As I said, nothing bad about population control - unless it is pushed into people with the guise of mandatory vaccinations. Education is a much better option, at least in theory.
As for your theory, I commented on http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1982308&cid=35116128 . People rarely think like this or plan this far - if a couple is capable of thinking like this, they would also be capable of postponing having kids altogether until their overall condition improves.
In an ideal logical world, perhaps, but on this one parent's don't have 4 kids because they are preoccupied that one of them might die. They have that many kids simply because of accidents - not using the pill, no condoms, etc and can't abort for n reasons. Just think of every family you know that has 3 or 4 kids and ask yourself whether they had the possibility of one of the kids dying in mind. Chances are, it was never planned, just accident, or they just like to have lots of kids.
That's because his Gates Foundation advocates the use of vaccines and birth control as means of population control.
I have nothing against advocating birth control, but it's hard to take the advice of Mr. Gates seriously when it comes to safety of vaccines when he thinks vaccines should be used for population control. Just Google "bill gates vaccination population" and you'll find several pointers on this.
To quote Gates' TED talk:
"First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people and that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on *new vaccines*, *health care*, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 15%." -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064&feature=player_embedded
So, how in the hell could better vaccines and better health care help lower the world population? They can't. Just bad vaccines and bad (or lack of) healthcare can do that, coupled with his "reproductive health services" which at this point sounds like sterilization.
So yeah, if Mr. Gates hands me a vaccine, I don't think I'll be taking it (even though I don't have kids and don't plan to).
Just as legal are prison sentences and public lashes for "adultery" when a married muslim woman is raped in some countries. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is "right".
I've come to the conclusion that science, *at least how we have today*, is just a kind of neo-religion.
Take, for example, theoretical physics and regular religions:
1) Both try to build a system to supply the need to explain how human beings and the cosmos came into existence. Even though religion doesn't "believe" in God, there are also religions that doesn't believe in a greater power creating and ruling everything (buddhism, for example).
2) Both does so by creating theories that go on evolving and changing, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. For example, a long time ago *christians* accepted the idea that the universe was 10 thousand years old, but now they don't. Then, science also had his own hiccups, believing Earth to be flat, etc.
3) So both use theories that eventually change, get disproved, evolve into more complex theories or are substituted by newer, more elegant ones. But they continue to be just that, theories.
4) In both fields, religion and science, there's a great tendency of ignoring new developments in order to keep the orthodox, more comfortable understanding. For example, there are several holes with quantum physics and relativity in general that, although observed in practical terms, are ignored because they don't match the *theory*. So both fields tend to favor theories against direct observation, when the phenomena observed cannot readily be explained by the current official theory, nor explained with a new theory.
5) Both fields do so in a belief that their method is the best way there is. Religion believes they are right because of their faith, Science believes they are right because of the belief that everything can be explained and deducted away by the "Scientific Model". So, both religion and science are founded upon a theory that should work, but in practical terms, is not applied (hence the bloody wars that "loving" christians fight, hence the attachment of the scientific establishment to obviously flawed theories just because they have become commonly accepted). Just because the bible says that the planet is a sphere suspended upon nothing (if that's what it really is), doesn't mean that it's right about everything. Just because some things can be explained using the currently preferred scientific theory, it doesn't mean that the theory is wholly right and a "law", as the "laws" of physics are called (at least until disproved). Because "laws" on religion are more subjective, they cannot easily be disproven, but they are just like scientific laws, only harder to disprove. Scientific law's, because are purposedly based on objectivity, can be disproved if enough objective arguments are shown, but they are still wrongly taken as "laws". So if someone, one day, disproves the "law" of conservation of energy, the next new theory will still be called a "law" and considered a hard truth, until also disproven. Just like religion.
