That being equal....while I can't stand what McCain became on that run (I did like him somewhat against Bush)...no, I cannot see him doing any worse, and likely we'd not be in the messes and have the power grabs we're currently seeing from the current administration.
McCain circa 2001, who was against invading Iraq, against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, against torture, etc... yea, that guy I would have been honored to vote for.
That was not the McCain who ran for President.
2x levels of bad really....I don't like either one of them, but at this point, Obama is a PROVEN bad, where McCain presidency is only a hypothetical level of bad. With those two....yeah, I'd take McCain.
Ahh, the fallacy of buyers' remorse: What I got isn't what I expected, so what I didn't get must have been the better choice!
6 words to fix that flawed method:
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
I believe they call that being "hoisted by his own petard;" He scuttled his own campaign the moment he decided to join the fray.
I truly believe that any president, R or D would do this. You're forgetting that in the public light they bash each other and act like enemies but behind closed doors they all work together to fill each others bank accounts.
Indeed; a cursory glance at who is financing Obama and Romney's campaigns shows who really runs this country: Namely, Goldman motherfucking Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
More amazing is how this information is publicly available, yet the masses still trend towards eschewing reality in favor of the nonsense-topic-of-the-day.
I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.
Again, considering that Wall Street banks are the de facto, shadow rulers of America, their protest was targeted at the right group, albeit by a highly misguided group of college dropouts with too much free time.
I propose we rename the Higgs Boson "the spaghetti particle" or "the noodley particle" or to be truly sensational, "the pirate particle." Though I do suppose that "the invisible pink particle" would also be appropriate.
If you RTFA, you'll see that the first two examples cited were from Canada's National Post and the BBC.
Well sure, but had he RTFA'd, he wouldn't have gotten to do any American-bashing, now would he?
Not sure which is worse: AC's who only post anti-American nonsense, or the idiots who mod such posts Insightful... Hating on Americans must be trending.
Perhaps the thing they hate isn't science, but corporatism. That would seem more in character than some general "hate science" rationale.The Genoa shooting was of the head of an energy company, not a scientist. Even nonprofit research labs are often funded and influenced by powerful corporations. Corporate control of science gives corporations a great deal more power, both directly and indirectly, than many other areas of interest.
This.
They don't hate/fear science itself, but rather the way that said science will be implemented by the fascists who run the world.
I've tried several releases of Ubuntu over the years, only to give up in frustration at all the configuration needed just to (for example) get wireless to work. Finally, with Precise, Ubuntu "just works" (pretty much) right out of the box.
Yea, unless you have a Broadcom wireless card, like I do...
Know what really sucks about that? The wireless was working fine prior to the Precise upgrade.
Looks like one step forward, two steps back to me.
When dealing with the external world and categorisation it is not "you" who determines others' label for your religion, but those "other people" who are the majority and make the rules. Those with the biggest metaphorical and physical guns decides who is in the club and who is a heretic.
Bullshit. A person who truly has faith and conviction in a particular ideology would not allow threats of violence to change their position; No one has control over what I believe other than myself. If a person is the sort who would surrender their seemingly strongly held beliefs at the first hint of violence, than they didn't really hold those beliefs as strongly as they would like others to think.
If the "majority" wanted to force you to abandon scientific reasoning in favor of hocus-pocus, and threatened to harm you if you didn't acquiesce, would you be so weak as to give in to their demands?
You may call your religion the one true and holy continuation of Zoroastrianism, but until you are the majority denomination, or the most influential, the rest of the world will consider it to be a loony cult, minor sect, or alternate branch depending on size.
Let 'em. Holding your own beliefs does not require social approval; otherwise, the Westboro Baptist Church would have disappeared long ago.
Religious names and categorisation are social constructs, you may even claim to be a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, but until the rest of us agree to call you that you're still a human.
Malarkey - To a Catholic, the Pope is the Pope, regardless of what Protestants think.
The point your missing is that in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, "The Land of the Pure", Abdus Salam is not considered to be a Muslim. We both agree to call him Muslim, but that does not change his status in Pakistan.
My point exactly - just because a certain group, in this instance the Pakistani government, says that you don't hold a certain belief, doesn't mean that you don't hold that belief; it means those guys are selfish assholes, but that by no means changes who you are or what you believe in.
Similarly the Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran churches also claim to be the true Christian faith, none of them consider Mormons to be, and in their jurisdiction they can define what is and isn't Christian by whatever criteria they choose.
The jurisdiction of faith is a construct of the individual mind, which brings me back 'round to my original message: The only person who can control what faith you follow is you.
