviously not practical. How about this, try not having more kids than you can actually manage?
Welcome to the modern world, where we have separated procreation and recreation.
I love how people who spew out more spawn than they can support always want to make everyone else suffer along with them.
Why not? Plants and animals can happily live on there. I'm not sure exactly how to read your statement, so I'll take a guess: You mean plants and animals can co-exist with the solar collectors.
Slight probably with that. The animals may not have a problem with the solar collectors, but the plants sure would have problems. Plants need sunlight. The solar collectors need sunlight. Only one can productively intercept the sunlight. The animals probably won't like the lack of plants.
Wasn't the point of calling french fries "freedom fries" to keep Joe Sixpack from empathizing and humanizing the French when they decided to not back the invasion?
Suicide describes what type of bomber. Bomber means someone who kills with explosives. I don't really see how changing suicide to homicide makes it any "worse".
Anyways, any media that would call them "homicide bombers" aren't the ones that will be followed by the group that produces the suicide bombers.
It's just emotional gut-thinking that just makes you feel better.
What term do you use to describe the kamikaze of WW2? Divine Wind is a pretty romantic term, especially when you consider the first Kamikaze and what it meant for Japan. Are they homikaze? Last-ditch-act-of-desperation-due-to-lack-of-resources-including-veteran-pilots-kaze?
I can look at the term "suicide bomber" and not think: oh, the poor lad went so emo, the only way for him to describe his anguish to another was with the destructive blast and shrapnel of an explosives vest, I really should feel sorry for him and subscribe to his newsletter. All this bellyfeel claptrap will be the end of western civilization, not some schmuck wearing a few pounds of C-4.
I just have to ask, why the switch from suicide bombers to the more ambiguous homicide bombers?
Suicide bombers are a one shot deal. Homicide bombers (see Unabomber) can keep at it until they quit or are caught.
Suicide bomber is a better term as it tells us the manner in which the bomber carried out the bombing, homicide bomber just tells out that people were killed.
I think there's something about "excluded middle" you should do some research on.
But while we're on the extremes of possible situations, consider this:
In the scenario of a SWAT team serving a warrant, which group of actors (or participants) is paid to be there, armed, armored and supported by other forces?
The onus is on the SWAT officers. The only life they have the right to risk before properly assessing a threat is their own. Cops don't have the right to shoot first and possibly bother to ask questions later if they have not ascertained with certainty their target poses a direct threat to themselves or others. They've taken on the *responsibility*, not the right, not the privilege of meting out lethal 'justice'.
So to give you the answer that you were cleverly baiting for, it should be the police getting gunned down and not the civilians. That's ostensibly their job, to serve and *protect*, not to serve only themselves and protect only themselves. Sadly, we have fewer law enforcement officers and more armed thugs wearing the badge these days.
You are an idiot, a paranoid idiot actually. Please grow up and take your meds. Hmm, my prescription of ignorance seems to have run out, you apparently have some to spare, mind sharing a few to tide me over?
That system has been used to get the populace comfortable with constant surveillance.
Like all the Cops like shows that make it seem perfectly fine, ordinary and routine that full SWAT teams are used to serve warrants for lots of non-violent crimes.
It gets us, the citizens, used to their purpose and existence so we no longer question them.
Quick, abrupt changes are messy. The slow but steady application of pressure and lessing of liberties (to keep you "safe") is still oppression, even if it takes decades to manifest.
It shouldn't be easy for the government. Their job isn't to have things easy. Their job is to do things that are difficult for a large group of people to do. Governments (and their law enforcement agencies) are supposed to serve the public. The public should not have to serve the government.
Vermiculture has a lot of potential. And not just in the current global-warming-will-kill-us-all-we-must-think-of-the-children way you might be thinking.
Of course inexpensive, self replicating solutions don't have a big enough profit margin and as far as I know there's no big vermi-lobby group out there (though a lot of lobbyists are pretty close to worms) nor any big subsidies.
Unfortunately I know far too many people that would welcome such a law and might say "I, for one..." as if they were taking a gallant stand against the innumerable hordes of villains and blackguards and other ne'er-do-wells out to harm the pure sweet innocent mind of their spawn, err kids.
A rather scary thing is I've heard these same people use the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" while maintaining a straight face.
If parenting is too hard without gov't help, perhaps they should find some other thing to be a status symbol or relationship entanglement device.
Look at the old folk tales. Kids used to grow up on those. They turned out fine. Go read some of the original Grimm's Fairy Tales. Can't recall who the quote was from but it was something along the lines of "Fairy tales didn't tell children that dragons exist, they already knew that. Fairy tales told children you could kill the dragon."
Overprotected hypo-allergenic disinfected bubble kids on the other hand don't seem to be doing so well.
If it were starting out as Joe Average, the citizen, people would be up in arms about it because it would encourage people to take matters into their own hands and not rely on the professionally trained and routinely over-equipped swat teams and their no knock tactics.
