Well I for one think that "finding excuses" as you put it is a lot better than putting your fingers in your ear and going lalala until people stop trying to talk to you.
Well, it just becomes an arms race. Once the tool gets popular enough that you notice it you block the tool. Then they make a new tool, then you block that. As a bonus side effect, you train the next generation of hackers.
You're framing science as some kind of cold, uncaring monster. I can see how you ended up in that thought process; there (should be) no emotion in science; but you're a little off in how you think it'll translate into politics.
Science is a tool, you can use it for good or for evil. If you make the moral judgement that you wish to take care of people, you can use economics and statistics to determine how best to do that. If you are concerned about crime rates from unemployed people, you can again use science to find where the problems are and how to address them.
Thus you can still have individuality as a country using science, it's all about how you weight your priorities. One country may place a high value on personal freedom and allow unrestricted drug use, while another may place a high value on the health of it's citizens and restrict the use of drugs. The economist would like to see which country is the most productive and turn both countries in that direction, but science can recognize that there's more to life than economic output.
I think that it's more than just not understanding "new" facts. There's not enough time to teach someone everything while they're still in school. They need to fill in the gaps when they grow up, and if they don't use critical thinking they'll accept whatever the first shyster tells them.
Real world example: the comet El Enin recently passed by Earth. I was warned that the Earth would pass through the comet's tail, and that had never happened before, so we didn't know what would happen. I did a quick google, and found that it had indeed happened in 1910. People are conditioned to believe what they are told, and let alone think for themselves, not even check any other sources!
It's fine. As long as there are enough smart people here we can deal with it. If we can get foreigners to do our dirty work for us, then we can focus on the important stuff. We don't need the monopoly on smart people, just enough to keep up.
This is actually quite a healthy debate in the cycling community that ranges from nut-jobs who think wearing a helmet will make you "take more risks" and get hurt worse, to nanny-staters who think that no-one should ever be allowed on a bike without a helmet.
The healthy middle ground says that making helmets mandatory will cause less people to ride bikes ("fuck it, I'll just take the car"), so to get people on bikes you need to let them do it without wearing a helmet.
I have been told that everyone has a slightly different pattern in their ears. Something like this could probably be used to easily identify people from their ears...
Tapping people like this can be spun as a health-benefit, exercise is widely believed to be beneficial for most people. The fact that it is inefficient is of little concern as the source is so cheap.
Tapping cars on the other hand leads to the consumption of more fuel, increasing carbon emissions, and is basically one of the least efficient ways of generating electricity that anyone takes seriously.
It is like climbing 5 mm high stairs: you step off the tile you are currently standing on (which is 5 mm lower due to your weight) on to the next tile which is up at ground level, 5 mm higher.
When you're climbing actual stairs, you gain gravitational potential energy because you're going up, but on this contraption you sink back down 5 mm with each step, and what would have become your potential energy is now harvested to power the lights, or whatever they plug into it.
I'd agree with that too! If however you look at some of the stories we've seen about the watch list, then you'd see that even that level of "evidence" isn't being used.
* I'm not using the scare quotes around evidence to sound like I don't really believe it, I'm just concerned that the word evidence has a specific meaning, and I'm not sure of the other word that would apply in this situation.
You make a very good point, that it's not so much the standards of getting people on to this list which is the problem. The problem is how supposedly 'innocent' people are treated. Preventing a person from flying should only happen when you have sufficient evidence to indicate that they intend on doing something. That amount of evidence should then be used to get them convicted, rather than taking the half-assed measure of putting them on a no-fly list.
They're something in the Final Fantasy Game Series. If you knew about Final Fantasy, you'd know what Chocobos are; so my question to you is: If you are so clearly disinterested in the Final Fantasy series of games, why are you wasting your time reading about it? Clearly your time is so valuable to you that you can't even spare the 0.18 seconds to Google it.
The point is to charge off-peak, when power is cheap, then sell it back on-peak, when power is expensive. If you do it just right, the power company effectively will be paying you something for leveling out their loads.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I for one think that "finding excuses" as you put it is a lot better than putting your fingers in your ear and going lalala until people stop trying to talk to you.
Neither did the petrol vehicles of the time. Did you have a point?
Well, it just becomes an arms race. Once the tool gets popular enough that you notice it you block the tool. Then they make a new tool, then you block that. As a bonus side effect, you train the next generation of hackers.
