Now that Osama has endorsed Kerry, people on the right are suddenly taking his words at face value. Osama is normally portrayed as an evil genius, is he really too stupid to know a Kerry endorsement will predictably increase Bush support. So, who does Osama really want for president ? or are republicans going to tell me that Osama should be taken at his word ?
> Do the rest of the world a favor for once - vote against Bush.
I used to be virulently anti-bush, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe another Bush term is just what America and the world needs. It's risky, and it's harsh medicine, but the world will probably get through it and America will most likely be ready for a real change afterwards. This may be better than letter Kerry take over a losing hand, having a lame duck presidency only for the neoconservatives to come back refreshed and invigorated 4 years later. America hasnt reaped what it's sowed yet, and it may be better in the long run for Bush to stay in charge while it does.
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm still not quite sure what the difference between murdering someone and killing them is, and I don't think rereading the old testamnt is going to help.
Well, wtf is the difference exactly ? Sounds like another convenient word like terrorist where the only real distinction is whose side you're on. In fact, it fits perfectly with that.
The terrorists murdered some people. We killed some terrorists.
English is full of irregular worsd like this, I'm firm, you're stubborn, and he's pigheaded.
Well, wtf is the difference exactly ? Sounds like another convenient word like terrorist where the only real distinction is whose side you're on. In fact, it fits perfectly with that.
The terrorists murdered some people. We killed some terrorists.
English is full of irregular worsd like this, I'm firm, you're stubborn, and he's pigheaded.
I have heard this argument or something like about once every 6 months for the last 15 years.
Basically the argument goes, "in the *future*, things will get more automated so there will be no need for programmers. Programmers are like [insert lousy analogy] and in future will become obsolete just like [insert lousy analogy]."
The whole point of programming is identifying that which can be automated and eliminating the need for mindless repetition. It's almost a tautology to say that the hardest thing of all to automate is the process of reducing what used to be considered a difficult labour/thought intensive process into a program. To do this requires a greater level of understanding than whatever job is being automated. We will write software to deliver packages, perform surgery, teach mathematics to children, etc etc, but until computers are smarter than humans we will never write software that figures out how to write software *for novel applications*. I think its nearer the truth to say that eventually everybody except programmers will become redundant.
This is good thing by the way, it only seems like a bad thing due to our economy which is designed for optimal distribution of scare resources. Until we rejig economics to deal with a post scarcity society, we are doomed to invent bullshit filltime work to make up for all the professions that are made redundant [but that's another story...]
If you want to claim to be greatest physicist ever there is pretty serious competition, but the competition for most useless MP is several orders of magnitude harder.
Well, that used to be vaguely true. However, a number of laws were passed quietly which give US fairly extensive powers, including the power to extradite UK citizens for crimes commited *anywhere* [including in Britain] without even going through the UK courts. However, you wouldn't have heard about this because the opposition would much rather whine about European incursions on our "sovereignty".
http://www.creators-not-consumers.co.uk/poluk/bl un kett_betrayal.htm
The idea of making antimatter for c^2/kg joules and then getting 2c^2/kg back when mixed with matter is *not* forbidden by second law of thermodynamics [if we annhilate twice as much matter as we make then we would have a very effective energy source]. It's forbidden by the fact that we have no way of making antimatter without making matter at the same time.
US, UK and France all have nukes. US has far more than UK and France and could completely wipe out Europe, while Europe [excluding Russia] could [currently] "only" take out a few hundred of the US's larger cities. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
These documents were forged, as were the niger documents. The niger documents however contributed to the US entering a pointless war which has cost over 1000 US servicemen plus a whole lot more dead Iraqis. Which do you consider more important ?
It also has a tendancy to provide a one-sided viewpoint of israel/palestine news, although I expect this is a result of successful lobbying rather than explicit policy.
> I think news with an obvious and strong bias is dangerous, whether its Fox News or another.
What an extraordinary thing to say. Obvious bias is the least of our problems. Subtle, systematic and undetectable bias is far more dangerous. There's nothing wrong with individual channels taking a one-sided viewpoint as long as there is a wide range of opinions. And, if you just watch the news channels of one country there really isnt.
> the local populace is not doing anything significant to actively combat, passively deny, rat the insurgents out to the Iraqi gov't, or otherwise discourage the behavior of the insurgents. So, they, rightly I think, should have less of a voice.
Suppose the US was invaded and occupied [by, er, martians] and a puppet government was installed. However, due to a resistence movement, they could not control the whole country. I suppose you would consider it fair for people in the resisting areas to have "less of a voice".
