It is time for people to learn that we had a Republican majority in the recent past for a reason. The reason is that Democrats were colossal failures at leadership too.
ok,ok, failures sure. Colossal? I don't think so. Two wars costing over a trillion, 700 billion down the tubes, what could become the largest recession in recent history, a stolen election? I'd hardly call the lagging economy and.com burst that Clinton left "colossal."
Sure Pelosi sucks and Obama is mostly media hype, but they can't be any worse, And I mean that with all seriousness. Bush did damage no rational person who isn't guided by handlers who want to profit at any price and uncriticized ideology would do. If Obama was another lame duck like Carter, he would still be 10 fold a better president then Bush.
I do know one thing it will change, the powers that be will have to at least give a reach around while they rape out country, the Dems usually get that much done.
A candidate that came along and actually spoke their mind rather than quote the party line would probably at this point make people's heads explode. They would see it as impossible. Like saying it's day and night at the same time.
That candidate would most likely spread like a viral meme through word of mouth and receive very little media attention, and then inspire a small but very vocal minority to spam message boards constantly. They might even get the chance to voice their views once or twice on a debate before being yanked in favor of a candidate with the same poll numbers but a strong penchant for lying and using the term Islamofacist. But ultimately they are doomed to fail. *sigh*
It sure would be nice to see a multi-party system where there is a candidate I'd like to vote for.
I noticed this in Mexican neighborhoods. I was wondering why Mexican areas always have more restaurants, and I realized after looking around it's probably because a much larger number of men migrate then women. You had much the same effect with the Irish.
Well, what if that prompted the ladies to get bots to answer questions and subject the inquiring bots to Captcha style tests? that would be hilariousness!
I am a near complete libertarian but for some reason the progressive tax never bothered me that much. I think it has something to do with rich people being able to afford politicians and judges, and like you said when things get rough they have to chose to ho;d of the trip to Spain, while a lower earner has to chose to hold off dinner.
I also always wondered about the whole cost of governemt/number of people. A factory owner makes a lot more money by having good roads so his workers can get to the factory then the individual worker makes from being able to get to work.
In an anarcho-capitalist system he would probably still pay more to maintain the infrastructure he profits from, as the company would have to pay the cost of transit in the wages they pay workers or cut deals with the infrastructure company. I don't think the amount paid by rich people would be as steep in such a system, but I still believe they would be paying a higher percentage of their income then the poor.
the braking is usually slow enough for the unlit brake lights not to be a problem
LoL, that may be true for cars, but on my motorcycle I could get rear ended it engine brakes so fast. I've often wondered, are bike motors different then cars when engine braking is involved?
Dude, talking about schools not teaching enough, go back and take an econ class.
pro Athletes get paid a lot because they are a product that can be sold for lots of money, not because of some esoteric ruling somewhere. They top guys make millions because they are actually really good, the same general wage pyramid is found in most markets. Usually the guys who get paid the most are the ones who are best because there is a little supply of them and lots of demand.
You have the same thing with math, it's just in the US people have a value system that encourages leaving school to make money instead of hanging on as ivory intellectuals. You can't really fix that, since in the eyes of most Americans its not broken.
Why the need for a liquid lens? Isn't the moon essentially made out of glass, and with the vacuum couldn't you make it much higher grade anyways? plus you have the lower gravity so weight savings from the exotic technology don't matter as much. Unless you were concerned with the weight at launch, but something like this should really only be attempted once we have basic facility's on the moon anyways. And you can tilt glass.
Well if you watched law & order last night you'd know that humans (in the US) already have a system for switching off other humans, mostly it's used for removing faulty hardware though.
the problem is how long you talk to it. If you talk to it daily it would need to learn and expand for you not to reach the end of its tricks. I think that is where the quality of the turing test comes in. It would have to be capable of self expansion and learning in order to make you think it is capable of the learning and self expansion of a human.
I'm sure these bots could fool you for an hour in a select setting, but if you were to talk to them on AIM every night for 6 months on a variety of subjects from opinions to jokes, to hopes and dreams, they would need to be practically human to not fail.
Sure you can argue that it would just be an awesome ball of clever tricks, like auto-reading news feeds and analyzing stories for conversation currency. The thing about clever tricks is that a lot of what the human brain does in the separate lobes are just clever tricks, it's when you combine these all together and they start working with each other that you get something amazing.