Now if it started out featuring a swat officer, it'd be A-OK to go barging into anyone's house and gun them down, warrant or not, since everybody is guilty of something and they *could* have had child porn or something on their computer. This would be hailed as a great game and role model for young kids. It would be lauded for showing "what it takes" for law enforcement to keep everyone "safe".
A mac clone like this is a competitor to the Mac Pro, not the mini.
I'd say a box like that clone isn't even in the same league let alone ballpark of a mac pro (if it is even playing the same game is questionable). If I was considering a mac pro there'd be no way I'd seriously consider that B-52 in a box clone.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's things like "feeling the pain" and sympathy that tends to lead to greater suffering.
After 9/11, we *had* to do something. 'Cause we all felt the pain of those who lost someone. We couldn't let them die in vain. So what did we do? Something rational like acknowledge the loss and move on?
No.
We had to avenge the dead. We had to be sure no one else would "feel the pain" of event such as this again. We acted rather irrationally and found some target to lash out at. Look where we are at now. That sympathy did so much good and eased so much suffering didn't it?
Misguided sympathy and empathy leads only to more suffering. It may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside when you think how morally superior you are because you allow emotional thinking to overtake rational thought more than the person next to you but that doesn't make the world all warm and fuzzy. People need to move on and get to the things that need to be done. If that happens to be continue with life as usual, so be it. Sitting around being paralyzed by your sympathy for all the suffering in the world doesn't help anyone.
Free Speech is a right everywhere. Governments do not grant rights.
Canadians have the right of free speech, however they allow their government to deny them the ability to exercise their natural right.
That's all we need are officials getting direct inspiration from 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, it's bad enough already with their ideas inspired by missing the sarcasm of everyone that has read those books.
Lousy soldiers are better than no soldiers when you've got something to gain.
In a culture where anything short of total and unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the government is akin to treason (how can you support your country if you don't support your government?) creating 'volunteers' is all too easy.
Create social situations where the only likely way to obtain higher education is through a military system and paycheck and you'll have a steady stream of 'volunteers'.
Plus, the worse the soldier the better (and more expensive) gear they need. Which is great when you make that gear.
And even with our advanced military there are still things that can only be done with boots on the ground. That is where the conscripts will go. The tank drivers, jet pilots and other highly technical (and limited in number) positions can be filled by the actual volunteers.
War on terror, war on drugs, war to spread democracy (a system you cannot successfully force on a population) create a situation which will continually provide a threat which we need to defend our "homeland" (too bad "motherland" and "fatherland" were already taken) from.
Bang the drums and sound the horns! We need troops to keep the evil people over there and not over here! They hate us for our freedom (a little late on that one in my opinion)! Citizen, don't you want to keep your family, friends and homeland safe from these terrors? Only those that support the enemy wouldn't want to stop them on their own soil...
As long as there are politicians that need an enemy to scare the masses into re-electing them and large corporations that finance politicians that expect their kick-back there will be war.
Soldiers are the instruments of war. The ones playing the cadence are the politicians.
Soldiers will be 'created' if none exist and the politicians want a war.
You were whining that you didn't have enough time to police your brood's internet use. You want to inconvenience other people (and at someone else's expense) to make your life easier.
If they weren't on the net, what would they be doing? Wouldn't (or shouldn't) you be supervising those activities as well? How does the internet make your situation special enough to warrant outside intervention.
And yes, I am suggesting that parents (and especially prospective parents, as it isn't to late to easily rectify the situation) plan ahead for the future. Kids cost time and money. You need both to effectively raise them without being a drain on the rest of society. If you don't have the time or the financial means to support whatever size brood you're aiming for, or if there is a good chance that your economic or temporal situation will change at some point before the kids can be independent, it is nothing short of complete and utter irresponsibility on seeing to their well-being if you are not prepared to meet the full cost of raising and supporting them.
This is especially problematic for parents with more than one or two children. I have four (ages 6 through 14), all of whom spend a significant time on the net. I limit them to 90 minutes per day of computer time, including school work, and while many people consider that excessively restrictive, it would still mean that I have to spend six hours per day watching them compute. That's obviously not practical. How about this, try not having more kids than you can actually manage?
Welcome to the modern world, where we have separated procreation and recreation.
I love how people who spew out more spawn than they can support always want to make everyone else suffer along with them.
They really need to make firearm safety courses mandatory to cut down on statements like that.
Which video card did you select when you configured it?
My MBP (first gen 2.14ghz) handles WoW just fine.
Slight probably with that. The animals may not have a problem with the solar collectors, but the plants sure would have problems. Plants need sunlight. The solar collectors need sunlight. Only one can productively intercept the sunlight. The animals probably won't like the lack of plants.
Wasn't the point of calling french fries "freedom fries" to keep Joe Sixpack from empathizing and humanizing the French when they decided to not back the invasion?