6) Both religion and science should be based on direct observation of reality, without judments or prejudices from either the past, from the commonly accepted model, nor from the observer's own mind. It should be ok to say "I don't know", instead of creating myriad theories to explain things away, or worse yet, taking these explanations for granted as "truth". So, if you don't know how humanity came into existence, just say "I don't know" and explore it. If you don't know how the universe came into being, just say "I don't know" and try to understand the universe, instead of creating *theories* like the big bang, for example. Get the Spaghetty monster, throw in some calculations, and BAM, you got a reasonable scientific theory for today's standards of science. Silly.
7) Even if you consider the Big Bang theory as being elegant and probable, it is still a theory, and only that. People in the past must've thought, for some reason, that the idea of one or many omnipotent, omnipresent, always-existing, never-born personal being creating the entire existence was very elegant and a good explanation, but that also is just a theory. After all, if such powerful being(s) ca
Go crazy and stick a RFID tag on everything, from cables and mousepads to GPUs and go big brother style ! =)
Or, just make sure to remember all the participants to watch their equipment, so it becomes their responsibility and not yours, as it always is.
Nice story! lol
Yes, schools are generally stupid. That's why I never bothered to watch the classes, would bring my own books and read them while in class, and hey, I'm doing just fine today. Probably finer than 99% of my former classmates (and definitely better than the teachers LOL)
The "problem" is simple: you are using a shared hosting service, so they are able to look at your data whenever they want/need. Even if their policy prohibited them of peeking at your data, the *possibility* is still there.
So instead, get your own dedicated server on a good hosting company, and that's it. It's "your" machine, and they cannot poke around your database, or filesystems, or anything (except the network traffic that comes to/from it). If you don't give them passwords to your SSH/database server, there is nothing they can do to poke around, short of powering off your server, taking the HDs out and plugging them into another machine to look around.
What crazy company would hire a "Program Manager" to do design work that doesn't like to program, and apparently doesn't know much about it ?
Tricky...
That was one idea, but apparently the gods decided that the costs of polishing the mirrors, even if just once every Kalpa, would be astoundingly prohibitive !
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with "Lazarium", as in "Bob Lazar". [1] [1] http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=bob+lazar+element+115&cp=12&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=&oq=bob+lazar+el&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=9589d0f2bb20ed2d&biw=843&bih=499
As I said, nothing bad about population control - unless it is pushed into people with the guise of mandatory vaccinations. Education is a much better option, at least in theory. As for your theory, I commented on http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1982308&cid=35116128 . People rarely think like this or plan this far - if a couple is capable of thinking like this, they would also be capable of postponing having kids altogether until their overall condition improves.
In an ideal logical world, perhaps, but on this one parent's don't have 4 kids because they are preoccupied that one of them might die. They have that many kids simply because of accidents - not using the pill, no condoms, etc and can't abort for n reasons. Just think of every family you know that has 3 or 4 kids and ask yourself whether they had the possibility of one of the kids dying in mind. Chances are, it was never planned, just accident, or they just like to have lots of kids.
That's because his Gates Foundation advocates the use of vaccines and birth control as means of population control. I have nothing against advocating birth control, but it's hard to take the advice of Mr. Gates seriously when it comes to safety of vaccines when he thinks vaccines should be used for population control. Just Google "bill gates vaccination population" and you'll find several pointers on this. To quote Gates' TED talk: "First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people and that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on *new vaccines*, *health care*, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 15%." -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064&feature=player_embedded So, how in the hell could better vaccines and better health care help lower the world population? They can't. Just bad vaccines and bad (or lack of) healthcare can do that, coupled with his "reproductive health services" which at this point sounds like sterilization. So yeah, if Mr. Gates hands me a vaccine, I don't think I'll be taking it (even though I don't have kids and don't plan to).
Just as legal are prison sentences and public lashes for "adultery" when a married muslim woman is raped in some countries. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it is "right".
"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause."
