TFA is unclear on this, I was wondering what exactly was meant by 'recently discovered'. I did some research while typing this and found the answer. I thought I might as well provide it in case others were wondering.
An audio student recorded the events from his window. The tape was found this year in a library archive and analysed by sound experts. Why this tape was not more carefully studied directly prior to the actual events is not clear, but the only two possibilities I can think of are a cover up, and that the audio quality was too low to learn anything from the recording until modern digital signal analysis techniques reached their current sophistication.
Yeah, after the US economy collapses and the union disintegrates.
Break the UN charter, break the UNSC resolutions, break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, export terrorism, send elite troops dressed in civilian clothes into Iraq to kill civilians, and yeah, you'll find yourself getting your ass kicked, exactly like you should.
I think we might be reading the numbers back to front, perhaps there isn't some magical feature of an engineering degree that causes people to want to blow things up, but instead a less magical feature of wanting to blow things up that causes people to get an engineering degree. If you want to be a terrorist but you dont know anything about it, and you have a university handy, there are only two real choices. Engineering and chemistry. And chemistry only teaches you to make more specialised explosive compounds, whereas engineering will give you a range of skills about how to construct the entire device and also how best to use its effectivenes. Engineering degrees probably also cover enough basic knowledge to make an explosive compound from fertiliser anyway.
Considering the other team made a car that got 187mpg (and it looks like a real car, to boot), I hope it's for each.
it got 187 miles per charge, not per gallon. A full charge on your average electric car battery pack in your average americal state produces as much co2 as many many litres of gasoline
that the military is attempting to suppress information that the public has a right to see is frightening in it's implications.
Where have you been? Living under a rock? What implications are there that weren't already implied many many decades ago. In fact most military organisations would like to suppress all information until they were the only ones left who knew anything.
In case there are more people living under that rock I should add that the main implication of military especially military intelligence secrecy is that the organisations are not really there to serve the public good but to serve other goals against the public good
One explanation I like for Fermi's paradox is the idea that making contact means giving technology, at least if that contact is any more than a hello and the leave again. Aliens carefully vet the species they come across for violent/sadistic/irrational tendencies and if such tendencies are found, avoid contact. In short they don't want to hand over interstellar travel and massive energy production technologies to anyone who might use them to cause harm. There are more than a few human scientists who wish(ed) they had taken this approach and burned their research. If you had technology that could destroy star systems which modern government would you give it to? It is a nice theory I think
I realise you are not entirely serious but some people believe this, so my question is: Why would any civilisation that has interstellar travel technology and a commensurate general technology level want to go round exterminating other life forms? They must have gotten over their violent competition instincts to survive without wiping themselves out before they developed the tech, and afterwards, well lets just say the phrase "this galaxy ain't big enough for the both of us" is probably one of the most absurd things you could ever say.
I was listening to a BBC program on the radio yesterday where some researcher was saying there has never been an incident like this with hydrogen fuel cell technology. Well now there has. He also made other claims, such as that hydrogen is "emissions free". I would like to remind everyone who bought lines like that in the past that hydrogen is made using electricity with a thermal efficiency (including compression) of around 45% at best.
I would also like to remind everyone that the majority, around 64% of the worlds electricity is produced using fossil fuels.Don't believe the hype
But all jokes aside, I still think you are wrong. I think that nationalising private industries is fine, and I don't think that the label 'marxist' justifies toppling a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a mass murderer. Perhaps we could just agree to disagree on that, after all we are getting off topic. Not that the original topic of this thread has much more to be said about it. I was curious as to what you mean by "buying off the poor". Many governments have a system of giving money to the poor, this is the first time I have heard it implied that this is a form of curruption.
That is utter babble, not insight. Invest in a dictionary.
Communism: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
# a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Communism is a social structure in which, theoretically, classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Welfare is unique to capitalist (private ownership) systems as communist systems have no need to give communally owned property to inidividuals as they already own it collectively. Your hysterical screaming of "omg thats COMMUNISM!" only serves to demonstrate your ignorance. What I was proposing is called welfare, it comes from an ideology called compassion. You may have to look that word up too.
