But, I thought the current line was that the tea party types were too stupid to use a smart phone. Regardless that they're all deviously cunning at the same time.
(I have trouble keeping track of which "great truth" about out-groups is in effect.It's a bit like those press releases from the Syrian government. "There is no unrest in Aleppo. And it is all fomented by outsiders.")
"As far as I know, no other country does this ludicrous crap"
You haven't studied many other countries legislatures much, then. Look up things like the cow walk in Japan and some of the shenanigans where fistfights break out various legislatures.
What about Belgium when it couldn't even form a government for a year and a half? They finally did late last year.
What about the long term period of the Italian government of the month that went on for decades?
What about India two years ago when they only managed to pass 4 whole bills in one session?
I'm not saying the US congres is good, it's just not the only one that does this.
FYI: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a noted anti-nuclear publication. Their name comes from long ago when a number of atomic scientists put it out to oppose nuclear weapons.
This is like having the RIAA do a review on the future outlook of The Pirate Party,
Exactly. My job and lifestyle are such that not being interrupted is often more valuable than constant connectivity. For a lot of other people that wouldn't work well.
If it keeps Megan Garber from editing wikipedia, that's a plus in my book.
If she needs soothing images while reading articles on such uplifting topics as The Thirty Years War or the Rwandan Genocide, she should drop a Xanax and go visit some site loaded with pictures of cute baby animals and LOLcats.
(Disclaimer: I actually rather like sites filled with cute baby animal pictures and the like, but NOT factual work-a-day sites like wikipedia.)
"Why was he arrested for planning to have sex with her? Is that now illegal?"
Sure is. And it applies in many situations.
Example: I plan (and take some action based on those plans) to kill Senator Mortimer Snort for opposing a bill to make June 5th, National Slashdot Day. I fail to carry this out, whether by losing interest in it, by being detected, or by being incompetent.
Regardless that Snort hasn't been killed (or even injured) it is still a crime. And it's not just a thoughtcrime as I took some action based on those thoughts.
The action could be as simple as visiting a wikipedia page on Snort to gather information, asking someone what sort of car he drives so I could target the right one or telling someone I planned to kill Snort.
I think the creationists would say the same thing. They claim they want an equal footing for their ideas with respect to evolution. They feel that in any "fair" environment, their ideas will obviously win out. In truth, they want a preferred status.
In this case, we have the added problem that "anarchist" can mean a whole wide array of things (both denotative and connotative) depending on who you talk to.
But, I would guess that the "anarchists" we're talking about in this case (the ones shooting people) would be just as hostile to science that didn't find results that agreed well with their philosophical positions.
Militants tend to be that way regardless of the source of their ideas. And, they usually can find a way to justify whatever means they find absolutely convenient.
1. How can we use this in the Emacs vs VI debate? 2. Can this be used in the cloud vs local computing debate. 3. Where does Natalie Portman come down on this issue? 4. Can we use this to justify locking RMS and ESR in a closet with various blunt weapons and only talk to whoever walks out afterward? 5. How will this help that guy turn girls into stone?
Save that there has been a major anti-Monsanto push going on for the past few weeks that's repeating things like this. I've been seeing neatly prepared images being reposted all over my social media multiple times.
Pointing out some of the errors in them just gets you insulted. Much like what is happening here. Someone notes "this isn't GMO" and is then rebuked for pointing out the truth.
These anti-gmo claims about non-gmo products are like the "acceptable truths" that Scientology uses. They're seen as fine since, though lies, they advance the cause, huzzah.
Like many, he likely assumes that all those that would (perhaps read that as "should" in his opinion) have died are ones who don't agree with him politically.
Thus it's morally fine.
How this is different from religion saying those who believe are good and will be saved, and those who don't are evil and will be damned, I'm not sure. But if you made the comparison, he'd likely be outraged.
It states: Articles about religion on slashdot tend to bring out lots of people on various sides posting about how ignorant, stupid and foolish everyone who disagrees with them about religion is.
(And thus imply how enlightened and intelligent the posters are, by comparison.)
Of course they were real physical objections. They were based on models that were wrong, but were the ones available at the time. To say that it's not a physical objection is to demand clairvoyance.
