Ah, my bad. I misunderstood. I still think they stress the accuracy in their marketing pitches, though. These things are good for only two purposes as of now, both of which require accuracy. One is missile defense, the other is assassination. I shit you not, engineers are working on this. They have the mirrors already in orbit.
I reckon that GE, Boeing, or whoever happens to be marketing these less-than lethal weapons goes light on accuracy They don't go light on accuracy. These war-whores really do want a fricken' laser they can use to shoot someone half way around the world, like in Real Genius. And they are closer than most people think. It's sad, but a lot of really good engineers, who could have been working on projects that save lives or at least make them better, have been working really hard to come up with new and better ways of killing people.
My mom rationalizes it by saying that the stuff where she works is all defensive weaponry, for shooting down missiles. Me, I couldn't do it. She tried to get me to work there, I just couldn't do it, even though the money is great. I don't want to be a part of that.
So what if we change the environment? That doesn't stop evolution. There are always traits that will give an advantage, and those that will give a disadvantage, and there are always novel ways of combining previous traits that can lead to something new. Evolution has never been about survival, it is about passing on genes. And every organism out there changes the environment. Organisms define the environment: prey to some, predator to others, host to still others. To stop evolution in humanity, one would need to ensure that every human on the planet had exactly the same chance to pass on their genes as every other.
Chicken aliens? CHICKEN aliens? We've been slaughtering chickens for eons. They are NOT going to be happy. They'll stick us in cages and harvest our embryos! "Bwak Bwak Bwak!!!" probably means, "Pass the drumstick" in chickenese.
So in the mean time the least bloody solution is for the americans to keep (albeit hamfistedly) casting a shadow over all the upstart dictatorships. Like we did in East Timor,Rwanda,Ethiopia, Palestine, Cambodia, Burundi, Bangladesh, and Guatamala, just to name a few examples of genocides we've ignored from the last fifty years alone. That's not even counting all the tinpot dictators in Africa and South America that we propped up who may have killed a bunch of people and taken away everyone's rights but didn't make the genocide list. Yeah, upstart dictators everywhere know that unless you have something the US wants, you are pretty much free to massacre as many people as you like and we won't say boo. Hell, if you make anti-communist noises, we'll even train you and sell you the weapons.
What do you honestly suppose would happen if the US were to completely disarm tomorrow? Lay out what you think is a likely scenario. I highly doubt anyone would mount an immediate invasion. Any dictators out there would already have made a move, seeing as how we are completely tied up in a three front war right now. I know it must make you proud to think that America brings nothing but peace and prosperity to the world, but much of the rest of the world sees us as a brutal bully. They don't want to kill us all, they just want us to stop supporting the people who are killing them.
Mr. or Mrs. Troll does not care about politics one way or the other. It just likes making its betters react, because it then thinks it has some power in the world and feels slightly less inferior for a short while.
Not that you aren't completely right, but you need to relax a little bit Daedalus, or the trolls will have you running around in circles.
My mom works for one of the divisions of Boeing that makes lasers like this. I don't know if they make this one, because she can't really talk about it. But I do know a little about the capabilities and accuracy of some of the systems, you know, "hypothetically, if they had something like that, what could it do?" Let's just say that one of the test systems was a servo that could keep a laser spot painted on a ping pong ball while people were playing.
I'll admit, you bring out the worst in me. You know why? Because you are very good at redefining the parameters of the debate. The question is not "Was there a link between Iraq and AL Qaeda?" The question is, "Was there enough of a link to justify war?" and also "Was the link bolstered with false intelligence to justify the war?" But you redefine the debate, changing it into something you can win. Of course there was a link. I could probably find a link between you and Al Qaeda, the way you define "link." Does that mean we should go to war with you?
All you and the erstwhile wikipedia editor are trying to do is raise a reasonable doubt about whether your side lied and committed treason to get us into a war. Most people don't want to believe that, because it is frightening in the extreme. So you give them a reasonable doubt, and they don't have to think about the implications, or do anything. You know you don't even have to win the "Enough of a link to justify war?" debate. You know you'd never convince me or people like me anyway, so you go after the low hanging fruit with an easy straw man argument.