However, no ideologue, from the Left or Right, can reasonably claim we can house and feed the rest of the world as it decides to show up on our doorstep.
Sure they can, perhaps not showing up on our doorstep, I mean a single nation can only hold so many people, but with universally available contraception so only people who want children have them, curbing population growth, and sustainable farming and forestry, there is enough arable land on the planet to feed and house 6 billion people.
The problem is the insularity of nations, we want to make our own citizens happy but we don't give a shit about the rest of the world. I realise I am being absurdly idealistic but you claim it is not possible. It may never heppen, but it is quite possible for all nations to band together and guarantee welfare for all human beings
I suppose you long for the days of the worker's paradise in the former soviet union? I invite you to did a little deeper to learn about about the alternatives. You also need to think long and hard about exactly who is to blame. The US to blame for starving children in Iraq? Saddam was such a nice guy who'd give the poor the shirt off his back, right? He only attacked 3 or 4 neighboring countries but I suppose the US is to blame for that, too.
No, yes, yes.
in spite of all the evidence to the contrary simply because you haven't bothered doing the homework or to critically think about the facts of history.
Actually I did a lot of homework and a lot of critical thinking.
You can justify some of the US actions I listed by saying they were necessary to prevent the actions of other rogue states (Tojo, Hussein, etal. (not to mention the US put Hussein in power)) but not all of them. If the US was fighting the hard fight and making difficult decisions for the good of mankind, how do you justify Cambodia, Nicuragua or Chile to name a few counterexamples? These were popular democratic leaders the US destablised (except in Cambodia which was a pro-western military government that took over from a monarchy), and replaced with murderous dictators. What atrocities was Salvadore Allende committing that justified bombing his capital? Not to mention voting against UN resolutions against terrorism, resolutions suppported by every single member state except the US and it's puppet Israel. Did you even read all the links I posted? Perhaps it is you that haven't bothered doing your homework. I have seen interviews with retired operatives who were involved in some of these operations and even they don't claim it was for the benefit of world security. They say it is for the national interests of the USA and that they, and the administrations they serve are not interested in anything outside of that. I admire and respect your idealism and your trust in your country, I too have great hope that the people of the US could make it a great nation like it once was and if that happens I would gladly accept security help from it. But for the moment you are the international equivalent of the mafia, and no one wants that kind of 'protection'.
not only that, the monks who wrote these curses actually spent their whole lives lovingly copying these books and would have been extremely grateful if someone had come along with a digital camera and a colour printer
You forgot the bit about guaranteeing security, for free, for the better part of the last century. That cost a few bucks for sure, but none of that matters.... Being reminded that the taliban really are the bad guys doesn't fit with the world view these idiots like to project.
Gee thanks guys. We would all just love all that security you have been guaranteeing, when do you suppose it will be delivered? On second thoughts, I think we might just sort out our own security from now on.
the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[3][8]
What most US commentators fail to realise is that the Geneva convention rules about who counts as a soldier are about who is a legitimate prisoner of war and questions of culpability under civilian law. Soldiers are not bound by civilian law. Anyone who does not fall under the definition of a soldier is culpable for breaches of local law and cannot be held as a prisoner of war, but instead must be tried in a civilian court
There is a provison for "(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;" so that means that if you look like a civilian you are one. On the other hand I don't think soldiers are protected by local civilian law either, for example I don't think any members of the French underground resistance in world war 2 were prosecuted for the murder of nazi soldiers.
Lastly, I think you were looking for the phrase "unless it's inconvenient"
And in what way was the Vietnam war in any way profitable for anybody? There was no money to be made on that war.
OIL, and now that you have the answer, did you really need to ask?
There was a lot of tungsten too to be mined.
And to be fair, if the farmers had stopped supporting the Geurilla VC (1970's speak for terrorist) then we wouldn't have been dropping bombs on them.
Please go get a dictionary, and look up the word terrorist. The Vietnamese were fighting for independence from France. You know, like july 4th? Ho Chi Minh was Vietnam's George Washington.