Whoever marked you as flamebait should get metamoderated, your parent was closer to flamebait.
However, "liberate" still deserves its quotation marks. Ask the average Iraqi or Afghani if they see the US as liberators or invadors. It's not even ambiguous.
What is inherently more real about using gold and silver as a basis for currency than some other arbitrary good ?
If someone creates something, eg writes a computer program, there is more stuff in the world, and either more money needs to be created, prices need to go down, or we end up with a situation where there is plenty of stuff around, but not enough money for people to buy it. Stuff gets created all the time, so the amount of money available has to go up continually. Since we have fractional reserve banking system money is continually created [in form of debt]. In fact, so much is created that we end up with inflation rather than deflation.
I agree that the current debt based monetary system is responsible for a huge number of problems, but it works better than the gold standard did. It's not just that it works better, economies which relied on stagnant money supplies got wiped out in an almost darwinian fashion. Debt based money fosters growth [and inflation, boom/bust economics, banking supremacy, war and other stuff, but it's certainly less stagnant].
I recommend "The grip of death" for a better understanding of this stuff.
"The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made and so THE FACT OF THE FORGERY does not undermine it,"
ie, even this judge (hand picked by Blair for his government friendly stance) acknowledges those documents were false. Also, note the use of the term "well founded".. this is cleverly different to "true".
For more on Niger documents see http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium03071 6flaweddocs.html
What he is saying is "well, all the evidence that we've shown you turned out to be easily provably false, but there is other intelligence that looked more convincing"
You provide a wonderful example of how devotion to a particular viewpoint makes one impervious to the facts. It doesnt matter that the niger documents were confirmed and acknowledged as a forgery by everyone [even the Bush administration]. You still cling to the belief that they were true and that the critics of the administration must have been lying. The fact that you could forward a link containing acknowledgement of the forgery as proof of their authenticity shows how far gone you are.
Do you remember the leaked memo claiming to show that the US had asked for a dirty tricks operation at the UN. This was claimed as a forgery.... just curious, do you still believe that this memo was a forgery ? What about the WMD, did they really exist too ?
Also, what other "evidence" do you have that Wilson was lying ?
Having said all that, it looks like you were quite right about this latest memo [the current subject], ie, it almost definitely is a forgery.
OK, I tried it myself. They do look suspiciously similar. However, the versions I tried [2000 and 97, I don't have 2003] and both versions that appear on that website are subtly different, especially wrt to the layout of "187th". Unfortunately I dont have word 2003. If word 2003 lays the 187th out in that way, I will be convinced that this is a forgery [and an amazingly stupid one at that].
> Your main point is correct: If these documents are outside forgeries, then CBS News deserves merely to be tortured for their negligence, not burned at the stake.
And what should be done to the Bush administration for taking us to war partly based on the forged Niger documents ?
I'm impressed by how the right wing is so efficient in calling into question embarrassing memos. Often when the dust has settled, the documents turn out to be genuine, but by that time the story has settled and everyone has forgotten about it. The vast majority of Bush supporters will claim that the memos were fake, and will forget, never hear, or simply disbelieve that if the claims of forgery are discredited.
The exact same thing happened when a memo was leaked about the US dirty tricks campaign at UN in run up to Iraq invasion. The memo was dismissed as a fake in US media, and the story was mostly forgotten. The woman who leaked the memo was later prosecuted http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239, 910648,00.html
I was going to say something along similar lines, but I wasnt going to be as polite as you.
I like your analogy of ASIC v CPU, but even that elevates conscious decisions, let along logic based decisions above their rightful place. The way I think of it is: Consciousness is the process of updating one's internal representation of oneself. Ie, there's what you're thinking and then there's what you think you're thinking. [People who have an unusally poor representation of themselves are better known as "assholes"]. Since it is beyond virtually everybody's capabilities to hold a detailed understanding of what happens inside a tv, its amazing that people can believe that they have a reasonable understanding of what's going on in their own brain. Consciousness, let along logic, is a tiny tiny fraction of it. Truly restricting oneself to logic would leave you incapable of deciding what to have for breakfast.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that Osama has endorsed Kerry, people on the right are suddenly taking his words at face value. Osama is normally portrayed as an evil genius, is he really too stupid to know a Kerry endorsement will predictably increase Bush support. So, who does Osama really want for president ? or are republicans going to tell me that Osama should be taken at his word ?