Did I say anything about liberal media? Why do you put words in my mouth, and then accuse me of making a straw man? I don't read moveon.org, never have. Funny how you and the other Dave defender claim right in the opening "not to know Dave." Weird, that's not something I would even think to point out. Why is it important that we know that you both don't know Dave?
As you've never been to his site, I will just say that Dave is studying to be a spook. His site used to say he was a spook, now that he's a spook in training. Of course, if he were being really nefarious he would hide that fact, but I think it is a useful fact to point out. And anyone who has been here long knows that he never, ever posts anything except impassioned defenses of the status quo. Never.
You only ever comment on certain types of stories, and only to defend the US government or the status quo. Can you point me to a post where you've done anything else? And the way that you argue is a prime example of sophistry: truth and consistency mean nothing, winning the argument by convincing enough people you are right means everything. Maybe you aren't paid for what you do, which would be a pity because you do it well. If your opinions are your own, it says a lot about the type of people that are drawn to your profession.
In this case, it may be that the staffer was voicing his own opinions. But he used weasel words where none were needed. And he did it from a government IP address. That makes it our business: he used OUR TAXPAYER FUNDED EQUIPMENT to make VERY PARTISAN and VERY MISLEADING changes. Let's analyze the changes, then we're going to analyze your post, m'kay?
1.) Alleged link/link: There was no viable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they were not working together, Saddam hated religion in general and Osama in particular. This has been proven again and again, yet this guy has to make it seem an open question.
2.) Evidence/Claims of evidence: Again, the original was sourced. The evidence of a connection was manufactured, and it came from questionable sources. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Changing that to the weaker "some claim that..." is disingenuous. Sure, people claim the evidence was manufactured, because it was. That's fact.
3.) Not credible/Some claim that: Come on, who claims he is credible? Anyone? You? Look at the quote, look at what he said, is this man credible by any stretch of the imagination?
4.) Eventually shown/Alleged by some: They source where this was shown, a British intelligence report. Who is now claiming there was a viable working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Are you? Just admit it, don't weasel around or try to dodge the damn question.
Now, your original post.
First, you try to set up a straw man. There is no question that people in government can and should edit wikipedia. You bring it up like its some kind of shocker. The question is, are the edits rational, unbiased, and accurate; and, is it okay for public officials to edit wikipedia using taxpayer funded equipment? If a public official or an employee of a public official does something using taxpayer funded equipment, it is completely fair to say, "The government did it." Can you refute that?
Next, you do the same thing I do to you. You insinuate that kdawson is a political ideologue and his ideas should be dismissed out of hand. Hypocrite.
It is bizarre to make a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No, not bizarre. Completely understandable given the stated aims of neo-cons to create a new enemy for the US to rally around. Ever read the manifesto by Project for a New American Century which came out before 9/11 and basically said, "We need to manufacture a big scary enemy to keep the populace from questioning our actions?"
You are such a sophist. We are the ones who are ignoring evidence that contradicts our position? That's rich. You are considering all sides and taking the reasoned, logical path, I suppose, while your opponents simply aren't looking at the big picture. Guess what, we HAVE considered both sides. One of them is just full of shit. That is our logical, reasoned conclusion based on all available evidence. You are the one sticking to an unreasonable position despite all evidence. You are the one setting up straw men to win arguments. You are the one making subtle ad hominem attacks to discredit your opponents. You do everything you accuse your opponents of, you hypocrite.
You want to know why I don't bother to argue with you point by point and just point out who and what you are? You aren't in this to debate a position. You are not capable of changing your mind or admitting wrong for yourself or your country. You argue only to win people over to your way of thinking, and you will use any tactic to do so. Debating with you is pointless.