The basic rule is: terrorists target only civilians. Soldiers target soldiers. So if you drive a truck full of fertiliser bombs into a military barracks, that is not terrorism, regardless of what the military might say. The northern Vietnamese militants are in the grey area that while fighting against other soldiers, also target civilians unnecessarily, the US troops in Vietnam are also in this grey area.
there are many other examples where it does happen though. The term "from only [low price]" is frequently used and rarely means you will be paying anywhere near that if you are serious about buying said product. Drug advertising is bad to "excitocal(R)(C)(TM) can make you stronger, fitter, healthier, live longer, have more friends, your wife will love you again and that bully who beat you up in high school might meet with an unfortunate accident" but rarely do people experience a significant percentage of these results. I would like to start a petition that the topic title be changed to "advertisers tell white lies about products and services"
There are two sides to bias, I think they are called positive and negative bias, meaning that you can tell people what you want them to hear, but you can also keep people from hearing what you don't want them to hear. The previous sentence implied malice and I have to say that I agree with you that slashdot is great, before I say they (we) are guilty of no malicious negative bias. This is tech news. You wont hear on slashdot how miners in south africa are being gunned down in cold blood by the security forces of the mines they work in when they try and take gold to feed their families because they aren't getting paid. You also wont hear about any civilian deaths in the many wars raging against the poorest people in the world unless it relates to net neutrality (wikileaks). You wont hear about how protest and free speech are being brutally suppressed all over the world unless it relates to new technology being used by the police forces. Oh wait.. you just did hear about it on slashdot. User created content is quite nice really. Anyway my point is there is nowhere you can go to get the full picture.
also taking some from previous posters, just to supply them on a single list:
Stress
dislike of school (psychosomatic)
school water
school food
lack of oxygen
air pollutants
radiation of various kinds other than wireless
actual illness that only manifests symptoms when combined with something else on this list
lighting (seems unlikely but added for completeness)
That is interesting because 99% of people I ask say no to that question, and instead reply that almost all new channels are guilty of it. I once tried to do a survey of people on a forum of the perceived bias of various news outlets and although there was surprisingly little interest (only about 8 people responded) no one claimed fox was alone in spewing propaganda, and no one disputed that they were the worst for it. I personally have yet to find a general news organisation that I am even comfortable with reading/watching and would claim that all media outlets spew propaganda. So you can add me to the quoted statistic here and make it 98%, or 98.9% or whatever depending on the size of your sample.
I have recently been evaluating http://www.opednews.com/ for bias and it seems ok but I wont be sure until I have read it for a few weeks straight. The layout on their site bothers me but that is something I may have to deal with.
a combination of four different avian and swine flu viruses that have emerged over the past 90 years, and even includes genetic residue of the 1918 pandemic virus
Forgive my ignorance, I am no microbiologist, but how does this happen? Viruses don't have sexual dimorphism so the only way for this to be true would be if each of the four different avian and swine flu viruses mentioned were a combination of all the ones that came before it. Viruses can be descended from each other but can they be descended from multiple strains without each of those being descended from each other as well? Am I missing something here? Are viruses sneakily having sex when I am not looking?
He was referring to wiki's third definition of liberal, which is economic liberalism, sometimes referred to as neo-liberalism:
From wiki: Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics. Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom, and use philosophical arguments promoting liberty to justify economic liberalism and the free market.
This is a very right wing form of liberalism. In New Zealand we have a party called the Libertarianz (sic) that are economic liberals.
I would like to point out that I believe sco08y only read the first paragraph of my post because otherwise he would never have gotten the false impression that I was talking about economic liberalism.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA is unclear on this, I was wondering what exactly was meant by 'recently discovered'. I did some research while typing this and found the answer. I thought I might as well provide it in case others were wondering. An audio student recorded the events from his window. The tape was found this year in a library archive and analysed by sound experts. Why this tape was not more carefully studied directly prior to the actual events is not clear, but the only two possibilities I can think of are a cover up, and that the audio quality was too low to learn anything from the recording until modern digital signal analysis techniques reached their current sophistication.