I've come to the conclusion that science, *at least how we have today*, is just a kind of neo-religion. Take, for example, theoretical physics and regular religions: 1) Both try to build a system to supply the need to explain how human beings and the cosmos came into existence. Even though religion doesn't "believe" in God, there are also religions that doesn't believe in a greater power creating and ruling everything (buddhism, for example). 2) Both does so by creating theories that go on evolving and changing, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. For example, a long time ago *christians* accepted the idea that the universe was 10 thousand years old, but now they don't. Then, science also had his own hiccups, believing Earth to be flat, etc. 3) So both use theories that eventually change, get disproved, evolve into more complex theories or are substituted by newer, more elegant ones. But they continue to be just that, theories. 4) In both fields, religion and science, there's a great tendency of ignoring new developments in order to keep the orthodox, more comfortable understanding. For example, there are several holes with quantum physics and relativity in general that, although observed in practical terms, are ignored because they don't match the *theory*. So both fields tend to favor theories against direct observation, when the phenomena observed cannot readily be explained by the current official theory, nor explained with a new theory. 5) Both fields do so in a belief that their method is the best way there is. Religion believes they are right because of their faith, Science believes they are right because of the belief that everything can be explained and deducted away by the "Scientific Model". So, both religion and science are founded upon a theory that should work, but in practical terms, is not applied (hence the bloody wars that "loving" christians fight, hence the attachment of the scientific establishment to obviously flawed theories just because they have become commonly accepted). Just because the bible says that the planet is a sphere suspended upon nothing (if that's what it really is), doesn't mean that it's right about everything. Just because some things can be explained using the currently preferred scientific theory, it doesn't mean that the theory is wholly right and a "law", as the "laws" of physics are called (at least until disproved). Because "laws" on religion are more subjective, they cannot easily be disproven, but they are just like scientific laws, only harder to disprove. Scientific law's, because are purposedly based on objectivity, can be disproved if enough objective arguments are shown, but they are still wrongly taken as "laws". So if someone, one day, disproves the "law" of conservation of energy, the next new theory will still be called a "law" and considered a hard truth, until also disproven. Just like religion. 6) Both religion and science should be based on direct observation of reality, without judments or prejudices from either the past, from the commonly accepted model, nor from the observer's own mind. It should be ok to say "I don't know", instead of creating myriad theories to explain things away, or worse yet, taking these explanations for granted as "truth". So, if you don't know how humanity came into existence, just say "I don't know" and explore it. If you don't know how the universe came into being, just say "I don't know" and try to understand the universe, instead of creating *theories* like the big bang, for example. Get the Spaghetty monster, throw in some calculations, and BAM, you got a reasonable scientific theory for today's standards of science. Silly. 7) Even if you consider the Big Bang theory as being elegant and probable, it is still a theory, and only that. People in the past must've thought, for some reason, that the idea of one or many omnipotent, omnipresent, always-existing, never-born personal being creating the entire existence was very elegant and a good explanation, but that also is just a theory. After all, if such powerful being(s) ca
Nor for the privacy and freedom of speech, actually !
Go crazy and stick a RFID tag on everything, from cables and mousepads to GPUs and go big brother style ! =) Or, just make sure to remember all the participants to watch their equipment, so it becomes their responsibility and not yours, as it always is.
Nice story! lol Yes, schools are generally stupid. That's why I never bothered to watch the classes, would bring my own books and read them while in class, and hey, I'm doing just fine today. Probably finer than 99% of my former classmates (and definitely better than the teachers LOL)
The "problem" is simple: you are using a shared hosting service, so they are able to look at your data whenever they want/need. Even if their policy prohibited them of peeking at your data, the *possibility* is still there. So instead, get your own dedicated server on a good hosting company, and that's it. It's "your" machine, and they cannot poke around your database, or filesystems, or anything (except the network traffic that comes to/from it). If you don't give them passwords to your SSH/database server, there is nothing they can do to poke around, short of powering off your server, taking the HDs out and plugging them into another machine to look around.
What crazy company would hire a "Program Manager" to do design work that doesn't like to program, and apparently doesn't know much about it ? Tricky...
That was one idea, but apparently the gods decided that the costs of polishing the mirrors, even if just once every Kalpa, would be astoundingly prohibitive !