I thought the purpose of (strong) AI was so we could make machines do all the work for us and finally realize mans true potential as warehoused livestock the machines can't terminate due to programing.
Thanks! That actually makes some sense. I was getting really tired of reading the same argument of "what if they see you with a beer!"
Potential cost vs. gains is a much better way to put that. I'd still contend that the social gains from maintaining a social networking site out way the potential cost in life, at least if one is social... Though I can see that some may not want to take any risks even if the reluctance strikes me as absurd.
I think another part of my lack of ability to relate to the submitter is that I was raised on the internet and I know what not to post. I suppose that someone who first learns to talk at 30 may be afraid to talk for fear of blurting out offensive things.
I was only responding with what I felt was a proper amount of hostility after having been accosted by that social retards submission.
uhg you people make no sense. THERE IS A WORLD THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE WEB! There is "prior art" on bosses and company's scoping out peoples private lives. Do you refuse to give out the phone numbers to contacts when you apply for a job? Or submit to a background check?
Does the internet make snooping easier? Yes and no. Yes, if you let it, I'm sorry your great example of the erosion of privacy is a few kids who were too dumb to watch what was posted and a drunk teacher, but that is hardly isolated to the web. I have a friend who was fired because he came into work smelling of pot. I have another acquaintance who lost her job as a substitute because she was repeatedly spotted at bars getting sauced. Both of these happened without the help of the internet and involve prying into personal lives. Sure bosses browse employees myspace pages, but unless your the kind of dumb ass that posts pictures of your latest fetish party on a public site your arguments lack venom.
Uh I wasn't trolling, I really don't get the hype. Well for "things you shouldn't" how about things you wouldn't say to a total stranger if they asked you at a bus stop? As for disagree with, why would a boss fire you for liking Marx and unionization after he read your profile and not if you told him over the water cooler? Or does privacy mean the ability to selectively lie to someones face in your book? For things that become an embarrassment, Can you erase the brains of people around you? 99.99% of the embarrassing things about the people I know are told person to person, and I was raised on the web. Seriously your straw man is fail.
Can someone please cue me in on what the hype is about "Privacy?" I get the privacy of the home: gay sex, drugs, communism, ect. not wanting to be shared, but I've never seen anywhere on face book that sticks a telescreen in your house. I can not for the life of me figure out why anyone would care that there is a picture of them playing dodgeball on 7/12/99 at a company piknik. Or that they may work for Yoyodyne corp. and live in bumfuck IL. I don't get it! who cares? what will an employer do if they read your profile unless you post things you shouldn't any ways?!?! Where is the issue? do you privacy nuts also behave the same way in daily life? if so it's a surprise you have any friends at all, if they ask you what you did this weekend do you make them sign a non-disclosure agreement? I can see possibly not wanting marketing to be able to draw info from you, but in that case do you also slam the door on the census taker?
Jeez that sounds almost religious: Vile creatures with their slutty personal information sharing, opening their facebook account to anyone who asks with care for cleanliness or wholesomeness! Repent! or they shall fell his holy flame!
While a lot of that seems true you can expect privacy in many issues. It seems here the talk is really about the internet and anyone who uses it knowing lots about peoples social life. It doesn't allow knowledge of Personal life. Sure facebook will let future employers know that some people like "sushi, especially with extra sake! lolz" But it doesn't let them know what kinky shit them and their partner do and it never will unless they blurt it out like a dumb ass. I personally never post anything online I wouldn't tell someone if asked, and most people follow that same idea. Sure there are stories of people getting fired for pictures of them smoking a doobi, but theirs also stories of them getting fired for similar slip ups in real life. Unless every part of someones life is completely shameful I don't see what the problem is. Fuck I could probably learn more about the submitter by just calling cityhall then facebook.
uh, last time I checked (and i actually check these things regularly) Finland had a youth unemployment rate that was about 20%. No wonder you guys don't drive at 16, it's not like you guys have a lot of jobs to go to. Seriously, why are people obsessed with upping the age of adulthood? If current trends in overprotection and babying continue 25 will be when people are considered adults in 2 decades.
I have a solution that solves that whole argument. Buy a motorcycle. Traffic gets weird and someones being a squirmy dick? pull back on the throttle and just ditch the whole pack of losers.
but that someone who does the right thing only because they have no opportunity to do the wrong thing isn't really responsible.