> Do the rest of the world a favor for once - vote against Bush.
I used to be virulently anti-bush, but now I'm not so sure. Maybe another Bush term is just what America and the world needs. It's risky, and it's harsh medicine, but the world will probably get through it and America will most likely be ready for a real change afterwards. This may be better than letter Kerry take over a losing hand, having a lame duck presidency only for the neoconservatives to come back refreshed and invigorated 4 years later. America hasnt reaped what it's sowed yet, and it may be better in the long run for Bush to stay in charge while it does.
Maybe I'm being stupid, but I'm still not quite sure what the difference between murdering someone and killing them is, and I don't think rereading the old testamnt is going to help.
Well, wtf is the difference exactly ? Sounds like another convenient word like terrorist where the only real distinction is whose side you're on. In fact, it fits perfectly with that.
The terrorists murdered some people.
We killed some terrorists.
English is full of irregular worsd like this, I'm firm, you're stubborn, and he's pigheaded.
Well, wtf is the difference exactly ? Sounds like another convenient word like terrorist where the only real distinction is whose side you're on. In fact, it fits perfectly with that.
The terrorists murdered some people.
We killed some terrorists.
English is full of irregular worsd like this, I'm firm, you're stubborn, and he's pigheaded.
oh.. election problems.. sorry
I have heard this argument or something like about once every 6 months for the last 15 years.
Basically the argument goes, "in the *future*, things will get more automated so there will be no need for programmers. Programmers are like [insert lousy analogy] and in future will become obsolete just like [insert lousy analogy]."
The whole point of programming is identifying that which can be automated and eliminating the need for mindless repetition. It's almost a tautology to say that the hardest thing of all to automate is the process of reducing what used to be considered a difficult labour/thought intensive process into a program. To do this requires a greater level of understanding than whatever job is being automated. We will write software to deliver packages, perform surgery, teach mathematics to children, etc etc, but until computers are smarter than humans we will never write software that figures out how to write software *for novel applications*. I think its nearer the truth to say that eventually everybody except programmers will become redundant.
This is good thing by the way, it only seems like a bad thing due to our economy which is designed for optimal distribution of scare resources. Until we rejig economics to deal with a post scarcity society, we are doomed to invent bullshit filltime work to make up for all the professions that are made redundant [but that's another story...]
> Plain and simple.
Also, ignorant and wrong. And slightly hysterical. You should run for president.
Oh come one !
If you want to claim to be greatest physicist ever there is pretty serious competition, but the competition for most useless MP is several orders of magnitude harder.
Well, that used to be vaguely true. However, a number of laws were passed quietly which give US fairly extensive powers, including the power to extradite UK citizens for crimes commited *anywhere* [including in Britain] without even going through the UK courts. However, you wouldn't have heard about this because the opposition would much rather whine about European incursions on our "sovereignty".
l un kett_betrayal.htm
http://www.creators-not-consumers.co.uk/poluk/b
The idea of making antimatter for c^2/kg joules and then getting 2c^2/kg back when mixed with matter is *not* forbidden by second law of thermodynamics [if we annhilate twice as much matter as we make then we would have a very effective energy source]. It's forbidden by the fact that we have no way of making antimatter without making matter at the same time.
US, UK and France all have nukes. US has far more than UK and France and could completely wipe out Europe, while Europe [excluding Russia] could [currently] "only" take out a few hundred of the US's larger cities. Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
He didnt. "function oriented language" is not the same as a functional language.
These documents were forged, as were the niger documents. The niger documents however contributed to the US entering a pointless war which has cost over 1000 US servicemen plus a whole lot more dead Iraqis. Which do you consider more important ?
It also has a tendancy to provide a one-sided viewpoint of israel/palestine news, although I expect this is a result of successful lobbying rather than explicit policy.
more info here
> I think news with an obvious and strong bias is dangerous, whether its Fox News or another.
What an extraordinary thing to say. Obvious bias is the least of our problems. Subtle, systematic and undetectable bias is far more dangerous. There's nothing wrong with individual channels taking a one-sided viewpoint as long as there is a wide range of opinions. And, if you just watch the news channels of one country there really isnt.
> the local populace is not doing anything significant to actively combat, passively deny, rat the insurgents out to the Iraqi gov't, or otherwise discourage the behavior of the insurgents. So, they, rightly I think, should have less of a voice.
Suppose the US was invaded and occupied [by, er, martians] and a puppet government was installed. However, due to a resistence movement, they could not control the whole country. I suppose you would consider it fair for people in the resisting areas to have "less of a voice".