Poor Bush supporters, crying and sulking and yelling, "No fair!" It must be like being the spouse of an abusive alcoholic. You secretly hate them, but if anyone else criticizes them, you have to lash out to protect them.
Hi Dave, long time, no propaganda. Glad to see you are still defending the honor of our government. How's that paying these days?
You can cry crocodile tears all you want. We are not going to stop pointing out that people like you get paid to try to make the populace think a certain way. You will never post anything here without me questioning your motives and pointing out what you do. You may as well take your propaganda machine elsewhere for all the good it will do you. People here are too smart to be fooled by your sophistry.
Have you ever written anything critical of the status quo? Would you be fired if you did?
P.S. Wondering why I talk to Dave like this? Read his home page. You don't even have to read between the lines.
Imagine the antarctic being near the equator when dinosaurs were around. Anyway, arctic ice can hold more than 4-6 tons. Sure would be fun to see them slipping and sliding around though, as long as you weren't to close. I can't imagine getting stuck in a dinosaur's ass would be much fun.
Heh, the study I said said that people will tell the father that the kid looks like him, whether it does or not, not that kids look more like their fathers. And another study said that women tend to have a sexual preference for muscular strangers right around the time they ovulate, and a familiar mate the rest of the time. But sleeping around with all the hot hunks that come by is not a winning strategy, mostly because of VD. Monogamy is a decent strategy, it has a better chance of preserving fertility and creating a larger and more successful family. But spreading it around can work too, especially for men with less invested in creating the baby. If you get lucky it can work even better than monogamy. So some women will be faithful, no matter what; some will sleep around with a hunk or two that manage to get their juices flowing, and a few will be total sluts. A larger percentage of men will be total sluts, some will be mostly faithful, and a few will be faithful no matter what. That's just evolution providing a selection of different strategies in the proportions that work best.
No, real scientists who understand how these things work, unlike you, have been creating and revising models of these processes that let us make more and more accurate predictions. If anything, there predictions have fallen short of the dire realities. However, none of them are or ever have been stupid or uneducated enough to make the outrageous claim that windmills will effect climate. You only show off your own ignorance to those of us with a even a modicum of mathematics and physics.
The frightening thing is, I'm sure you don't even care how ignorant you are. You know that you are right, and no amount of facts will get in the way of your truthiness.
It is not a constant march towards some mythical ideal of 'best.' It is adaptation. What does "fitness" mean to you? It means, that which passes its genes on to the next generation. If being fat gets your genes passed on to the next generation while being athletic doesn't, then being fat is fit. If being smart does it, smart is fit, but something could easily change, and if being dumb works better, then being is fit. Plenty of fairly dumb creatures like sharks and cockroaches have remained pretty much the same for millions of years, so obviously brains are not crucial for survival.
Saying 'Nowadays everyone can have children' is wrong on several levels. First, not everyone can. Plenty of people never have kids. The population is falling in some countries. And not everyone who forgoes children does so by choice. People still starve to death, so saying 'everyone can have kids' is pretty damn insensitive. And your genes don't care whether you chose not to have kids or you never got the opportunity, to them, it's all just failure.
Even having kids isn't the end of the picture. Some people have more kids than other. And some people have kids that have more kids, and so on. Consider a poor Appalachian family having five kids. Two die, one gets VD that destroys her fertility, one never gets the opportunity, what with the single tooth and all, and one goes on to have several kids he never even knows. Those kids of his, without the advantage of an involved father, have even less opportunity then he did, and the line dies out.
Then consider a rich family, with only two kids. The girl goes on to have a normal amount of children, but the guy is a dog, and a dog with money, so he spreads his genes around, having literally dozens of kids all around the world before settling down and having a big family. Now, the bastard kids might not have the opportunities the other kids do, but there are lots of them, and he usually does it with other rich people, so plenty of them will have opportunities even without a father.
All this provides a fertile field for evolution to work in. Evolution would still work even if every single individual survived to breed, as long as some bred more than others. Thinking that we have somehow stopped evolution because we've changed the rules of the game is nonsensical. All we've done is changed the rules, evolution still happens, it just happens according to different criteria.
