Not sure where you read hate into it; that's your judgement speaking. I'm just talking about facts: adding fantastic thinking to one's life, which let's say is of finite duration, reduces the amount of realistic thinking that can be done in that finite duration. Perhaps Mother Theresa could have helped discover a method of creating 90% efficient solar cells, if she hadn't been distracted by fantasies. That would have benefited far more people that her life did in this reality.
My guess is you're talking from a religious point of view, though, and no amount of realistic talking can win you over. Science and religion are absolutely mutually exclusive; see my sig (you're completely right about fantastic thinking being a tool for the powerful, as the powerful want to control other humans -- not (necessarily) nature). You can control humans with science, but it's not nearly as easy as training them in fantasy.
I'm not angry as I type this, nor am I frothing at the mouth. Sorry to disappoint.
I believe in God. I believe in a Protector. We humans (and other higher primates, perhaps) created it via the quantum processes that our brains work on, such as entanglement (which enables telepathy). We had to move towards a monotheistic religion in order to have more brains powering the one God (see Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods"). I just don't believe that giving up 10% of my income to people who talk fantastically is benefiting anything except their checkbooks.
I practice Jin Shin Jyutsu. I can feel the energy in my fingertips. I know there's something larger than me out there, and that something is filled with love. So don't push your hate into me; it's inappropriate.
Please even if you don't like religon I doubt that it is as big of waste of time as TV, music, or Slashdot.
Slashdot teaches me about science, and is a social environment. TV is also a teaching tool, although not always (History channel, Discovery, PBS, etc). Music can help increase one's enjoyment and intelligence as well (classical music, Dr. Jeffrey Thompson's Brainwave Suite, etc).
Religion is responsible for most of the wars and suffering in the world; it justifies men acting like animals or worse to their fellow men.
Gandhi, Sister Theresa, and Cardinal Tutu could have achieved more if they spent more time on learning reality, rather than fantasy. I'm not saying they didn't achieve great things; I am saying that they would have had more time in their lives. As you imply, I could do more also (I could be programming instead of typing this, and I could have rejected fantasy-based thinking for scientific thinking earlier in my lifetime).
I understand your sentiment -- "if the poster is wrong, he's going to hell" -- but then again, aren't we all?
No.
Sorry to be curt; what I meant was we're all worm food at the end anyway, there is no evidence that there are 72 virgins or "a place where nothing ever happens" waiting for us at the end.
In addition, many religions state that "if you do not believe in our one true religion, you are going to hell." So if a minimum of two of them are correct, then we are all going to hell.
And if "even the devil can quote scripture" then everybody who quotes scripture is the devil, for all I can tell. (This is not a defeatist statement: I am merely pointing out the internal inconsistency, and lack of scientific method in determining "the truth".)
I do good because I want to see others do good, like your other responder implied; it's not through fear of a great beard in the sky that I base my actions.
Think of how much more she could have accomplished had she not been wasting time on religious rituals and discussions? I understand your sentiment -- "if the poster is wrong, he's going to hell" -- but then again, aren't we all?
[...] it might be possible to get quite a bit further in a short time.
I remember a short story from the 80s or 90s, in Asimov's Science Fiction (or Analog?), about just that.
The first manned mission to another star featured deep sleep, and they were woken up by some flashing thing; it stopped, so they went back to sleep.
When they arrived at the star, they were greeted by "humans" but were told that they smelled really funny, and they found that they were not "with it", couldn't keep up with the people they were talking to.
Turns out the flashing was another craft launched from earth with a higher velocity, overtaking them, so that when they finally arrived at the star system/planet they intended, the second craft had already been there for several hundred years.
Really neat story, showing the difference in "time travel".
People always say: 'I have nothing to hide, so I am not against surveillance'. They don't realize that this might change.
Do you really think people who say that would change their minds as long as the government could cite some perceived improvements in security as justification for the extra surveillence? I honestly don't think they would. *THAT'S* what's scary.