I'd rob you blind in a fucking second if I knew I could get away with it 100%. Sure I'm not responsible, but from your perspective does it really matter that I'm not robing you because I don't want to spend my life in jail and not some sense of responsible citizenship? and do you really think it will matter to the family in the minivan that the teen in the next car isn't plowing into them because of a speed limiter and not responsible driving?
WTF why?!?!!? thats fucking stupid. Don't let them have a car cause they might hurt them selves showing off instead of just not letting them show off? great idea. My feet keep getting blisters do you think I should get better shoes or just stop walking?
Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room. The RIAA isn't as "obsolete" as many of the internet fan-boys would like to think. Surprise! the RIAA does more than sue people, they actually help produce music in a lot of ways. I'm so tired of hearing about how the internet is KILLING record company, how it's KILLING news papers, and listening to them rag on what is actually one minor aspect of what these companies do.
All the internet is doing is killing their preferred method of distribution, all the while ignoring the fact that these companies operate extensive networks of actual resources like pooled advertising, promotion, concert tours, recording studios, ect. Basically the record companies need to became music-companies, and newspapers need to become news-companies, It's a shift in the distribution system, not a new digital paradigm. People talking about how blogs will take over news and record-companies are obsolete ignore the basics of economies of scale and pooled resources. Sure some of the companies will tank, just like A&P tanked when they weren't able to shift to the new car based groceries system of the 50's, but many others will probably succeed with only a slightly modified business plan.
I'm tired of constantly hearing about the "impeding shift to completely distributed music production" that will come when the evil record companies topple. I'm sure that will happen in the same year as the linux desktop and citizen journalism takes over.
Actually, you've got it backwards. Are you sure you aren't thinking of UV? I looked it up right now, and my little assumption about IR seems completely accurate. According to everything on Google water absorbs IR like dirt. In fact, in the IR pictures bodies of water looked just like the soil around them, thats how little the IR penetrated. A fish giving off IR would be view able for about 2 inches.
Slashdot Mirror
It is time for people to learn that we had a Republican majority in the recent past for a reason. The reason is that Democrats were colossal failures at leadership too.
ok,ok, failures sure. Colossal? I don't think so. Two wars costing over a trillion, 700 billion down the tubes, what could become the largest recession in recent history, a stolen election? I'd hardly call the lagging economy and .com burst that Clinton left "colossal."
Sure Pelosi sucks and Obama is mostly media hype, but they can't be any worse, And I mean that with all seriousness. Bush did damage no rational person who isn't guided by handlers who want to profit at any price and uncriticized ideology would do. If Obama was another lame duck like Carter, he would still be 10 fold a better president then Bush.
I do know one thing it will change, the powers that be will have to at least give a reach around while they rape out country, the Dems usually get that much done.
A candidate that came along and actually spoke their mind rather than quote the party line would probably at this point make people's heads explode. They would see it as impossible. Like saying it's day and night at the same time.
That candidate would most likely spread like a viral meme through word of mouth and receive very little media attention, and then inspire a small but very vocal minority to spam message boards constantly. They might even get the chance to voice their views once or twice on a debate before being yanked in favor of a candidate with the same poll numbers but a strong penchant for lying and using the term Islamofacist. But ultimately they are doomed to fail. *sigh*
It sure would be nice to see a multi-party system where there is a candidate I'd like to vote for.
I noticed this in Mexican neighborhoods. I was wondering why Mexican areas always have more restaurants, and I realized after looking around it's probably because a much larger number of men migrate then women. You had much the same effect with the Irish.
Well, what if that prompted the ladies to get bots to answer questions and subject the inquiring bots to Captcha style tests? that would be hilariousness!
"My two favorite things are commitment and changing myself"
I am a near complete libertarian but for some reason the progressive tax never bothered me that much. I think it has something to do with rich people being able to afford politicians and judges, and like you said when things get rough they have to chose to ho;d of the trip to Spain, while a lower earner has to chose to hold off dinner.
I also always wondered about the whole cost of governemt/number of people. A factory owner makes a lot more money by having good roads so his workers can get to the factory then the individual worker makes from being able to get to work.
