Because the only people who claim that have "harming the US" as a goal.
I don't think anyone should have harming the American people, as a goal, at all. The complete abolition of the American government, on the other hand, is a goal which I think is overwhelmingly in the interests of humanity as an entire species, and in seeking such, the American people themselves should be leading the charge.
So how do you imagine we "abolish the US government" without harming the people? It's easy to point out the "bad", "evil", (and the favorite of the anarchist/libertarian sort) "facist" things the US governemnt does while ignoring the massive good it has done. Of course, if looking through a very narrow lens helps suport your cause, I guess you're free to do that, and somehow get positive mod points for it. Guess you brought friends, eh? Just remember, the evil government is what is allowing you to post negatively about it. Try the same in any of many more oppressive countries out there.
Let's not forget that what most people dislike (or hate) about the U.S. government is something outside the intentions it was founded upon. It wasn't supposed to become a rich man's club running at the behest of other rich people.
It's not democracy if capitalism has its hooks in every aspect of government.
Capitalism doesn't have hooks it can put in government. A government highly influenced by corporations is cronyism, or straight out bribery. And lest we give "Big Academia" a pass, a government highly influenced by large universities with millions of dollars is also cronyism.
Obi-wan seemed like a real dick after that scene. His former friend and pupil is lying there, on fire and dismembered. Obi-wan can't even be bothered to finish him off and put him out of his misery. Instead he just leaves him there to be horribly scarred and rebuilt into a hate filled cyborg that thinks nothing of blowing up entire planets.
I don't think they had a choice at that point except to make him look like a dick. The story had to continue with him as Darth Vader because that's how it was written 30 years prior. They painted themselves into a corner by trying to tell the story starting way further back than they could hope to tell in three mostly consecutive movies, and then by wasting almost one entire movie (Episode 1) just showing us crap.
Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.
Also, anyone who compares Ewoks and Jar-Jar is a moron. The Ewoks actually fought, using old but useful weapons to help defeat the imperial forces. Jar-Jar was running away like a coward and accidentally destroyed an invading force in the process. Both character types aimed at kids? Sure. But they were nothing alike.
It's not even that. Look at that quotes list. Awkward quote #1? Just Jar-Jar being Jar-Jar. That was an appropriate quote for the character and context. Quote #5 was a neutral way to avoid an awkward silence. #7 was Anakin being a 9-year-old boy--yes, 9-year-old boys say awkward stupid shit like this. Quotes #20 and #34 were frighteningly insightful: this is exactly what happened after 9/11.
Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.
The prequels sucked because they tried to cram foreshadowing into every scene, as if we needed every single event in the prequels to relate to a specific event in the original 3. Then after the second prequel they realized they left so much undone that the third was just two hours of screen wipe-divided vignettes, and right at the end they were like, Oh shit, Anakin only has the one fake hand. So 5 minutes, one ill-constructed fight sequence, and single slashing of a light saber and suddenly he is Darth Vader in all his shiny, black awesomeness. Crap. Crap. Crap.
. I said that someone who can and will disarm a person with a gun probably has the skills to then beat the crap out of you with your gun if it for some reason does not fire.
Although it is not "easy" to bludgeon someone to death, it only takes the right kind of strike to knock a person unconscious, at which point the perpetrator can take their time pistol whipping the limp body.
If you are defending yourself with your smart gun and the person takes it away from you, I'm pretty sure that if they can't shoot you with it that they will still be able to beat you to death with it. And if they are the kind of person who can and will disarm someone then they probably can beat you up, too. Either way, I'll take my chances that someone else might get my gun over my gun not firing when I really need it to. I can train to deal with misfires, not with electronic malfunctions.
Well, professionals who take these types of photos care, outsiders don't care. Maybe you should at least skim through all the patent claims before saying it's just a camera in front of a white sheet.
I wasn't responding directly to the details of this patent application; rather, the notion that such a thing can be patented (and yes, I did read the claims). Presumably, if one can patent the white sheet with a specific lighting pattern, then previously one would have been able to patent just the white sheet, and that is ridiculous.