Don't mod down just because you don't get the reference. How anyone could possibly not get the Simpsons reference here, I have no idea. Hand in your damn geek cards.
Slashdot Mirror
We should put a Dyson sphere around a black hole and transmit a signal saying "This way to the Great Egress!"
That should at least take care of the really stupid or gullible aliens.
Ah, my bad. I misunderstood. I still think they stress the accuracy in their marketing pitches, though. These things are good for only two purposes as of now, both of which require accuracy. One is missile defense, the other is assassination. I shit you not, engineers are working on this. They have the mirrors already in orbit.
The entertainment systems in the back seat of our flying cars will run Linux on the desktop and play Duke Nukem Forever, next year!
My mom rationalizes it by saying that the stuff where she works is all defensive weaponry, for shooting down missiles. Me, I couldn't do it. She tried to get me to work there, I just couldn't do it, even though the money is great. I don't want to be a part of that.
So what if we change the environment? That doesn't stop evolution. There are always traits that will give an advantage, and those that will give a disadvantage, and there are always novel ways of combining previous traits that can lead to something new. Evolution has never been about survival, it is about passing on genes. And every organism out there changes the environment. Organisms define the environment: prey to some, predator to others, host to still others. To stop evolution in humanity, one would need to ensure that every human on the planet had exactly the same chance to pass on their genes as every other.
Chicken aliens? CHICKEN aliens? We've been slaughtering chickens for eons. They are NOT going to be happy. They'll stick us in cages and harvest our embryos! "Bwak Bwak Bwak!!!" probably means, "Pass the drumstick" in chickenese.
What do you honestly suppose would happen if the US were to completely disarm tomorrow? Lay out what you think is a likely scenario. I highly doubt anyone would mount an immediate invasion. Any dictators out there would already have made a move, seeing as how we are completely tied up in a three front war right now. I know it must make you proud to think that America brings nothing but peace and prosperity to the world, but much of the rest of the world sees us as a brutal bully. They don't want to kill us all, they just want us to stop supporting the people who are killing them.
Mr. or Mrs. Troll does not care about politics one way or the other. It just likes making its betters react, because it then thinks it has some power in the world and feels slightly less inferior for a short while.
Not that you aren't completely right, but you need to relax a little bit Daedalus, or the trolls will have you running around in circles.
My mom works for one of the divisions of Boeing that makes lasers like this. I don't know if they make this one, because she can't really talk about it. But I do know a little about the capabilities and accuracy of some of the systems, you know, "hypothetically, if they had something like that, what could it do?" Let's just say that one of the test systems was a servo that could keep a laser spot painted on a ping pong ball while people were playing.
Because I smell barbecue.
I think he was saying, "Like, I'm really, really high, man!"
I'll admit, you bring out the worst in me. You know why? Because you are very good at redefining the parameters of the debate. The question is not "Was there a link between Iraq and AL Qaeda?" The question is, "Was there enough of a link to justify war?" and also "Was the link bolstered with false intelligence to justify the war?" But you redefine the debate, changing it into something you can win. Of course there was a link. I could probably find a link between you and Al Qaeda, the way you define "link." Does that mean we should go to war with you?
All you and the erstwhile wikipedia editor are trying to do is raise a reasonable doubt about whether your side lied and committed treason to get us into a war. Most people don't want to believe that, because it is frightening in the extreme. So you give them a reasonable doubt, and they don't have to think about the implications, or do anything. You know you don't even have to win the "Enough of a link to justify war?" debate. You know you'd never convince me or people like me anyway, so you go after the low hanging fruit with an easy straw man argument.
Did I say anything about liberal media? Why do you put words in my mouth, and then accuse me of making a straw man? I don't read moveon.org, never have. Funny how you and the other Dave defender claim right in the opening "not to know Dave." Weird, that's not something I would even think to point out. Why is it important that we know that you both don't know Dave?