But you don't need it to be "circumvention proof". You just need to make it enough of a hassle that no-one but the truly dedicated bothers with it.
Of course, it should have been "Spock gives up of KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!"
Or Civ 4.
Just imagine how expensive an expansive mouth would be.
You're framing science as some kind of cold, uncaring monster. I can see how you ended up in that thought process; there (should be) no emotion in science; but you're a little off in how you think it'll translate into politics.
Science is a tool, you can use it for good or for evil. If you make the moral judgement that you wish to take care of people, you can use economics and statistics to determine how best to do that. If you are concerned about crime rates from unemployed people, you can again use science to find where the problems are and how to address them.
Thus you can still have individuality as a country using science, it's all about how you weight your priorities. One country may place a high value on personal freedom and allow unrestricted drug use, while another may place a high value on the health of it's citizens and restrict the use of drugs. The economist would like to see which country is the most productive and turn both countries in that direction, but science can recognize that there's more to life than economic output.
I think that it's more than just not understanding "new" facts. There's not enough time to teach someone everything while they're still in school. They need to fill in the gaps when they grow up, and if they don't use critical thinking they'll accept whatever the first shyster tells them.
Real world example: the comet El Enin recently passed by Earth. I was warned that the Earth would pass through the comet's tail, and that had never happened before, so we didn't know what would happen. I did a quick google, and found that it had indeed happened in 1910. People are conditioned to believe what they are told, and let alone think for themselves, not even check any other sources!
It's fine. As long as there are enough smart people here we can deal with it. If we can get foreigners to do our dirty work for us, then we can focus on the important stuff. We don't need the monopoly on smart people, just enough to keep up.
This is actually quite a healthy debate in the cycling community that ranges from nut-jobs who think wearing a helmet will make you "take more risks" and get hurt worse, to nanny-staters who think that no-one should ever be allowed on a bike without a helmet.
The healthy middle ground says that making helmets mandatory will cause less people to ride bikes ("fuck it, I'll just take the car"), so to get people on bikes you need to let them do it without wearing a helmet.
My profile picture used to be me in a full-face helmet, now it's just a random pic I found online.
I have been told that everyone has a slightly different pattern in their ears. Something like this could probably be used to easily identify people from their ears...
I'd say that the meat is optional, rather than the beans.
I'm not a native, but I'm stuck here in Texas.
Tapping people like this can be spun as a health-benefit, exercise is widely believed to be beneficial for most people. The fact that it is inefficient is of little concern as the source is so cheap.
Tapping cars on the other hand leads to the consumption of more fuel, increasing carbon emissions, and is basically one of the least efficient ways of generating electricity that anyone takes seriously.
It is like climbing 5 mm high stairs: you step off the tile you are currently standing on (which is 5 mm lower due to your weight) on to the next tile which is up at ground level, 5 mm higher.
When you're climbing actual stairs, you gain gravitational potential energy because you're going up, but on this contraption you sink back down 5 mm with each step, and what would have become your potential energy is now harvested to power the lights, or whatever they plug into it.
DO NOT WANT!
I'd also include Islam as practiced in the east! And the major religions of the North and South!
I'd agree with that too! If however you look at some of the stories we've seen about the watch list, then you'd see that even that level of "evidence" isn't being used.
* I'm not using the scare quotes around evidence to sound like I don't really believe it, I'm just concerned that the word evidence has a specific meaning, and I'm not sure of the other word that would apply in this situation.
If people on the watch list were still allowed to travel on airplanes (like people under police investigation) then I'd agree with you.
You make a very good point, that it's not so much the standards of getting people on to this list which is the problem. The problem is how supposedly 'innocent' people are treated. Preventing a person from flying should only happen when you have sufficient evidence to indicate that they intend on doing something. That amount of evidence should then be used to get them convicted, rather than taking the half-assed measure of putting them on a no-fly list.
They're something in the Final Fantasy Game Series. If you knew about Final Fantasy, you'd know what Chocobos are; so my question to you is: If you are so clearly disinterested in the Final Fantasy series of games, why are you wasting your time reading about it? Clearly your time is so valuable to you that you can't even spare the 0.18 seconds to Google it.
"Maximum Cookie" sounds like the title of an AWESOME sci-fi movie.
I didn't realise chiropractors used MRI units...
The point is to charge off-peak, when power is cheap, then sell it back on-peak, when power is expensive. If you do it just right, the power company effectively will be paying you something for leveling out their loads.