Consider it another way: I am a photographer using a white sheet as a backdrop. As I take a series of photos, thanks to digital photography I can immediately look at the results and move my lights around to remove shadows. At some point I happen to hit Amazon's patented light configuration, and I am now violating their patent. Dumb. Maybe they should also patent looking at the digital output and adjusting lighting? After all, that is part of the process for which they applied for the patent currently in question.
The scientific progress lies in the identification of targets for energy transfer. That they can or will be used to kill people is completely irrelevant because pretty much every scientific advancement of the last hundred years can be used to kill people, whether that means flying a plane into a skyscraper or dying from chemo therapy and radiation before the cancer kills you.
Don't forget, "or taking Cialis and dying from (complications due to) a 6 hour erection."
So no, contrary to the common opinion on Slashdot, I think collectively agreeing to not use a certain, dangerous technology can be useful, and is also enforceable.
Last I checked, the Slashdot community was more likely to be on the side of supporting a ban. Regardless, how enforceable is such a ban? We can look for signs that a country is developing nuclear capability because of the unique nature of the technology involved. Autonomous, lethal robots, however, are made up of relatively benign or not suspicious parts, so we would have to rely on direct observation to determine if a country were developing such technology.
How much did we (humans) make the Sahara Desert expand? Could it be that our planet is slowly dying on its own? Either way, I don't care. I believe we should be good stewards of the planet. I believe in conservation. But I don't believe in government doing things on our behalf. (And I also don't believe in the benevolence or objectivity of scientists. They aren't. I know plenty.)
We'll never make a truly human computer (or maybe "natural computer" is a better term) because we can't make it first and foremost desire self-preservation. We can build a robot that plays catch, but we can't make it want to play catch. Do we even know why we want to play catch (deep down I think it is motivated by the desire to procreate)? And thank FSM we can't build and evolving machines, because computers are logical and not forgetful, and would very likely enslave us first change they got.
A passenger jet is a relatively finite system compared to a climate model which purports to accurately predict what will happen in 100 years based on (let's assume) reliable measurements over the last 200 years and data based on not directly testable phenomenon over the last 10000 to millions of years. My faith in that modeling will increase when I can get an accurate weather forecast more than 24 hours in advance. Hell, at this point I'd take 12 hours.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but if there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere and changing it's level can change how the atmosphere affects us, isn't that basically showing how delicate our environment can be?
Perhaps, but the important thing to understand is that when we use science for "good" we know that it can't possibly be bad for the environment. Only Big Corporations can do stuff that is bad for the environment.
"nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative"
McDonald v. Chicago applies the second amendment to the states. A city can no more ban firearms within the city limits than it could prohibit freedom of speech.
Firstly, who cares what a cheeseburger-wielding clown thinks? Secondly, places like Chicago and Manhattan, while not able to make it explicitly illegal to own a handgun, have made it practically near-impossible.
How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?
So the main argument tossed about the media against the death penalty is about the cost. That argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you say, Forget about cost because even if it costs less to execute people it represents such a tiny fraction of the overall cost. Except that doesn't stand up because your 3000 death row inmates represent between $150 and $300 million per year, so despite it being just a small percentage of the overall tab it is still not a small amount of money. Maybe we save that cash and throw it education or urban blight? You like those things, right?
Just be honest about your argument: You are against the death penalty because you are simply against it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone should have harming the American people , as a goal, at all. The complete abolition of the American government , on the other hand, is a goal which I think is overwhelmingly in the interests of humanity as an entire species, and in seeking such, the American people themselves should be leading the charge.
So how do you imagine we "abolish the US government" without harming the people? It's easy to point out the "bad", "evil", (and the favorite of the anarchist/libertarian sort) "facist" things the US governemnt does while ignoring the massive good it has done. Of course, if looking through a very narrow lens helps suport your cause, I guess you're free to do that, and somehow get positive mod points for it. Guess you brought friends, eh? Just remember, the evil government is what is allowing you to post negatively about it. Try the same in any of many more oppressive countries out there.