As you've never been to his site, I will just say that Dave is studying to be a spook. His site used to say he was a spook, now that he's a spook in training. Of course, if he were being really nefarious he would hide that fact, but I think it is a useful fact to point out. And anyone who has been here long knows that he never, ever posts anything except impassioned defenses of the status quo. Never.
You only ever comment on certain types of stories, and only to defend the US government or the status quo. Can you point me to a post where you've done anything else? And the way that you argue is a prime example of sophistry: truth and consistency mean nothing, winning the argument by convincing enough people you are right means everything. Maybe you aren't paid for what you do, which would be a pity because you do it well. If your opinions are your own, it says a lot about the type of people that are drawn to your profession.
In this case, it may be that the staffer was voicing his own opinions. But he used weasel words where none were needed. And he did it from a government IP address. That makes it our business: he used OUR TAXPAYER FUNDED EQUIPMENT to make VERY PARTISAN and VERY MISLEADING changes. Let's analyze the changes, then we're going to analyze your post, m'kay?
1.) Alleged link/link: There was no viable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they were not working together, Saddam hated religion in general and Osama in particular. This has been proven again and again, yet this guy has to make it seem an open question.
2.) Evidence/Claims of evidence: Again, the original was sourced. The evidence of a connection was manufactured, and it came from questionable sources. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Changing that to the weaker "some claim that..." is disingenuous. Sure, people claim the evidence was manufactured, because it was. That's fact.
3.) Not credible/Some claim that: Come on, who claims he is credible? Anyone? You? Look at the quote, look at what he said, is this man credible by any stretch of the imagination?
4.) Eventually shown/Alleged by some: They source where this was shown, a British intelligence report. Who is now claiming there was a viable working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Are you? Just admit it, don't weasel around or try to dodge the damn question.
Now, your original post.
First, you try to set up a straw man. There is no question that people in government can and should edit wikipedia. You bring it up like its some kind of shocker. The question is, are the edits rational, unbiased, and accurate; and, is it okay for public officials to edit wikipedia using taxpayer funded equipment? If a public official or an employee of a public official does something using taxpayer funded equipment, it is completely fair to say, "The government did it." Can you refute that?
Next, you do the same thing I do to you. You insinuate that kdawson is a political ideologue and his ideas should be dismissed out of hand. Hypocrite.
It is bizarre to make a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No, not bizarre. Completely understandable given the stated aims of neo-cons to create a new enemy for the US to rally around. Ever read the manifesto by Project for a New American Century which came out before 9/11 and basically said, "We need to manufacture a big scary enemy to keep the populace from questioning our actions?"
You are such a sophist. We are the ones who are ignoring evidence that contradicts our position? That's rich. You are considering all sides and taking the reasoned, logical path, I suppose, while your opponents simply aren't looking at the big picture. Guess what, we HAVE considered both sides. One of them is just full of shit. That is our logical, reasoned conclusion based on all available evidence. You are the one sticking to an unreasonable position despite all evidence. You are the one setting up straw men to win arguments. You are the one making subtle ad hominem attacks to discredit your opponents. You do everything you accuse your opponents of, you hypocrite.
You want to know why I don't bother to argue with you point by point and just point out who and what you are? You aren't in this to debate a position. You are not capable of changing your mind or admitting wrong for yourself or your country. You argue only to win people over to your way of thinking, and you will use any tactic to do so. Debating with you is pointless.
Poor Bush supporters, crying and sulking and yelling, "No fair!" It must be like being the spouse of an abusive alcoholic. You secretly hate them, but if anyone else criticizes them, you have to lash out to protect them.
Hi Dave, long time, no propaganda. Glad to see you are still defending the honor of our government. How's that paying these days?
You can cry crocodile tears all you want. We are not going to stop pointing out that people like you get paid to try to make the populace think a certain way. You will never post anything here without me questioning your motives and pointing out what you do. You may as well take your propaganda machine elsewhere for all the good it will do you. People here are too smart to be fooled by your sophistry.