Yeah, after the US economy collapses and the union disintegrates.
Break the UN charter, break the UNSC resolutions, break the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, export terrorism, send elite troops dressed in civilian clothes into Iraq to kill civilians, and yeah, you'll find yourself getting your ass kicked, exactly like you should.
fixed
I think we might be reading the numbers back to front, perhaps there isn't some magical feature of an engineering degree that causes people to want to blow things up, but instead a less magical feature of wanting to blow things up that causes people to get an engineering degree. If you want to be a terrorist but you dont know anything about it, and you have a university handy, there are only two real choices. Engineering and chemistry. And chemistry only teaches you to make more specialised explosive compounds, whereas engineering will give you a range of skills about how to construct the entire device and also how best to use its effectivenes. Engineering degrees probably also cover enough basic knowledge to make an explosive compound from fertiliser anyway.
Considering the other team made a car that got 187mpg (and it looks like a real car, to boot), I hope it's for each.
it got 187 miles per charge, not per gallon. A full charge on your average electric car battery pack in your average americal state produces as much co2 as many many litres of gasoline
that the military is attempting to suppress information that the public has a right to see is frightening in it's implications.
Where have you been? Living under a rock? What implications are there that weren't already implied many many decades ago. In fact most military organisations would like to suppress all information until they were the only ones left who knew anything.
In case there are more people living under that rock I should add that the main implication of military especially military intelligence secrecy is that the organisations are not really there to serve the public good but to serve other goals against the public good
One explanation I like for Fermi's paradox is the idea that making contact means giving technology, at least if that contact is any more than a hello and the leave again. Aliens carefully vet the species they come across for violent/sadistic/irrational tendencies and if such tendencies are found, avoid contact. In short they don't want to hand over interstellar travel and massive energy production technologies to anyone who might use them to cause harm. There are more than a few human scientists who wish(ed) they had taken this approach and burned their research. If you had technology that could destroy star systems which modern government would you give it to? It is a nice theory I think
I realise you are not entirely serious but some people believe this, so my question is: Why would any civilisation that has interstellar travel technology and a commensurate general technology level want to go round exterminating other life forms? They must have gotten over their violent competition instincts to survive without wiping themselves out before they developed the tech, and afterwards, well lets just say the phrase "this galaxy ain't big enough for the both of us" is probably one of the most absurd things you could ever say.
I was listening to a BBC program on the radio yesterday where some researcher was saying there has never been an incident like this with hydrogen fuel cell technology. Well now there has. He also made other claims, such as that hydrogen is "emissions free". I would like to remind everyone who bought lines like that in the past that hydrogen is made using electricity with a thermal efficiency (including compression) of around 45% at best.
I would also like to remind everyone that the majority, around 64% of the worlds electricity is produced using fossil fuels.Don't believe the hype
free press
But all jokes aside, I still think you are wrong. I think that nationalising private industries is fine, and I don't think that the label 'marxist' justifies toppling a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a mass murderer. Perhaps we could just agree to disagree on that, after all we are getting off topic. Not that the original topic of this thread has much more to be said about it. I was curious as to what you mean by "buying off the poor". Many governments have a system of giving money to the poor, this is the first time I have heard it implied that this is a form of curruption.
containing the seeds of its own destruction in the power structures it must have to be made government.
what does this mean?
That is utter babble, not insight. Invest in a dictionary.
Communism: a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership
# a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# Communism is a social structure in which, theoretically, classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
Welfare is unique to capitalist (private ownership) systems as communist systems have no need to give communally owned property to inidividuals as they already own it collectively. Your hysterical screaming of "omg thats COMMUNISM!" only serves to demonstrate your ignorance. What I was proposing is called welfare, it comes from an ideology called compassion. You may have to look that word up too.
But hey you know there is a saying: "The Germans will never complain or demonstrate to any problem because they is a sign saying it is forbidden"
That saying is not strictly true
However, no ideologue, from the Left or Right, can reasonably claim we can house and feed the rest of the world as it decides to show up on our doorstep.