Let's not forget that what most people dislike (or hate) about the U.S. government is something outside the intentions it was founded upon. It wasn't supposed to become a rich man's club running at the behest of other rich people.
It's not democracy if capitalism has its hooks in every aspect of government.
Capitalism doesn't have hooks it can put in government. A government highly influenced by corporations is cronyism, or straight out bribery. And lest we give "Big Academia" a pass, a government highly influenced by large universities with millions of dollars is also cronyism.
The universe has been in 3-D for like 30 billion years.
*They are.
Easy there, fella. We all understand you've got the Ewok love.
Their like pocket-sized Wookies! What's not to love?
Obi-wan seemed like a real dick after that scene. His former friend and pupil is lying there, on fire and dismembered. Obi-wan can't even be bothered to finish him off and put him out of his misery. Instead he just leaves him there to be horribly scarred and rebuilt into a hate filled cyborg that thinks nothing of blowing up entire planets.
I don't think they had a choice at that point except to make him look like a dick. The story had to continue with him as Darth Vader because that's how it was written 30 years prior. They painted themselves into a corner by trying to tell the story starting way further back than they could hope to tell in three mostly consecutive movies, and then by wasting almost one entire movie (Episode 1) just showing us crap.
Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.
Also, anyone who compares Ewoks and Jar-Jar is a moron. The Ewoks actually fought, using old but useful weapons to help defeat the imperial forces. Jar-Jar was running away like a coward and accidentally destroyed an invading force in the process. Both character types aimed at kids? Sure. But they were nothing alike.
It's not even that. Look at that quotes list. Awkward quote #1? Just Jar-Jar being Jar-Jar. That was an appropriate quote for the character and context. Quote #5 was a neutral way to avoid an awkward silence. #7 was Anakin being a 9-year-old boy--yes, 9-year-old boys say awkward stupid shit like this. Quotes #20 and #34 were frighteningly insightful: this is exactly what happened after 9/11.
Prequel complainers are just full of shit. They cry about movies that are roughly as good as the originals.
The prequels sucked because they tried to cram foreshadowing into every scene, as if we needed every single event in the prequels to relate to a specific event in the original 3. Then after the second prequel they realized they left so much undone that the third was just two hours of screen wipe-divided vignettes, and right at the end they were like, Oh shit, Anakin only has the one fake hand. So 5 minutes, one ill-constructed fight sequence, and single slashing of a light saber and suddenly he is Darth Vader in all his shiny, black awesomeness. Crap. Crap. Crap.
I never said bludgeoning a person was easy.
. I said that someone who can and will disarm a person with a gun probably has the skills to then beat the crap out of you with your gun if it for some reason does not fire.
Although it is not "easy" to bludgeon someone to death, it only takes the right kind of strike to knock a person unconscious, at which point the perpetrator can take their time pistol whipping the limp body.
If you are defending yourself with your smart gun and the person takes it away from you, I'm pretty sure that if they can't shoot you with it that they will still be able to beat you to death with it. And if they are the kind of person who can and will disarm someone then they probably can beat you up, too. Either way, I'll take my chances that someone else might get my gun over my gun not firing when I really need it to. I can train to deal with misfires, not with electronic malfunctions.
I hope they don't drop support for the Adventure Construction Kit. That is the greatest game of all time.
Well, professionals who take these types of photos care, outsiders don't care. Maybe you should at least skim through all the patent claims before saying it's just a camera in front of a white sheet.
I wasn't responding directly to the details of this patent application; rather, the notion that such a thing can be patented (and yes, I did read the claims). Presumably, if one can patent the white sheet with a specific lighting pattern, then previously one would have been able to patent just the white sheet, and that is ridiculous.
Consider it another way: I am a photographer using a white sheet as a backdrop. As I take a series of photos, thanks to digital photography I can immediately look at the results and move my lights around to remove shadows. At some point I happen to hit Amazon's patented light configuration, and I am now violating their patent. Dumb. Maybe they should also patent looking at the digital output and adjusting lighting? After all, that is part of the process for which they applied for the patent currently in question.