Have you ever written anything critical of the status quo? Would you be fired if you did?
P.S. Wondering why I talk to Dave like this? Read his home page. You don't even have to read between the lines.
Imagine the antarctic being near the equator when dinosaurs were around. Anyway, arctic ice can hold more than 4-6 tons. Sure would be fun to see them slipping and sliding around though, as long as you weren't to close. I can't imagine getting stuck in a dinosaur's ass would be much fun.
Heh, the study I said said that people will tell the father that the kid looks like him, whether it does or not, not that kids look more like their fathers. And another study said that women tend to have a sexual preference for muscular strangers right around the time they ovulate, and a familiar mate the rest of the time. But sleeping around with all the hot hunks that come by is not a winning strategy, mostly because of VD. Monogamy is a decent strategy, it has a better chance of preserving fertility and creating a larger and more successful family. But spreading it around can work too, especially for men with less invested in creating the baby. If you get lucky it can work even better than monogamy. So some women will be faithful, no matter what; some will sleep around with a hunk or two that manage to get their juices flowing, and a few will be total sluts. A larger percentage of men will be total sluts, some will be mostly faithful, and a few will be faithful no matter what. That's just evolution providing a selection of different strategies in the proportions that work best.
No, real scientists who understand how these things work, unlike you, have been creating and revising models of these processes that let us make more and more accurate predictions. If anything, there predictions have fallen short of the dire realities. However, none of them are or ever have been stupid or uneducated enough to make the outrageous claim that windmills will effect climate. You only show off your own ignorance to those of us with a even a modicum of mathematics and physics.
The frightening thing is, I'm sure you don't even care how ignorant you are. You know that you are right, and no amount of facts will get in the way of your truthiness.
I want a "-1 Troll," you skanky, dog diddling, microencephalic mods. Thanks in advance.
It is not a constant march towards some mythical ideal of 'best.' It is adaptation. What does "fitness" mean to you? It means, that which passes its genes on to the next generation. If being fat gets your genes passed on to the next generation while being athletic doesn't, then being fat is fit. If being smart does it, smart is fit, but something could easily change, and if being dumb works better, then being is fit. Plenty of fairly dumb creatures like sharks and cockroaches have remained pretty much the same for millions of years, so obviously brains are not crucial for survival.
Saying 'Nowadays everyone can have children' is wrong on several levels. First, not everyone can. Plenty of people never have kids. The population is falling in some countries. And not everyone who forgoes children does so by choice. People still starve to death, so saying 'everyone can have kids' is pretty damn insensitive. And your genes don't care whether you chose not to have kids or you never got the opportunity, to them, it's all just failure.
Even having kids isn't the end of the picture. Some people have more kids than other. And some people have kids that have more kids, and so on. Consider a poor Appalachian family having five kids. Two die, one gets VD that destroys her fertility, one never gets the opportunity, what with the single tooth and all, and one goes on to have several kids he never even knows. Those kids of his, without the advantage of an involved father, have even less opportunity then he did, and the line dies out.
Then consider a rich family, with only two kids. The girl goes on to have a normal amount of children, but the guy is a dog, and a dog with money, so he spreads his genes around, having literally dozens of kids all around the world before settling down and having a big family. Now, the bastard kids might not have the opportunities the other kids do, but there are lots of them, and he usually does it with other rich people, so plenty of them will have opportunities even without a father.
All this provides a fertile field for evolution to work in. Evolution would still work even if every single individual survived to breed, as long as some bred more than others. Thinking that we have somehow stopped evolution because we've changed the rules of the game is nonsensical. All we've done is changed the rules, evolution still happens, it just happens according to different criteria.
I knew a hippie chick named Alluring Noctilucent Cloud once. She could light up a room with her smile, but only at night.
He doesn't believe in global warming even exists, and you have been trolled.
Don't mod down just because you don't get the reference. How anyone could possibly not get the Simpsons reference here, I have no idea. Hand in your damn geek cards.