In an anarcho-capitalist system he would probably still pay more to maintain the infrastructure he profits from, as the company would have to pay the cost of transit in the wages they pay workers or cut deals with the infrastructure company. I don't think the amount paid by rich people would be as steep in such a system, but I still believe they would be paying a higher percentage of their income then the poor.
the braking is usually slow enough for the unlit brake lights not to be a problem LoL, that may be true for cars, but on my motorcycle I could get rear ended it engine brakes so fast. I've often wondered, are bike motors different then cars when engine braking is involved?
Dude, talking about schools not teaching enough, go back and take an econ class.
pro Athletes get paid a lot because they are a product that can be sold for lots of money, not because of some esoteric ruling somewhere. They top guys make millions because they are actually really good, the same general wage pyramid is found in most markets. Usually the guys who get paid the most are the ones who are best because there is a little supply of them and lots of demand.
You have the same thing with math, it's just in the US people have a value system that encourages leaving school to make money instead of hanging on as ivory intellectuals. You can't really fix that, since in the eyes of most Americans its not broken.
Why the need for a liquid lens? Isn't the moon essentially made out of glass, and with the vacuum couldn't you make it much higher grade anyways? plus you have the lower gravity so weight savings from the exotic technology don't matter as much. Unless you were concerned with the weight at launch, but something like this should really only be attempted once we have basic facility's on the moon anyways. And you can tilt glass.
Well if you watched law & order last night you'd know that humans (in the US) already have a system for switching off other humans, mostly it's used for removing faulty hardware though.
the problem is how long you talk to it. If you talk to it daily it would need to learn and expand for you not to reach the end of its tricks. I think that is where the quality of the turing test comes in. It would have to be capable of self expansion and learning in order to make you think it is capable of the learning and self expansion of a human.
I'm sure these bots could fool you for an hour in a select setting, but if you were to talk to them on AIM every night for 6 months on a variety of subjects from opinions to jokes, to hopes and dreams, they would need to be practically human to not fail.
Sure you can argue that it would just be an awesome ball of clever tricks, like auto-reading news feeds and analyzing stories for conversation currency. The thing about clever tricks is that a lot of what the human brain does in the separate lobes are just clever tricks, it's when you combine these all together and they start working with each other that you get something amazing.
I thought the purpose of (strong) AI was so we could make machines do all the work for us and finally realize mans true potential as warehoused livestock the machines can't terminate due to programing.
Thanks! That actually makes some sense. I was getting really tired of reading the same argument of "what if they see you with a beer!"
Potential cost vs. gains is a much better way to put that. I'd still contend that the social gains from maintaining a social networking site out way the potential cost in life, at least if one is social... Though I can see that some may not want to take any risks even if the reluctance strikes me as absurd.
I think another part of my lack of ability to relate to the submitter is that I was raised on the internet and I know what not to post. I suppose that someone who first learns to talk at 30 may be afraid to talk for fear of blurting out offensive things.
I was only responding with what I felt was a proper amount of hostility after having been accosted by that social retards submission.
uhg you people make no sense. THERE IS A WORLD THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE WEB! There is "prior art" on bosses and company's scoping out peoples private lives. Do you refuse to give out the phone numbers to contacts when you apply for a job? Or submit to a background check?
Does the internet make snooping easier? Yes and no. Yes, if you let it, I'm sorry your great example of the erosion of privacy is a few kids who were too dumb to watch what was posted and a drunk teacher, but that is hardly isolated to the web. I have a friend who was fired because he came into work smelling of pot. I have another acquaintance who lost her job as a substitute because she was repeatedly spotted at bars getting sauced. Both of these happened without the help of the internet and involve prying into personal lives. Sure bosses browse employees myspace pages, but unless your the kind of dumb ass that posts pictures of your latest fetish party on a public site your arguments lack venom.
Uh I wasn't trolling, I really don't get the hype. Well for "things you shouldn't" how about things you wouldn't say to a total stranger if they asked you at a bus stop? As for disagree with, why would a boss fire you for liking Marx and unionization after he read your profile and not if you told him over the water cooler? Or does privacy mean the ability to selectively lie to someones face in your book? For things that become an embarrassment, Can you erase the brains of people around you? 99.99% of the embarrassing things about the people I know are told person to person, and I was raised on the web. Seriously your straw man is fail.