Suicide describes what type of bomber. Bomber means someone who kills with explosives. I don't really see how changing suicide to homicide makes it any "worse".
Anyways, any media that would call them "homicide bombers" aren't the ones that will be followed by the group that produces the suicide bombers.
It's just emotional gut-thinking that just makes you feel better.
What term do you use to describe the kamikaze of WW2? Divine Wind is a pretty romantic term, especially when you consider the first Kamikaze and what it meant for Japan. Are they homikaze? Last-ditch-act-of-desperation-due-to-lack-of-resources-including-veteran-pilots-kaze?
I can look at the term "suicide bomber" and not think: oh, the poor lad went so emo, the only way for him to describe his anguish to another was with the destructive blast and shrapnel of an explosives vest, I really should feel sorry for him and subscribe to his newsletter. All this bellyfeel claptrap will be the end of western civilization, not some schmuck wearing a few pounds of C-4.
So it's like freedom fries then.
I just have to ask, why the switch from suicide bombers to the more ambiguous homicide bombers?
Suicide bombers are a one shot deal. Homicide bombers (see Unabomber) can keep at it until they quit or are caught.
Suicide bomber is a better term as it tells us the manner in which the bomber carried out the bombing, homicide bomber just tells out that people were killed.
I think there's something about "excluded middle" you should do some research on.
But while we're on the extremes of possible situations, consider this:
In the scenario of a SWAT team serving a warrant, which group of actors (or participants) is paid to be there, armed, armored and supported by other forces?
The onus is on the SWAT officers. The only life they have the right to risk before properly assessing a threat is their own. Cops don't have the right to shoot first and possibly bother to ask questions later if they have not ascertained with certainty their target poses a direct threat to themselves or others. They've taken on the *responsibility*, not the right, not the privilege of meting out lethal 'justice'.
So to give you the answer that you were cleverly baiting for, it should be the police getting gunned down and not the civilians. That's ostensibly their job, to serve and *protect*, not to serve only themselves and protect only themselves. Sadly, we have fewer law enforcement officers and more armed thugs wearing the badge these days.
Try clicking on the black balloons in the cato link.
Those are non-violent (many with no prior criminal history) offenders who were killed by SWAT teams.
Which means SWAT teams are serving warrants on non-violent offenders.
That system has been used to get the populace comfortable with constant surveillance.
Like all the Cops like shows that make it seem perfectly fine, ordinary and routine that full SWAT teams are used to serve warrants for lots of non-violent crimes.
It gets us, the citizens, used to their purpose and existence so we no longer question them.
Quick, abrupt changes are messy. The slow but steady application of pressure and lessing of liberties (to keep you "safe") is still oppression, even if it takes decades to manifest.
It shouldn't be easy for the government. Their job isn't to have things easy. Their job is to do things that are difficult for a large group of people to do. Governments (and their law enforcement agencies) are supposed to serve the public. The public should not have to serve the government.
Global worming wouldn't be a bad thing.
Vermiculture has a lot of potential. And not just in the current global-warming-will-kill-us-all-we-must-think-of-the-children way you might be thinking.
Of course inexpensive, self replicating solutions don't have a big enough profit margin and as far as I know there's no big vermi-lobby group out there (though a lot of lobbyists are pretty close to worms) nor any big subsidies.
Unfortunately I know far too many people that would welcome such a law and might say "I, for one..." as if they were taking a gallant stand against the innumerable hordes of villains and blackguards and other ne'er-do-wells out to harm the pure sweet innocent mind of their spawn, err kids.
A rather scary thing is I've heard these same people use the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" while maintaining a straight face.
If parenting is too hard without gov't help, perhaps they should find some other thing to be a status symbol or relationship entanglement device.
Look at the old folk tales. Kids used to grow up on those. They turned out fine. Go read some of the original Grimm's Fairy Tales. Can't recall who the quote was from but it was something along the lines of "Fairy tales didn't tell children that dragons exist, they already knew that. Fairy tales told children you could kill the dragon."
Overprotected hypo-allergenic disinfected bubble kids on the other hand don't seem to be doing so well.
If it were starting out as Joe Average, the citizen, people would be up in arms about it because it would encourage people to take matters into their own hands and not rely on the professionally trained and routinely over-equipped swat teams and their no knock tactics.
Now if it started out featuring a swat officer, it'd be A-OK to go barging into anyone's house and gun them down, warrant or not, since everybody is guilty of something and they *could* have had child porn or something on their computer. This would be hailed as a great game and role model for young kids. It would be lauded for showing "what it takes" for law enforcement to keep everyone "safe".
How will Apple break the clone if the clone can't update?
I'd say a box like that clone isn't even in the same league let alone ballpark of a mac pro (if it is even playing the same game is questionable). If I was considering a mac pro there'd be no way I'd seriously consider that B-52 in a box clone.
Don't forget those "religion" nuts. At least D&D players work with a rule book that doesn't blatantly contradict it self.