Sure they can, perhaps not showing up on our doorstep, I mean a single nation can only hold so many people, but with universally available contraception so only people who want children have them, curbing population growth, and sustainable farming and forestry, there is enough arable land on the planet to feed and house 6 billion people.
The problem is the insularity of nations, we want to make our own citizens happy but we don't give a shit about the rest of the world. I realise I am being absurdly idealistic but you claim it is not possible. It may never heppen, but it is quite possible for all nations to band together and guarantee welfare for all human beings
I suppose you long for the days of the worker's paradise in the former soviet union? I invite you to did a little deeper to learn about about the alternatives. You also need to think long and hard about exactly who is to blame. The US to blame for starving children in Iraq? Saddam was such a nice guy who'd give the poor the shirt off his back, right? He only attacked 3 or 4 neighboring countries but I suppose the US is to blame for that, too.
No, yes, yes.
in spite of all the evidence to the contrary simply because you haven't bothered doing the homework or to critically think about the facts of history.
Actually I did a lot of homework and a lot of critical thinking.
You can justify some of the US actions I listed by saying they were necessary to prevent the actions of other rogue states (Tojo, Hussein, etal. (not to mention the US put Hussein in power)) but not all of them. If the US was fighting the hard fight and making difficult decisions for the good of mankind, how do you justify Cambodia, Nicuragua or Chile to name a few counterexamples? These were popular democratic leaders the US destablised (except in Cambodia which was a pro-western military government that took over from a monarchy), and replaced with murderous dictators. What atrocities was Salvadore Allende committing that justified bombing his capital? Not to mention voting against UN resolutions against terrorism, resolutions suppported by every single member state except the US and it's puppet Israel. Did you even read all the links I posted? Perhaps it is you that haven't bothered doing your homework. I have seen interviews with retired operatives who were involved in some of these operations and even they don't claim it was for the benefit of world security. They say it is for the national interests of the USA and that they, and the administrations they serve are not interested in anything outside of that. I admire and respect your idealism and your trust in your country, I too have great hope that the people of the US could make it a great nation like it once was and if that happens I would gladly accept security help from it. But for the moment you are the international equivalent of the mafia, and no one wants that kind of 'protection'.
not only that, the monks who wrote these curses actually spent their whole lives lovingly copying these books and would have been extremely grateful if someone had come along with a digital camera and a colour printer
You forgot the bit about guaranteeing security, for free, for the better part of the last century. That cost a few bucks for sure, but none of that matters. ... Being reminded that the taliban really are the bad guys doesn't fit with the world view these idiots like to project.
Selling weapons to your enemies
Destabilising democracies and supporting fascist dicators
bombing civilians
supporting terrorists including the taliban
supplying weapons to mass murderers
preventing colonies from gaining independence
deploying nuclear weapons against civilian targets
unilaterally invading soveriegn nations
turture, illegal detention
starving children
mind control experiments
obstructing the prevention of terrorism
dropping bombs on everyone you possibly can
Gee thanks guys. We would all just love all that security you have been guaranteeing, when do you suppose it will be delivered? On second thoughts, I think we might just sort out our own security from now on.
the term "unlawful combatant" is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.[3][8]
What most US commentators fail to realise is that the Geneva convention rules about who counts as a soldier are about who is a legitimate prisoner of war and questions of culpability under civilian law. Soldiers are not bound by civilian law. Anyone who does not fall under the definition of a soldier is culpable for breaches of local law and cannot be held as a prisoner of war, but instead must be tried in a civilian court
There is a provison for "(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;" so that means that if you look like a civilian you are one. On the other hand I don't think soldiers are protected by local civilian law either, for example I don't think any members of the French underground resistance in world war 2 were prosecuted for the murder of nazi soldiers.
Lastly, I think you were looking for the phrase "unless it's inconvenient"
And in what way was the Vietnam war in any way profitable for anybody? There was no money to be made on that war.
OIL, and now that you have the answer, did you really need to ask?
There was a lot of tungsten too to be mined.