Can someone please cue me in on what the hype is about "Privacy?" I get the privacy of the home: gay sex, drugs, communism, ect. not wanting to be shared, but I've never seen anywhere on face book that sticks a telescreen in your house. I can not for the life of me figure out why anyone would care that there is a picture of them playing dodgeball on 7/12/99 at a company piknik. Or that they may work for Yoyodyne corp. and live in bumfuck IL. I don't get it! who cares? what will an employer do if they read your profile unless you post things you shouldn't any ways?!?! Where is the issue? do you privacy nuts also behave the same way in daily life? if so it's a surprise you have any friends at all, if they ask you what you did this weekend do you make them sign a non-disclosure agreement? I can see possibly not wanting marketing to be able to draw info from you, but in that case do you also slam the door on the census taker?
Jeez that sounds almost religious: Vile creatures with their slutty personal information sharing, opening their facebook account to anyone who asks with care for cleanliness or wholesomeness! Repent! or they shall fell his holy flame!
While a lot of that seems true you can expect privacy in many issues. It seems here the talk is really about the internet and anyone who uses it knowing lots about peoples social life. It doesn't allow knowledge of Personal life. Sure facebook will let future employers know that some people like "sushi, especially with extra sake! lolz" But it doesn't let them know what kinky shit them and their partner do and it never will unless they blurt it out like a dumb ass. I personally never post anything online I wouldn't tell someone if asked, and most people follow that same idea. Sure there are stories of people getting fired for pictures of them smoking a doobi, but theirs also stories of them getting fired for similar slip ups in real life. Unless every part of someones life is completely shameful I don't see what the problem is. Fuck I could probably learn more about the submitter by just calling cityhall then facebook.
uh, last time I checked (and i actually check these things regularly) Finland had a youth unemployment rate that was about 20%. No wonder you guys don't drive at 16, it's not like you guys have a lot of jobs to go to. Seriously, why are people obsessed with upping the age of adulthood? If current trends in overprotection and babying continue 25 will be when people are considered adults in 2 decades.
I have a solution that solves that whole argument. Buy a motorcycle. Traffic gets weird and someones being a squirmy dick? pull back on the throttle and just ditch the whole pack of losers.
but that someone who does the right thing only because they have no opportunity to do the wrong thing isn't really responsible.
I'd rob you blind in a fucking second if I knew I could get away with it 100%. Sure I'm not responsible, but from your perspective does it really matter that I'm not robing you because I don't want to spend my life in jail and not some sense of responsible citizenship? and do you really think it will matter to the family in the minivan that the teen in the next car isn't plowing into them because of a speed limiter and not responsible driving?
WTF why?!?!!? thats fucking stupid. Don't let them have a car cause they might hurt them selves showing off instead of just not letting them show off? great idea.
My feet keep getting blisters do you think I should get better shoes or just stop walking?
Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room. The RIAA isn't as "obsolete" as many of the internet fan-boys would like to think. Surprise! the RIAA does more than sue people, they actually help produce music in a lot of ways. I'm so tired of hearing about how the internet is KILLING record company, how it's KILLING news papers, and listening to them rag on what is actually one minor aspect of what these companies do.
All the internet is doing is killing their preferred method of distribution, all the while ignoring the fact that these companies operate extensive networks of actual resources like pooled advertising, promotion, concert tours, recording studios, ect. Basically the record companies need to became music-companies, and newspapers need to become news-companies, It's a shift in the distribution system, not a new digital paradigm. People talking about how blogs will take over news and record-companies are obsolete ignore the basics of economies of scale and pooled resources. Sure some of the companies will tank, just like A&P tanked when they weren't able to shift to the new car based groceries system of the 50's, but many others will probably succeed with only a slightly modified business plan.
I'm tired of constantly hearing about the "impeding shift to completely distributed music production" that will come when the evil record companies topple. I'm sure that will happen in the same year as the linux desktop and citizen journalism takes over.
(It should be noted that I'm a capitalistic heathen most of the time, but this naked shorting really is dirty pool)
So basically you're a capitalist who believes stealing is still wrong no matter what they call it? go figure I didn't know there were any of you left.
Actually, you've got it backwards. Are you sure you aren't thinking of UV? I looked it up right now, and my little assumption about IR seems completely accurate. According to everything on Google water absorbs IR like dirt. In fact, in the IR pictures bodies of water looked just like the soil around them, thats how little the IR penetrated. A fish giving off IR would be view able for about 2 inches.