Whoever marked you as flamebait should get metamoderated, your parent was closer to flamebait.
However, "liberate" still deserves its quotation marks. Ask the average Iraqi or Afghani if they see the US as liberators or invadors. It's not even ambiguous.
Why gold and silver, why not butterflies.
What is inherently more real about using gold and silver as a basis for currency than some other arbitrary good ?
If someone creates something, eg writes a computer program, there is more stuff in the world, and either more money needs to be created, prices need to go down, or we end up with a situation where there is plenty of stuff around, but not enough money for people to buy it. Stuff gets created all the time, so the amount of money available has to go up continually. Since we have fractional reserve banking system money is continually created [in form of debt]. In fact, so much is created that we end up with inflation rather than deflation.
I agree that the current debt based monetary system is responsible for a huge number of problems, but it works better than the gold standard did. It's not just that it works better, economies which relied on stagnant money supplies got wiped out in an almost darwinian fashion. Debt based money fosters growth [and inflation, boom/bust economics, banking supremacy, war and other stuff, but it's certainly less stagnant].
I recommend "The grip of death" for a better understanding of this stuff.
You should read your own links:
.. this is cleverly different to "true".
1 6flaweddocs.html
"The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made and so THE FACT OF THE FORGERY does not undermine it,"
ie, even this judge (hand picked by Blair for his government friendly stance) acknowledges those documents were false. Also, note the use of the term "well founded"
For more on Niger documents see http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium0307
What he is saying is "well, all the evidence that we've shown you turned out to be easily provably false, but there is other intelligence that looked more convincing"
You provide a wonderful example of how devotion to a particular viewpoint
makes one impervious to the facts. It doesnt matter that the niger documents
were confirmed and acknowledged as a forgery by everyone [even the Bush
administration]. You still cling to the belief that they were true
and that the critics of the administration must have been lying. The
fact that you could forward a link containing acknowledgement of the
forgery as proof of their authenticity shows how far gone you are.
Do you remember the leaked memo claiming to show that the US had
asked for a dirty tricks operation at the UN. This was claimed
as a forgery.... just curious, do you still believe that this
memo was a forgery ? What about the WMD, did they really exist too ?
Also, what other "evidence" do you have that Wilson was lying ?
Having said all that, it looks like you were quite right about this
latest memo [the current subject], ie, it almost definitely is a forgery.
OK, I tried it myself. They do look suspiciously similar. However, the versions I tried [2000 and 97, I don't have 2003] and both versions that appear on that website are subtly different, especially wrt to the layout of "187th". Unfortunately I dont have word 2003. If word 2003 lays the 187th out in that way, I will be convinced that this is a forgery [and an amazingly stupid one at that].
> Your main point is correct: If these documents are outside forgeries, then CBS News deserves merely to be tortured for their negligence, not burned at the stake.
And what should be done to the Bush administration for taking us to war partly based on the forged Niger documents ?
Some of the documents released by the white house also have TH superscripted. Are those fakes too ?
a ig n/10guard.html
, 910648,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/politics/camp
I'm impressed by how the right wing is so efficient in calling into question embarrassing memos. Often when the dust has settled, the documents turn out to be genuine, but by that time the story has settled and everyone has forgotten about it. The vast majority of Bush supporters will claim that the memos were fake, and will forget, never hear, or simply disbelieve that if the claims of forgery are discredited.
The exact same thing happened when a memo was leaked about the US dirty tricks campaign at UN in run up to Iraq invasion. The memo was dismissed as a fake in US media, and the story was mostly forgotten. The woman who leaked the memo was later prosecuted http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239
..since the American worker produces more than
400 times what he/she did in 1980
WTF are you talking about ?
I was going to say something along similar lines, but I wasnt going to be as polite as you.
I like your analogy of ASIC v CPU, but even that elevates conscious decisions, let along logic based decisions above their rightful place. The way I think of it is: Consciousness is the process of updating one's internal representation of oneself. Ie, there's what you're thinking and then there's what you think you're thinking. [People who have an unusally poor representation of themselves are better known as "assholes"]. Since it is beyond virtually everybody's capabilities to hold a detailed understanding of what happens inside a tv, its amazing that people can believe that they have a reasonable understanding of what's going on in their own brain. Consciousness, let along logic, is a tiny tiny fraction of it. Truly restricting oneself to logic would leave you incapable of deciding what to have for breakfast.