While I agree with you, I think the original statement was more that "they don't realize that the fact they have nothing to hide may change."
For instance, we could outlaw alcohol again, and do it right this time, now that we can track everyone's movements. Perhaps the implant chips will be able to detect alcohol levels, etc.
Law is fluid; what's permissible today may very well not be in the future. And if you're caught on camera, say, getting drunk and acting like a fool, who will defend you when the penalty for "getting drunk and acting like a fool" is changed, retroactively (like some of our tax laws have already been changed!), and now you're in a prison camp somewhere unknown, like Cuba?
Nonetheless, the examples given of what to do with the proceeds of such wealth included rehabilitating populations in Africa. How is this end-game different from "wast[ing] all our resources trying to feed and keep alive the people in developing nations -- thereby encouraging them to have even more children, who will need even more supporting"?
Well, on the surface, you're right -- the two look to be about the same.
However, the former course limits our abilities to get to the stars, and if we waste enough resources helping others, we will never get off the planet. The latter course achieves both ends. Yes, more people may die in the short term with the latter course; progress is never easy.
Another goal to be spending towards is nanotechnology. I'm not sure which is preferable as a first step -- achieving nanotech, or harvesting one asteroid. Both unlock untold riches, and allow us to do exponentially more good.
Maybe we should use the money to start slaughtering existent populations in the developing world then, instead, and nip this problem in the bud.
You so don't want to learn the lesson about honey and vinegar, do you? Well, your bitterness has convinced me not to donate to any charities you're involved in, for now. (This is not a threat, or a challenge, or an insult; it's simply my judgment as to where to spend my resources. You seem to be charity-minded, but your tone belies something different altogether.)
Still, if an average asteroid had several trillion dollars in precious metals, which is entirely possible, according to Tumlinson in a 2000 exchange, that lode could be used to underwrite, conservatively, several hundred billion dollars for projects of various kinds. That potential for good is from one average nickel-iron asteroid.
[...]
Projects that might be initiated under such an extraterrestrial plan are varied. The establishment of a modern healthcare system throughout Africa, now being devastated by various diseases, including AIDS, might be one. That continent will have strong political systems only after healthy national populations exist. Another possibility would be an international program to clean badly polluted sites left from the old Soviet empire. Such an effort would lift a huge burden off the backs of maturing democracies in the area, allowing them to allocate resources to other areas. The Middle East is the home of the three great monotheistic religions of the world--and increasingly a viciously unruly place. If there were a financial or development component to a future peace settlement there, it could be underwritten by wealth from asteroids. All of these suggestions are international in character, as befits the source of the wealth being tapped, and all aim to give people realistic hope for a better immediate future.
So, no, the idea isn't to kill off the population. The idea is to help them, without going about it all short-sighted and destroying ourselves in the process.
We could waste all our resources trying to feed and keep alive the people in developing nations -- thereby encouraging them to have even more children, who will need even more supporting.
Or, we could reach for the stars and bring back some asteroids which will do so much more for the people of Earth than the sum total of all the charitable contributions ever donated.
I know which one I'd bet on, and I'm glad to see people with far more resources than me agreeing. You seem rather bitter; remember that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar -- that is, if you want people to donate to your charities...
I love the smell of SCO bankruptcy on a Monday morning.
Totally OT, but that Xbox 360 game Crackdown is a bit disturbing. I understand the reference, but how many 12-year-olds are going to be going "huh?" to the narrator saying "I love the smell of Agent in the morning!"
I mean, I know I don't smell so good in the morning, and which part of the Agent are you smelling, and...
Re:Fair??? Language, please...
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
How many BILLIONS of dollars in lawyers fees
Zero. Come on, even a large case like this isn't going to generate anywhere NEAR that amount of attorneys' fees.
True; how about this then: "How many BILLIONS of dollars of developer time wasted typing comments like this one..."
And even then, there'll be the "I don't want to think about it, I just want it to work" crowd that wouldn't want to hassle with converting their purchased library into XXX format.