The ones with the monopoly (or at least significant share of the oligopoly) on violence. It doesn't ultimately matter what you call yourself if others have the power to decide your fate based on THEIR beliefs.
Ah, I see, so if someone threatens you with violence for what you believe in, you would stop believing in it?
Dedicated roadways! You know, like the ones trains run on, sans rails. So, not all that different after all (light rail actually wins out on this one, thanks to the ability to actually attach the vehicle to the infrastructure...)
Actually, the bus only needs dedicated roadways for high-speed sections. It can merge into normal traffic (or existing bus lanes) in cities.
Part of the concept is that the bus has no fixed route. This is impossible with a rail vehicle.
Yea, I know the CGI videos on their website show the lenghty beast easily slipping in and out of tight city streets with zero regard to physics, but I find the idea highly unrealistic. Ever see a stretch limo attempt to navigate a roundabout? Funny to watch, nigh impossible if you're the driver.
Here's another flaw in the plan: The concept is for more of an up-scale, private limo service than a traditional bus, right? Okay, so we know the only people riding will be the well off - the question becomes, who pays for the construction of these dedicated, "elite" superhighways? The general public, for whom the privilege of travelling on the roads they paid for would be non-existent?
I certainly wouldn't approve of my tax monies being spent on playthings for the rich-and-famous. Would you?
Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?
I can only speak for myself, but... Veal... delicious Veal Parmesagn... Oh you probably meant human babies. No, no they don't make good Parmesagn at all.
Yeah but that requirement is obviously driven by the presence of human-piloted vehicles on the roadways.
Would be nice if you had reference what you mean by "that requirement"... Assuming you mean it in reference to dedicated roadways, it's not 'human-piloted' that's the issue, so much as the sheer volume of traffic. 250 million cars on the road is 250 million cars on the road, regardless of who's controlling them.
On top of that, thanks to our continuing foray into the abject failure that is trickle-down economics (/rant), people are hanging on their cars for much, much longer... If the trend continues, 25 years from now the majority of cars on the road very well may be 2012 model years.
In 25 years, do you think you'll be able to drive your own car anymore? I doubt it. Autonomous vehicles are coming, and I suspect that in a quarter century we'll be regulating human-operated vehicles off public roads.
First off, assuming we don't extinguish our species by then (always a possibility), who gets to drive what and where will be the least of our problems.
Thrid, no, I don't think I'll be able to drive my own car, I know it, and for several seemingly obvious reasons:
- Not everyone will want/be able to jump on to the self-driving car bandwagon.
- Preventing people from operating their own motor vehicles on publicly funded roads is a Constitutional violation of the right to travel freely
- Upgrades to the entire country's infrastructure would have to be decided, approved, and funded by Congress... you know, the fucktards who are typically so busy arguing about petty bullshit like spoiled 8-year-olds, they appear incapable of so much as considering such important matters.
- Again from the political angle, "regulating human-operated vehicles off public roads" sound commie. Nobody (in America, from an idiot-political standpoint) likes commies.
- There are almost 60 million miles of paved roads that would have to be altered, and another million miles of unpaved roads which, more than likely, would be ignored. No big deal for those living in highly urbanized areas, but what about those of us who live in the boonies? Your self-driving car would never make it within 10 miles of my country home.
- "Death by GPS," only w/ self-driving cars, you can't blame it on human error. Can't wait for the flood of lawsuits because of a simple map glitch (['turning left here' "Shit, that's a ravine, NNNNNOOOOOOOOOooooooooo..." SPLAT] * [every car on the road] = [one really big fucking mess])
I do imagine there will be a fair number of automated autos on the roads within the next 25 years, but the idea that they will completely replace human-controlled autos is specious at best.
Does anyone else think that self-driving, high-speed buses like that would eliminate the need for high-speed rail?
Well, sure!
... Except, according to TU Delft's website, the feasibility of their 'superbus' is dependent on...
Wait for it...
Dedicated roadways! You know, like the ones trains run on, sans rails. So, not all that different after all (light rail actually wins out on this one, thanks to the ability to actually attach the vehicle to the infrastructure...)
The rule is fine, but the logic used is horrible. Instead of pointing out how obviously screwed up the patent system is, we see this: A special case exception based on an opinion, which is most obviously not law and can not be translated in to law!
I kind of see it the other way around; the logic of "Samsung's device is sufficiently different from Apple's device as to not risk customer confusion" is sound, but the way the judge went about positing it ('Aw man, this Samsung thing isn't as hip and cool and trendy as the iPad my GGD got me for Kwanzaa") is a bit 3rd grade.
