My experience is that the things in my past there were difficult to deal with then become less and less important to me as I become better and better equipped to deal with such things. At this point the only real worries I have are about giving my life meaning and things at that level. It's not pondering terrible things in my past or that might happen.
It's all hypothetical to her because there isn't actually an option to not age. It's a whole different ballgame when someone comes up to you and tells you "do you want to take this pill and never age, or do you want to grow increasingly decrepit and infirm of mind until one day not too far in the future you'll die without knowing who you are?" We might even offer to kill her when her natural life is up, except she was in great health until then, but I think that when the time comes, she'll say "not right now, ask me again in a while" and so on. Because there is no such option, the choice is instead "would you like to desperately want something that's impossible?" and then the answer is different. Except, of course, that now with modern science we can make it possible and the sooner people get over this impossibility-trance, the sooner it'll happen.
China has a one-child policy, I'd be happy to give up having more than one child for immortality. If every pair has only 1 child, that means the next generation will be only half as big, and the one after that a quarter as big and so on. If you do the math, the end population of this process is that there will never be more than double the amount of people there are today. Oh, and of course people will still die, just not from aging. It doesn't have to be any great issue.
Not by this method unless you are saying the organizations whose secrets are exposed are actually wanting those secrets to be exposed. In that case I think there would be easier ways to go about it.
If a company or state or individual is engaging in sufficiently egregious unethical practices, then that entity loses its right to keep its secrets. If a friend comes to me to tell me a secret, I'll keep it. Except, if it's about how he is going to kill 100 babies, I won't and I shouldn't. You're a troll anyway, so not that it much matters, but I felt like pointing that out.
From what I hear, they routinely verify information by asking the organization who's secret it is whether the documents are genuine. If they get an irate demand to turn over these documents based on them being owned by that organization, they know it's real.
There is no problem in consuming lots of bacteria - as you point out, if that were the problem, we would all be dead long ago. The problem is in consuming a little of the wrong kind of bacteria. So that bacteria is everywhere is irrelevant, what matters is what kind of bacteria is where. It may be that keeping your toothbrush in the open in your bathroom is a fine idea, but saying that it already has bacteria on it of the general kind that shit contains is not relevant to the matter. It is the specific type of bacteria that matters. This is also why any claims of the sort "more bacteria at place X than Y" are uninteresting.
That may be a good deal for the US if their budget is larger than the other side's. If their budget is 10x, then actions of destroying y enemy resources at 9y cost will still win them the war.
I'm reminded of an exchange from the TV series "yes, minister" (from memory):
politician: The people are infuriated by these policies! aide: Not at all. They are only infuriated by finding out about it. politician: I'm not so sure about that. aide: Until the secret broke, there were no complaints. politician: Oh, I see.
In such a situation perhaps the problem is the conduct that was exposed rather than the fact of it having been exposed. Though yes, it does depend on the nature of the material. Still, it's hard to think that Wikileaks is more capable of obtaining such information than the main enemies of the US are. So the people getting informed by an event such as this is not the enemies of the US but rather the US and world population. If every politician knows that his secrets may be exposed at any time, perhaps that is not so bad. Privacy is for the private sphere, it is not for what goes on when power is wielded, even if the people in power by definition have both the interest and power to make it the other way around. So all else equal, government leaks are good and illegal wiretaps are bad.
Wouldn't it be easier to list the things not offensive to feminists? There can't be that many bra-burning-like activities. Consider it a form of data compression.
Most mens' mid life crises with the sports cars and such have nothing to do with denying the man's own age. It has to do with being acutely aware of the age of same-age women, hence the 20-something girlfriends. The other behavior is an attempt at attracting those.
Regardless, I don't think the TSA could hire enough people with those skills to handle the much larger (than Israel) air traffic that wanders through the US.
They'd just do it the way they are now - hire whomever is willing to do the job. The result would do little to help security, just like now. The better option is to just accept that planes will blow up once in a while just like people die in car accidents once in a while or are otherwise killed once in a while. Only start with these ridiculous measures when your security situation is as dire as that of Israel - even then it may not be worth it.
It becomes impossible to enforce it against everyone, but it becomes perfectly possible to enforce it against just those people someone in power doesn't like.
If your description of the situation is accurate, I agree that your use of the phrase is accurate. I thought you were a republican American since you were adopting their latest rhetoric, and I was curious to see how such a person would explain that rhetoric since it doesn't seem to make sense to me in the way they use it.
Why do you think that god awful ACTRA treaty is being pushed down everyone else's throats?
Is "pushing down everyone throats" the new American general-purpose substitute for "I disagree with this proposal" or does it have meaning beyond that?
Slashdot Mirror
My experience is that the things in my past there were difficult to deal with then become less and less important to me as I become better and better equipped to deal with such things. At this point the only real worries I have are about giving my life meaning and things at that level. It's not pondering terrible things in my past or that might happen.