Hell, if I could convert my music into porn, I'd never leave the house! Or something... "Something something, Bruce Ward?"
Good question -- I don't know if regenerative braking would do much good if you were moving forward at, say, 2 miles an hour, with the brake applied the entire time.
Even though, as I said, it wasn't my special case, I do like considering the edge cases because they can teach us a lot.:)
I'm sorry, it's wasn't my special case, and I never said it didn't apply to gasoline-burning cars. I was merely taking exception with your statement that an electric vehicle stopped behind a pile-up used zero energy. Yes, you're absolutely right about using park to reduce the trickle drain that I mentioned in passing -- unless the traffic is moving forward at a crawl, then your foot's on the brake the entire time.
Slashdot Mirror
? -- Kidney Video Mouse?
Not sure where you read hate into it; that's your judgement speaking. I'm just talking about facts: adding fantastic thinking to one's life, which let's say is of finite duration, reduces the amount of realistic thinking that can be done in that finite duration. Perhaps Mother Theresa could have helped discover a method of creating 90% efficient solar cells, if she hadn't been distracted by fantasies. That would have benefited far more people that her life did in this reality.
My guess is you're talking from a religious point of view, though, and no amount of realistic talking can win you over. Science and religion are absolutely mutually exclusive; see my sig (you're completely right about fantastic thinking being a tool for the powerful, as the powerful want to control other humans -- not (necessarily) nature). You can control humans with science, but it's not nearly as easy as training them in fantasy.
I'm not angry as I type this, nor am I frothing at the mouth. Sorry to disappoint.
I believe in God. I believe in a Protector. We humans (and other higher primates, perhaps) created it via the quantum processes that our brains work on, such as entanglement (which enables telepathy). We had to move towards a monotheistic religion in order to have more brains powering the one God (see Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods"). I just don't believe that giving up 10% of my income to people who talk fantastically is benefiting anything except their checkbooks.
I practice Jin Shin Jyutsu. I can feel the energy in my fingertips. I know there's something larger than me out there, and that something is filled with love. So don't push your hate into me; it's inappropriate.
Slashdot teaches me about science, and is a social environment. TV is also a teaching tool, although not always (History channel, Discovery, PBS, etc). Music can help increase one's enjoyment and intelligence as well (classical music, Dr. Jeffrey Thompson's Brainwave Suite, etc).
Religion is responsible for most of the wars and suffering in the world; it justifies men acting like animals or worse to their fellow men.
Gandhi, Sister Theresa, and Cardinal Tutu could have achieved more if they spent more time on learning reality, rather than fantasy. I'm not saying they didn't achieve great things; I am saying that they would have had more time in their lives. As you imply, I could do more also (I could be programming instead of typing this, and I could have rejected fantasy-based thinking for scientific thinking earlier in my lifetime).
Sorry to be curt; what I meant was we're all worm food at the end anyway, there is no evidence that there are 72 virgins or "a place where nothing ever happens" waiting for us at the end.
In addition, many religions state that "if you do not believe in our one true religion, you are going to hell." So if a minimum of two of them are correct, then we are all going to hell.
And if "even the devil can quote scripture" then everybody who quotes scripture is the devil, for all I can tell. (This is not a defeatist statement: I am merely pointing out the internal inconsistency, and lack of scientific method in determining "the truth".)
I do good because I want to see others do good, like your other responder implied; it's not through fear of a great beard in the sky that I base my actions.
Yes, it does.
Think of how much more she could have accomplished had she not been wasting time on religious rituals and discussions? I understand your sentiment -- "if the poster is wrong, he's going to hell" -- but then again, aren't we all?
I remember a short story from the 80s or 90s, in Asimov's Science Fiction (or Analog?), about just that.
The first manned mission to another star featured deep sleep, and they were woken up by some flashing thing; it stopped, so they went back to sleep.
When they arrived at the star, they were greeted by "humans" but were told that they smelled really funny, and they found that they were not "with it", couldn't keep up with the people they were talking to.