Samsung’s Galaxy line of tablets “do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design,” Judge Birss said according to Bloomberg. “They are not as cool.”
Apple has 21 days to appeal the judge’s ruling.
So, when Apple inevitably appeals the decision, can we take that as a de facto statement that they do not, in fact, find their own products to be "cool" or posses "understated and extreme simplicity" in their designs?
As someone who has, many times, been told I was turned down for a position because I was "just too young," I can promise you that people under 65 enjoy no such protection.
FTR, I'm still under 30.
That means you lack experience, not that you're too young.
Au contraire, according to the pointy-headed management types who don't know me from Adam, apparently my issue is that I haven't "paid my dues." I swear, the next meatbag who says that to my face is getting bitch-slapped...
Now go refill this coffee. No cream, no sugar.
You do realize telling a man of middle age to go fetch your coffee is pretty much guaranteeing yourself a cupful o' piss, right?
Slashdot Mirror
That being equal....while I can't stand what McCain became on that run (I did like him somewhat against Bush)...no, I cannot see him doing any worse, and likely we'd not be in the messes and have the power grabs we're currently seeing from the current administration.
McCain circa 2001, who was against invading Iraq, against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, against torture, etc... yea, that guy I would have been honored to vote for.
That was not the McCain who ran for President.
2x levels of bad really....I don't like either one of them, but at this point, Obama is a PROVEN bad, where McCain presidency is only a hypothetical level of bad. With those two....yeah, I'd take McCain.
Ahh, the fallacy of buyers' remorse: What I got isn't what I expected, so what I didn't get must have been the better choice!
6 words to fix that flawed method:
"Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..."
I believe they call that being "hoisted by his own petard;" He scuttled his own campaign the moment he decided to join the fray.
I truly believe that any president, R or D would do this. You're forgetting that in the public light they bash each other and act like enemies but behind closed doors they all work together to fill each others bank accounts.
Indeed; a cursory glance at who is financing Obama and Romney's campaigns shows who really runs this country: Namely, Goldman motherfucking Sachs and J.P. Morgan.
More amazing is how this information is publicly available, yet the masses still trend towards eschewing reality in favor of the nonsense-topic-of-the-day.
I still laugh at the so called occupier idiots that protest the rich CEO's (well unless it's Steve Jobs/Apple) and banks. They should really be marching in Washington.
Again, considering that Wall Street banks are the de facto, shadow rulers of America, their protest was targeted at the right group, albeit by a highly misguided group of college dropouts with too much free time.
If you want to kill a serpent, cut off the head.
I propose we rename the Higgs Boson "the spaghetti particle" or "the noodley particle" or to be truly sensational, "the pirate particle." Though I do suppose that "the invisible pink particle" would also be appropriate.
I like "Pirate Particle."
Maybe the RIAA will try and sue it.
"Or was this an American news thing?"
If you RTFA, you'll see that the first two examples cited were from Canada's National Post and the BBC.
Well sure, but had he RTFA'd, he wouldn't have gotten to do any American-bashing, now would he?
Not sure which is worse: AC's who only post anti-American nonsense, or the idiots who mod such posts Insightful... Hating on Americans must be trending.
Perhaps the thing they hate isn't science, but corporatism. That would seem more in character than some general "hate science" rationale.The Genoa shooting was of the head of an energy company, not a scientist. Even nonprofit research labs are often funded and influenced by powerful corporations. Corporate control of science gives corporations a great deal more power, both directly and indirectly, than many other areas of interest.
This.
They don't hate/fear science itself, but rather the way that said science will be implemented by the fascists who run the world.
I mean, hell, why not just fill the field of every race with Ron Turcotte clones riding Secretariat clones?
Without the competition of breeding, all horse racing really consist of is a midget and some dirt.
I've tried several releases of Ubuntu over the years, only to give up in frustration at all the configuration needed just to (for example) get wireless to work. Finally, with Precise, Ubuntu "just works" (pretty much) right out of the box.
Yea, unless you have a Broadcom wireless card, like I do...
Know what really sucks about that? The wireless was working fine prior to the Precise upgrade.
Looks like one step forward, two steps back to me.
When dealing with the external world and categorisation it is not "you" who determines others' label for your religion, but those "other people" who are the majority and make the rules. Those with the biggest metaphorical and physical guns decides who is in the club and who is a heretic.