And to be fair, if the farmers had stopped supporting the Geurilla VC (1970's speak for terrorist) then we wouldn't have been dropping bombs on them.
Please go get a dictionary, and look up the word terrorist. The Vietnamese were fighting for independence from France. You know, like july 4th? Ho Chi Minh was Vietnam's George Washington.
The basic rule is: terrorists target only civilians. Soldiers target soldiers. So if you drive a truck full of fertiliser bombs into a military barracks, that is not terrorism, regardless of what the military might say. The northern Vietnamese militants are in the grey area that while fighting against other soldiers, also target civilians unnecessarily, the US troops in Vietnam are also in this grey area.
there are many other examples where it does happen though. The term "from only [low price]" is frequently used and rarely means you will be paying anywhere near that if you are serious about buying said product. Drug advertising is bad to "excitocal(R)(C)(TM) can make you stronger, fitter, healthier, live longer, have more friends, your wife will love you again and that bully who beat you up in high school might meet with an unfortunate accident" but rarely do people experience a significant percentage of these results. I would like to start a petition that the topic title be changed to "advertisers tell white lies about products and services"
dont forget eating boogers and playing in the sewers
There are two sides to bias, I think they are called positive and negative bias, meaning that you can tell people what you want them to hear, but you can also keep people from hearing what you don't want them to hear. The previous sentence implied malice and I have to say that I agree with you that slashdot is great, before I say they (we) are guilty of no malicious negative bias. This is tech news. You wont hear on slashdot how miners in south africa are being gunned down in cold blood by the security forces of the mines they work in when they try and take gold to feed their families because they aren't getting paid. You also wont hear about any civilian deaths in the many wars raging against the poorest people in the world unless it relates to net neutrality (wikileaks). You wont hear about how protest and free speech are being brutally suppressed all over the world unless it relates to new technology being used by the police forces. Oh wait.. you just did hear about it on slashdot. User created content is quite nice really. Anyway my point is there is nowhere you can go to get the full picture.
also taking some from previous posters, just to supply them on a single list:
Stress
dislike of school (psychosomatic)
school water
school food
lack of oxygen
air pollutants
radiation of various kinds other than wireless
actual illness that only manifests symptoms when combined with something else on this list
lighting (seems unlikely but added for completeness)
please feel free to add to this
That is interesting because 99% of people I ask say no to that question, and instead reply that almost all new channels are guilty of it. I once tried to do a survey of people on a forum of the perceived bias of various news outlets and although there was surprisingly little interest (only about 8 people responded) no one claimed fox was alone in spewing propaganda, and no one disputed that they were the worst for it. I personally have yet to find a general news organisation that I am even comfortable with reading/watching and would claim that all media outlets spew propaganda. So you can add me to the quoted statistic here and make it 98%, or 98.9% or whatever depending on the size of your sample.
I have recently been evaluating http://www.opednews.com/ for bias and it seems ok but I wont be sure until I have read it for a few weeks straight. The layout on their site bothers me but that is something I may have to deal with.
a combination of four different avian and swine flu viruses that have emerged over the past 90 years, and even includes genetic residue of the 1918 pandemic virus
Forgive my ignorance, I am no microbiologist, but how does this happen? Viruses don't have sexual dimorphism so the only way for this to be true would be if each of the four different avian and swine flu viruses mentioned were a combination of all the ones that came before it. Viruses can be descended from each other but can they be descended from multiple strains without each of those being descended from each other as well? Am I missing something here? Are viruses sneakily having sex when I am not looking?
He was referring to wiki's third definition of liberal, which is economic liberalism, sometimes referred to as neo-liberalism:
From wiki: Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics. Proponents of economic liberalism believe political freedom and social freedom are inseparable with economic freedom, and use philosophical arguments promoting liberty to justify economic liberalism and the free market.
This is a very right wing form of liberalism. In New Zealand we have a party called the Libertarianz (sic) that are economic liberals.
I would like to point out that I believe sco08y only read the first paragraph of my post because otherwise he would never have gotten the false impression that I was talking about economic liberalism.