Turns out the flashing was another craft launched from earth with a higher velocity, overtaking them, so that when they finally arrived at the star system/planet they intended, the second craft had already been there for several hundred years.
Really neat story, showing the difference in "time travel".
While I agree with you, I think the original statement was more that "they don't realize that the fact they have nothing to hide may change."
For instance, we could outlaw alcohol again, and do it right this time, now that we can track everyone's movements. Perhaps the implant chips will be able to detect alcohol levels, etc.
Law is fluid; what's permissible today may very well not be in the future. And if you're caught on camera, say, getting drunk and acting like a fool, who will defend you when the penalty for "getting drunk and acting like a fool" is changed, retroactively (like some of our tax laws have already been changed!), and now you're in a prison camp somewhere unknown, like Cuba?
"Martha! They're using people as ink!"
Or, "Soylent green utensils?"
Well, on the surface, you're right -- the two look to be about the same.
However, the former course limits our abilities to get to the stars, and if we waste enough resources helping others, we will never get off the planet. The latter course achieves both ends. Yes, more people may die in the short term with the latter course; progress is never easy.
Another goal to be spending towards is nanotechnology. I'm not sure which is preferable as a first step -- achieving nanotech, or harvesting one asteroid. Both unlock untold riches, and allow us to do exponentially more good.
You so don't want to learn the lesson about honey and vinegar, do you? Well, your bitterness has convinced me not to donate to any charities you're involved in, for now. (This is not a threat, or a challenge, or an insult; it's simply my judgment as to where to spend my resources. You seem to be charity-minded, but your tone belies something different altogether.)
Sure, here is is:
So, no, the idea isn't to kill off the population. The idea is to help them, without going about it all short-sighted and destroying ourselves in the process.
Sorry about your fish.
We could waste all our resources trying to feed and keep alive the people in developing nations -- thereby encouraging them to have even more children, who will need even more supporting.
Or, we could reach for the stars and bring back some asteroids which will do so much more for the people of Earth than the sum total of all the charitable contributions ever donated.
I know which one I'd bet on, and I'm glad to see people with far more resources than me agreeing. You seem rather bitter; remember that you attract more flies with honey than vinegar -- that is, if you want people to donate to your charities...
Totally OT, but that Xbox 360 game Crackdown is a bit disturbing. I understand the reference, but how many 12-year-olds are going to be going "huh?" to the narrator saying "I love the smell of Agent in the morning!"
I mean, I know I don't smell so good in the morning, and which part of the Agent are you smelling, and ...
Bloody peasant.
So, you take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week?
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
Umm, "other two parties"? The USA only has two parties. Effectively.
The radiation from Three Mile Island might help deal with them, or at least mutate them into something less dangerous that tastes good.
And what does that word mean, when translated from the German?
OokOokOok!
OH DO BE QUIET.
Rude awakening when we moved to Florida: "solar heated pool" means "it's heated by the sun." :(
Hell, if I could convert my music into porn, I'd never leave the house! Or something... "Something something, Bruce Ward?"
Good question -- I don't know if regenerative braking would do much good if you were moving forward at, say, 2 miles an hour, with the brake applied the entire time.
Even though, as I said, it wasn't my special case, I do like considering the edge cases because they can teach us a lot. :)
When I receive the proper embrace, I extend. If all goes well, we extinguish the lights?
I'm sorry, it's wasn't my special case, and I never said it didn't apply to gasoline-burning cars. I was merely taking exception with your statement that an electric vehicle stopped behind a pile-up used zero energy. Yes, you're absolutely right about using park to reduce the trickle drain that I mentioned in passing -- unless the traffic is moving forward at a crawl, then your foot's on the brake the entire time.
That depends: the audio source (radio or CD player) uses electricity. If it's winter, the heater; if it's summer, the AC.
A lesser drain: if you're stopped behind a pileup, chances are your foot's on the brake, so the brake lights are using energy as well.