Bullshit. A person who truly has faith and conviction in a particular ideology would not allow threats of violence to change their position; No one has control over what I believe other than myself. If a person is the sort who would surrender their seemingly strongly held beliefs at the first hint of violence, than they didn't really hold those beliefs as strongly as they would like others to think.
If the "majority" wanted to force you to abandon scientific reasoning in favor of hocus-pocus, and threatened to harm you if you didn't acquiesce, would you be so weak as to give in to their demands?
You may call your religion the one true and holy continuation of Zoroastrianism, but until you are the majority denomination, or the most influential, the rest of the world will consider it to be a loony cult, minor sect, or alternate branch depending on size.
Let 'em. Holding your own beliefs does not require social approval; otherwise, the Westboro Baptist Church would have disappeared long ago.
Religious names and categorisation are social constructs, you may even claim to be a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, but until the rest of us agree to call you that you're still a human.
Malarkey - To a Catholic, the Pope is the Pope, regardless of what Protestants think.
The point your missing is that in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, "The Land of the Pure", Abdus Salam is not considered to be a Muslim. We both agree to call him Muslim, but that does not change his status in Pakistan.
My point exactly - just because a certain group, in this instance the Pakistani government, says that you don't hold a certain belief, doesn't mean that you don't hold that belief; it means those guys are selfish assholes, but that by no means changes who you are or what you believe in.
Similarly the Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran churches also claim to be the true Christian faith, none of them consider Mormons to be, and in their jurisdiction they can define what is and isn't Christian by whatever criteria they choose.
The jurisdiction of faith is a construct of the individual mind, which brings me back 'round to my original message: The only person who can control what faith you follow is you.
Who determines your faith - you, or other people?
The ones with the monopoly (or at least significant share of the oligopoly) on violence. It doesn't ultimately matter what you call yourself if others have the power to decide your fate based on THEIR beliefs.
Ah, I see, so if someone threatens you with violence for what you believe in, you would stop believing in it?
What weak character such a person would posses...
Dedicated roadways! You know, like the ones trains run on, sans rails. So, not all that different after all (light rail actually wins out on this one, thanks to the ability to actually attach the vehicle to the infrastructure...)
Actually, the bus only needs dedicated roadways for high-speed sections. It can merge into normal traffic (or existing bus lanes) in cities. Part of the concept is that the bus has no fixed route. This is impossible with a rail vehicle.
Yea, I know the CGI videos on their website show the lenghty beast easily slipping in and out of tight city streets with zero regard to physics, but I find the idea highly unrealistic. Ever see a stretch limo attempt to navigate a roundabout? Funny to watch, nigh impossible if you're the driver.
Here's another flaw in the plan: The concept is for more of an up-scale, private limo service than a traditional bus, right? Okay, so we know the only people riding will be the well off - the question becomes, who pays for the construction of these dedicated, "elite" superhighways? The general public, for whom the privilege of travelling on the roads they paid for would be non-existent?
I certainly wouldn't approve of my tax monies being spent on playthings for the rich-and-famous. Would you?
Khan is a Muslim.
Yes, and so was Dr. Abdus Salam.
Many mainstream Muslim do not consider Ahmadis to be Muslims
So?
Many "mainstream Christians" don't consider Mormons to be Christians, yet they are.
Many Hasidic Jews don't consider "mainstream Jews" to be real Jews, yet they are.
Who determines your faith - you, or other people?
"Religious" governments are ALWAYS a bad idea.
Especially those that finance terrorism and have a nuclear arsenal. So why the hell are we still allies with these fuckers ?
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
If dead does count then make some room for Fermi, Oppenheimer, and Einstein.
That's where I would have gone (subbing Hawking for Fermi), with the addition of Neil DeGrasse Tyson - the rock star of astrophysics.
Rather a shame the way people can't respect one another.
FTFY.
Would any of you have a problem with saying ALL Atheists are baby killers?
I can only speak for myself, but ... Veal... delicious Veal Parmesagn... Oh you probably meant human babies. No, no they don't make good Parmesagn at all.
Psst... I had an egg for breakfast...
Don't tell the Pontiff!
Yeah but that requirement is obviously driven by the presence of human-piloted vehicles on the roadways.
Would be nice if you had reference what you mean by "that requirement"... Assuming you mean it in reference to dedicated roadways, it's not 'human-piloted' that's the issue, so much as the sheer volume of traffic. 250 million cars on the road is 250 million cars on the road, regardless of who's controlling them.
On top of that, thanks to our continuing foray into the abject failure that is trickle-down economics (/rant), people are hanging on their cars for much, much longer... If the trend continues, 25 years from now the majority of cars on the road very well may be 2012 model years.