Wegener himself knew that he didn't have a fully valid dynamics for how the continents could move. He knew that it was a very reasonable seeming explanation for his observations and proposed some initial models. There are many things that are reasonable to the point of being obvious that are nonetheless wrong.
You only consider them invalid in the light of a great deal of evidence supporting a different viewpoint of how the rock at the bottom of ocean basins was formed. Evidence that came long after Wegener.
It's trivial to sweep away objections when you deny those of the time any footing based on their models while implicitly relying on a modern model that required a lot of work to establish.
Since 2004 the US has been eliminating the "dumb" antipersonnel mines in its arsenal. The ones left are electrically detonated and deactivate at a preset time, or ultimately when the batteries run out.
Mines are so useful that the reality is, they will be used. And manufactured locally if they have to be.
If you make it impossible for countries that can make the mines with time deactivation (or degradable components for the same end) to sell them, then what you will have for sale are those made by those who don't care. (And if you say it would be a war crime, I suggest you look at how many heads of state have been convicted since Nuremburg. One. Charles Taylor, And that's just in the past few weeks)
That's very good for saying "it's not my fault", but it's hiding your head in the sand as far as reducing the number of situations like the former Yugoslavia and large numbers of long term mines being abondoned.
As I said before, I greatly support putting deactivation systems in mines, and supporting it with treaties restricting the sale and manufacture of dumb mines. That may have some effect as it will mean the more modern type mines will be the ones openly sold.
But a blanket ban just leads to those who won't follow it making their own, or buying them under the table. And guess what. Those won't be self deactivating because dumb mines are dirt cheap to make once you've spent the money to set up a production line.
So, are you for something that might reduce the problem? Or are you for something that probably won't, but will let some people/countries say "it's not my fault"?
Wegener's idea of continental drift was correct, but he didn't have a good mechanism for how these continents could plow through oceanic crust to move. That takes a massive force, and there wasn't enough energy to do it.
Later it was realized the continents were relatively light and floated atop moving plates. That provided a mechanism where the internal heat engine of the earth could provide enough energy to make them move.
It wasn't just stodginess that kept Wegener's idea from being accepted. It was also real physical objections. Until the 50s/60s and the discovery of seafloor spreading from the patterns of magnetisation in the seabed, the dynamics just didn't work out.
Now, in hindsight, it's "obvious". But it certainly wasn't at the time. The matching of geological features was intriguing, but without a mechanism for the continents moving, it couldn't overcome the objections.
"selling land mines has no legitimate military purpose."
Nonsense. If I'm defending a fixed position, I want a line of mines in front of me. Why? So it's harder for any attackers to overrun us, and kill not only us but whoever/whatever we're trying to protect. Mines are very effective for that.
They have absolutely legitimate military use. The problem is when they're left behind and kill civilians. Or worse, when a regime plants them throughout farm fields so they can't be worked as a way to cause starvation.
Just because you can be a bastard with them doesn't mean there aren't situations where they are needed.
If you want to put in time links so they deactivate in case they are missed when picking them up, great. I agree with that. You want to restrict who they are sold to and have monitoring of use? Ok.
But, if I were the Libyan rebels facing Qadafi's forces in tanks coming to take back my town, I would have wanted antitiank mines so that they could be stopped before they killed everyone.
Now, if you take the position that all soldiers, rebels or fighters should be dead, that's a whole other story. (Or if you think that defending a city or a refuge camp or other civilian installation is of no positive value) . That I can't argue with as it's a matter of faith.
Slashdot Mirror
Very similar to my answers. I might exchange 1 and 2.
I'd also add the short story The Cold Equations by Tom Godwin.
But, I thought the current line was that the tea party types were too stupid to use a smart phone. Regardless that they're all deviously cunning at the same time.
(I have trouble keeping track of which "great truth" about out-groups is in effect.It's a bit like those press releases from the Syrian government. "There is no unrest in Aleppo. And it is all fomented by outsiders.")
"As far as I know, no other country does this ludicrous crap"
You haven't studied many other countries legislatures much, then. Look up things like the cow walk in Japan and some of the shenanigans where fistfights break out various legislatures.