It's all hypothetical to her because there isn't actually an option to not age. It's a whole different ballgame when someone comes up to you and tells you "do you want to take this pill and never age, or do you want to grow increasingly decrepit and infirm of mind until one day not too far in the future you'll die without knowing who you are?" We might even offer to kill her when her natural life is up, except she was in great health until then, but I think that when the time comes, she'll say "not right now, ask me again in a while" and so on. Because there is no such option, the choice is instead "would you like to desperately want something that's impossible?" and then the answer is different. Except, of course, that now with modern science we can make it possible and the sooner people get over this impossibility-trance, the sooner it'll happen.
China has a one-child policy, I'd be happy to give up having more than one child for immortality. If every pair has only 1 child, that means the next generation will be only half as big, and the one after that a quarter as big and so on. If you do the math, the end population of this process is that there will never be more than double the amount of people there are today. Oh, and of course people will still die, just not from aging. It doesn't have to be any great issue.
Let's put it differently: there's a bunch of us who want to live until we choose not to. Be that tomorrow or a million years from now.
That wouldn't work at all. Wikileaks is not Julian Assange and will continue to work just fine without him.
Like the US under Bush?
Yes, chairman, we will harmonize this affront immediately!
Much like a police investigator investigating the mafia.
True and irrelevant to the post you are responding to.
Not by this method unless you are saying the organizations whose secrets are exposed are actually wanting those secrets to be exposed. In that case I think there would be easier ways to go about it.
If a company or state or individual is engaging in sufficiently egregious unethical practices, then that entity loses its right to keep its secrets. If a friend comes to me to tell me a secret, I'll keep it. Except, if it's about how he is going to kill 100 babies, I won't and I shouldn't. You're a troll anyway, so not that it much matters, but I felt like pointing that out.
From what I hear, they routinely verify information by asking the organization who's secret it is whether the documents are genuine. If they get an irate demand to turn over these documents based on them being owned by that organization, they know it's real.
Gee, thanks.
:)
Oh yes, that was clearly sarcasm. Don't make it as obvious next time.
Maybe the "bullets" propel themselves like a rocket. It's already got a chip in it.
There is no problem in consuming lots of bacteria - as you point out, if that were the problem, we would all be dead long ago. The problem is in consuming a little of the wrong kind of bacteria. So that bacteria is everywhere is irrelevant, what matters is what kind of bacteria is where. It may be that keeping your toothbrush in the open in your bathroom is a fine idea, but saying that it already has bacteria on it of the general kind that shit contains is not relevant to the matter. It is the specific type of bacteria that matters. This is also why any claims of the sort "more bacteria at place X than Y" are uninteresting.
That may be a good deal for the US if their budget is larger than the other side's. If their budget is 10x, then actions of destroying y enemy resources at 9y cost will still win them the war.
I'm reminded of an exchange from the TV series "yes, minister" (from memory):
politician: The people are infuriated by these policies!
aide: Not at all. They are only infuriated by finding out about it.
politician: I'm not so sure about that.
aide: Until the secret broke, there were no complaints.
politician: Oh, I see.
In such a situation perhaps the problem is the conduct that was exposed rather than the fact of it having been exposed. Though yes, it does depend on the nature of the material. Still, it's hard to think that Wikileaks is more capable of obtaining such information than the main enemies of the US are. So the people getting informed by an event such as this is not the enemies of the US but rather the US and world population. If every politician knows that his secrets may be exposed at any time, perhaps that is not so bad. Privacy is for the private sphere, it is not for what goes on when power is wielded, even if the people in power by definition have both the interest and power to make it the other way around. So all else equal, government leaks are good and illegal wiretaps are bad.
As a [...] feminist [...] I find that offensive.
Wouldn't it be easier to list the things not offensive to feminists? There can't be that many bra-burning-like activities. Consider it a form of data compression.
Most mens' mid life crises with the sports cars and such have nothing to do with denying the man's own age. It has to do with being acutely aware of the age of same-age women, hence the 20-something girlfriends. The other behavior is an attempt at attracting those.
Because dogs are less invasive they don't signal that "something is being done". Actual security does not seem to be the goal here.
Regardless, I don't think the TSA could hire enough people with those skills to handle the much larger (than Israel) air traffic that wanders through the US.
They'd just do it the way they are now - hire whomever is willing to do the job. The result would do little to help security, just like now. The better option is to just accept that planes will blow up once in a while just like people die in car accidents once in a while or are otherwise killed once in a while. Only start with these ridiculous measures when your security situation is as dire as that of Israel - even then it may not be worth it.
It becomes impossible to enforce it against everyone, but it becomes perfectly possible to enforce it against just those people someone in power doesn't like.
If your description of the situation is accurate, I agree that your use of the phrase is accurate. I thought you were a republican American since you were adopting their latest rhetoric, and I was curious to see how such a person would explain that rhetoric since it doesn't seem to make sense to me in the way they use it.
Why do you think that god awful ACTRA treaty is being pushed down everyone else's throats?
Is "pushing down everyone throats" the new American general-purpose substitute for "I disagree with this proposal" or does it have meaning beyond that?