In 25 years, do you think you'll be able to drive your own car anymore? I doubt it. Autonomous vehicles are coming, and I suspect that in a quarter century we'll be regulating human-operated vehicles off public roads.
First off, assuming we don't extinguish our species by then (always a possibility), who gets to drive what and where will be the least of our problems.
Second, 25 years is a long time in the socio-political and technological sense. Who knows what might happen? Any prediction that far out is pretty much guaranteed to be incorrect. Otherwise, we'd all have been flying our jetpacks to moon condos by the 1980s.
Thrid, no, I don't think I'll be able to drive my own car, I know it, and for several seemingly obvious reasons:
- Not everyone will want/be able to jump on to the self-driving car bandwagon.
- Preventing people from operating their own motor vehicles on publicly funded roads is a Constitutional violation of the right to travel freely
- Upgrades to the entire country's infrastructure would have to be decided, approved, and funded by Congress... you know, the fucktards who are typically so busy arguing about petty bullshit like spoiled 8-year-olds, they appear incapable of so much as considering such important matters.
- Again from the political angle, "regulating human-operated vehicles off public roads" sound commie. Nobody (in America, from an idiot-political standpoint) likes commies.
- There are almost 60 million miles of paved roads that would have to be altered, and another million miles of unpaved roads which, more than likely, would be ignored. No big deal for those living in highly urbanized areas, but what about those of us who live in the boonies? Your self-driving car would never make it within 10 miles of my country home.
- "Death by GPS," only w/ self-driving cars, you can't blame it on human error. Can't wait for the flood of lawsuits because of a simple map glitch (['turning left here' "Shit, that's a ravine, NNNNNOOOOOOOOOooooooooo..." SPLAT] * [every car on the road] = [one really big fucking mess])
I do imagine there will be a fair number of automated autos on the roads within the next 25 years, but the idea that they will completely replace human-controlled autos is specious at best.
Does anyone else think that self-driving, high-speed buses like that would eliminate the need for high-speed rail?
Well, sure!
... Except, according to TU Delft's website, the feasibility of their 'superbus' is dependent on...
Wait for it...
Dedicated roadways! You know, like the ones trains run on, sans rails. So, not all that different after all (light rail actually wins out on this one, thanks to the ability to actually attach the vehicle to the infrastructure...)
Guess I would have known that if I had RTFA'd, but then it would have been a lot harder to come up with such a succinct yet meaningful post...
Personally, I don't understand why this debate is still raging on; to me, this whole issue boils down to one simple question:
Are the devices so similar, that the average consumer would have difficulty determining one from the other prior to purchase?
The answer seems pretty damn obvious to me.
The rule is fine, but the logic used is horrible. Instead of pointing out how obviously screwed up the patent system is, we see this: A special case exception based on an opinion, which is most obviously not law and can not be translated in to law!
I kind of see it the other way around; the logic of "Samsung's device is sufficiently different from Apple's device as to not risk customer confusion" is sound, but the way the judge went about positing it ('Aw man, this Samsung thing isn't as hip and cool and trendy as the iPad my GGD got me for Kwanzaa") is a bit 3rd grade.
So, when Apple inevitably appeals the decision, can we take that as a de facto statement that they do not, in fact, find their own products to be "cool" or posses "understated and extreme simplicity" in their designs?
This just in: there are billions of people in China, each with their own hope, dreams, and understanding of intellectual property rights.
FTFY
I typically default to the classic, "ground up and in the freezer."
You might think it inappropriate for mixed company, but I find that's where you get the most entertaining reactions.
As someone who has, many times, been told I was turned down for a position because I was "just too young," I can promise you that people under 65 enjoy no such protection.
FTR, I'm still under 30.
That means you lack experience, not that you're too young.
Au contraire, according to the pointy-headed management types who don't know me from Adam, apparently my issue is that I haven't "paid my dues."
I swear, the next meatbag who says that to my face is getting bitch-slapped...
Now go refill this coffee. No cream, no sugar.
You do realize telling a man of middle age to go fetch your coffee is pretty much guaranteeing yourself a cupful o' piss, right?
Save the 'tude for the interns.
I don't know why this was modded down; it's damn good advice.
Because it's the truth, and our species has a nasty habit of punishing those who possess the hojo's to point it out.
For example, consider the old format:
Helen asked "How do you plan to do that"?
versus the newer:
Helen asked "How do you plan to do that?".
Your "old format" is, and always was, incorrect.
The punctuation has always belonged within the quotation marks.