What about Belgium when it couldn't even form a government for a year and a half? They finally did late last year.
What about the long term period of the Italian government of the month that went on for decades?
What about India two years ago when they only managed to pass 4 whole bills in one session?
I'm not saying the US congres is good, it's just not the only one that does this.
Geek eye for the non-techie guy.
First episode will be RMS doing a makeover on a zombie Senator Ted Stevens.
Was the software for it written by Gowa Digital Systems?
"We are the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad! "
FYI: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a noted anti-nuclear publication. Their name comes from long ago when a number of atomic scientists put it out to oppose nuclear weapons.
This is like having the RIAA do a review on the future outlook of The Pirate Party,
Exactly. My job and lifestyle are such that not being interrupted is often more valuable than constant connectivity. For a lot of other people that wouldn't work well.
They can call you just fine.
They'll get forwarded to voice mail.
I consider this a feature, not a problem.
If it keeps Megan Garber from editing wikipedia, that's a plus in my book.
If she needs soothing images while reading articles on such uplifting topics as The Thirty Years War or the Rwandan Genocide, she should drop a Xanax and go visit some site loaded with pictures of cute baby animals and LOLcats.
(Disclaimer: I actually rather like sites filled with cute baby animal pictures and the like, but NOT factual work-a-day sites like wikipedia.)
"Why was he arrested for planning to have sex with her? Is that now illegal?"
Sure is. And it applies in many situations.
Example: I plan (and take some action based on those plans) to kill Senator Mortimer Snort for opposing a bill to make June 5th, National Slashdot Day. I fail to carry this out, whether by losing interest in it, by being detected, or by being incompetent.
Regardless that Snort hasn't been killed (or even injured) it is still a crime. And it's not just a thoughtcrime as I took some action based on those thoughts.
The action could be as simple as visiting a wikipedia page on Snort to gather information, asking someone what sort of car he drives so I could target the right one or telling someone I planned to kill Snort.
I must admit, I'm kind of amused about getting modded "troll" for this.
Some anarchists have apparently discovered the concept of "blasphemy". Ah well. Religions beat you there by several thousand years. :)
I think the creationists would say the same thing. They claim they want an equal footing for their ideas with respect to evolution. They feel that in any "fair" environment, their ideas will obviously win out. In truth, they want a preferred status.
In this case, we have the added problem that "anarchist" can mean a whole wide array of things (both denotative and connotative) depending on who you talk to.
But, I would guess that the "anarchists" we're talking about in this case (the ones shooting people) would be just as hostile to science that didn't find results that agreed well with their philosophical positions.
Militants tend to be that way regardless of the source of their ideas. And, they usually can find a way to justify whatever means they find absolutely convenient.
TFA talks about establishing: "anarchist science" to make science conform more to what the anarchists can identify with.
This sounds like having the scientific community embrace "creation science" in order to conform more to what the creationists can identify with.
In fact, it's been used by a famous scifi author (one who had worked in intelligence for some time): Cordwainer Smith (real name Paul Linebarger).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Hitton's_Littul_Kittons
The odd spelling of Littul Kittons is used to trigger an alarm when the villian of the story looks it up in an electronic encyclopedia.
Obviously, the most important questions are:
1. How can we use this in the Emacs vs VI debate?
2. Can this be used in the cloud vs local computing debate.
3. Where does Natalie Portman come down on this issue?
4. Can we use this to justify locking RMS and ESR in a closet with various blunt weapons and only talk to whoever walks out afterward?
5. How will this help that guy turn girls into stone?
Save that there has been a major anti-Monsanto push going on for the past few weeks that's repeating things like this. I've been seeing neatly prepared images being reposted all over my social media multiple times.
Pointing out some of the errors in them just gets you insulted. Much like what is happening here. Someone notes "this isn't GMO" and is then rebuked for pointing out the truth.
These anti-gmo claims about non-gmo products are like the "acceptable truths" that Scientology uses. They're seen as fine since, though lies, they advance the cause, huzzah.
Like many, he likely assumes that all those that would (perhaps read that as "should" in his opinion) have died are ones who don't agree with him politically.
Thus it's morally fine.