The scientific progress lies in the identification of targets for energy transfer. That they can or will be used to kill people is completely irrelevant because pretty much every scientific advancement of the last hundred years can be used to kill people, whether that means flying a plane into a skyscraper or dying from chemo therapy and radiation before the cancer kills you.
Don't forget, "or taking Cialis and dying from (complications due to) a 6 hour erection."
So no, contrary to the common opinion on Slashdot, I think collectively agreeing to not use a certain, dangerous technology can be useful, and is also enforceable.
Last I checked, the Slashdot community was more likely to be on the side of supporting a ban. Regardless, how enforceable is such a ban? We can look for signs that a country is developing nuclear capability because of the unique nature of the technology involved. Autonomous, lethal robots, however, are made up of relatively benign or not suspicious parts, so we would have to rely on direct observation to determine if a country were developing such technology.
Yes, so let's remove the ban on chemical and biological warfare too.
Right, because that stops people from using them. Oh wait, no it doesn't. And "Gun Free Zone" stops people from bringing guns into them. Nope.
What's with the blockquote text being #888888? Why not make it #FFFFFF and have done with it? Fucking asshole.
Amazon patented blockquotes with #FFFFFF.
I don't care if no one in history prior to know has taken a photo of someone with a white sheet behind them. Is that really worthy of a patent?
How much did we (humans) make the Sahara Desert expand? Could it be that our planet is slowly dying on its own? Either way, I don't care. I believe we should be good stewards of the planet. I believe in conservation. But I don't believe in government doing things on our behalf. (And I also don't believe in the benevolence or objectivity of scientists. They aren't. I know plenty.)
We'll never make a truly human computer (or maybe "natural computer" is a better term) because we can't make it first and foremost desire self-preservation. We can build a robot that plays catch, but we can't make it want to play catch. Do we even know why we want to play catch (deep down I think it is motivated by the desire to procreate)? And thank FSM we can't build and evolving machines, because computers are logical and not forgetful, and would very likely enslave us first change they got.
A passenger jet is a relatively finite system compared to a climate model which purports to accurately predict what will happen in 100 years based on (let's assume) reliable measurements over the last 200 years and data based on not directly testable phenomenon over the last 10000 to millions of years. My faith in that modeling will increase when I can get an accurate weather forecast more than 24 hours in advance. Hell, at this point I'd take 12 hours.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but if there is so little CO2 in the atmosphere and changing it's level can change how the atmosphere affects us, isn't that basically showing how delicate our environment can be?
Perhaps, but the important thing to understand is that when we use science for "good" we know that it can't possibly be bad for the environment. Only Big Corporations can do stuff that is bad for the environment.
There was a scientific paper that said there is an ice age coming up, but it's thousands of years away (not "Pretty soon").
Thousands of years is "pretty soon" at the geologic time scale.
"nothing restricts a locality/city/region from banning the things of their own initiative"
McDonald v. Chicago applies the second amendment to the states. A city can no more ban firearms within the city limits than it could prohibit freedom of speech.
Firstly, who cares what a cheeseburger-wielding clown thinks? Secondly, places like Chicago and Manhattan, while not able to make it explicitly illegal to own a handgun, have made it practically near-impossible.
How about you drop the pretense that the issue is cost?
So the main argument tossed about the media against the death penalty is about the cost. That argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so you say, Forget about cost because even if it costs less to execute people it represents such a tiny fraction of the overall cost. Except that doesn't stand up because your 3000 death row inmates represent between $150 and $300 million per year, so despite it being just a small percentage of the overall tab it is still not a small amount of money. Maybe we save that cash and throw it education or urban blight? You like those things, right?
Just be honest about your argument: You are against the death penalty because you are simply against it.
Citing data from a group funded by an anti-death penalty groups and individuals? Yeah, cherry picking just a bit.