How this is different from religion saying those who believe are good and will be saved, and those who don't are evil and will be damned, I'm not sure. But if you made the comparison, he'd likely be outraged.
It states: Articles about religion on slashdot tend to bring out lots of people on various sides posting about how ignorant, stupid and foolish everyone who disagrees with them about religion is.
(And thus imply how enlightened and intelligent the posters are, by comparison.)
"Did somebody say Copter Cat?"
Blink. Blink.
Ooookay...
They don't need them to watch you do that. They already contract that out to ceiling cat.
Now, turn your head to one side and cough.
Of course they were real physical objections. They were based on models that were wrong, but were the ones available at the time. To say that it's not a physical objection is to demand clairvoyance.
Wegener himself knew that he didn't have a fully valid dynamics for how the continents could move. He knew that it was a very reasonable seeming explanation for his observations and proposed some initial models. There are many things that are reasonable to the point of being obvious that are nonetheless wrong.
You only consider them invalid in the light of a great deal of evidence supporting a different viewpoint of how the rock at the bottom of ocean basins was formed. Evidence that came long after Wegener.
It's trivial to sweep away objections when you deny those of the time any footing based on their models while implicitly relying on a modern model that required a lot of work to establish.
Since 2004 the US has been eliminating the "dumb" antipersonnel mines in its arsenal. The ones left are electrically detonated and deactivate at a preset time, or ultimately when the batteries run out.
Mines are so useful that the reality is, they will be used. And manufactured locally if they have to be.
If you make it impossible for countries that can make the mines with time deactivation (or degradable components for the same end) to sell them, then what you will have for sale are those made by those who don't care. (And if you say it would be a war crime, I suggest you look at how many heads of state have been convicted since Nuremburg. One. Charles Taylor, And that's just in the past few weeks)
That's very good for saying "it's not my fault", but it's hiding your head in the sand as far as reducing the number of situations like the former Yugoslavia and large numbers of long term mines being abondoned.
As I said before, I greatly support putting deactivation systems in mines, and supporting it with treaties restricting the sale and manufacture of dumb mines. That may have some effect as it will mean the more modern type mines will be the ones openly sold.
But a blanket ban just leads to those who won't follow it making their own, or buying them under the table. And guess what. Those won't be self deactivating because dumb mines are dirt cheap to make once you've spent the money to set up a production line.
So, are you for something that might reduce the problem? Or are you for something that probably won't, but will let some people/countries say "it's not my fault"?
Wegener's idea of continental drift was correct, but he didn't have a good mechanism for how these continents could plow through oceanic crust to move. That takes a massive force, and there wasn't enough energy to do it.
Later it was realized the continents were relatively light and floated atop moving plates. That provided a mechanism where the internal heat engine of the earth could provide enough energy to make them move.
It wasn't just stodginess that kept Wegener's idea from being accepted. It was also real physical objections. Until the 50s/60s and the discovery of seafloor spreading from the patterns of magnetisation in the seabed, the dynamics just didn't work out.
Now, in hindsight, it's "obvious". But it certainly wasn't at the time. The matching of geological features was intriguing, but without a mechanism for the continents moving, it couldn't overcome the objections.
"selling land mines has no legitimate military purpose."
Nonsense. If I'm defending a fixed position, I want a line of mines in front of me. Why? So it's harder for any attackers to overrun us, and kill not only us but whoever/whatever we're trying to protect. Mines are very effective for that.
They have absolutely legitimate military use. The problem is when they're left behind and kill civilians. Or worse, when a regime plants them throughout farm fields so they can't be worked as a way to cause starvation.
Just because you can be a bastard with them doesn't mean there aren't situations where they are needed.
If you want to put in time links so they deactivate in case they are missed when picking them up, great. I agree with that. You want to restrict who they are sold to and have monitoring of use? Ok.
But, if I were the Libyan rebels facing Qadafi's forces in tanks coming to take back my town, I would have wanted antitiank mines so that they could be stopped before they killed everyone.
Now, if you take the position that all soldiers, rebels or fighters should be dead, that's a whole other story. (Or if you think that defending a city or a refuge camp or other civilian installation is of no positive value) . That I can't argue with as it's a matter of faith.