I agree about the screwed up farming subsidies re: ethanol, and the price of wheat has certainly risen sharply since the middle of last year, but I don't see evidence for the fx markets having much to do with it.
Supposedly, now that the US mortgage bubble popped, hedge funds are moving into areas that result in a similarly inflated price for foodstuffs.
this isn't about getting information. It's about keeping army's hands busy with porn... they loose porn, they eventually get off the barracks and pacify people.
I know you were mostly wisecracking, but FWIW some analysts are saying the the military is deliberately staying neutral, viewing their role in the national psyche as more important than Mubarak's tenure. So (according to what I've read) they did occupy some critical sites, but didn't try to quash the rebellion.
Greaaaat. Has anyone seen the kind of candidates the Libertarians have fielded lately? Barr spent his political career fighting against Libertarian positions until he suddenly switched after he left power, and Badnarik basically promised to institute an authoritarian dictatorship.
These days most Libertarians are just Republicans without the pretense of moral superiority.
I've long had a theory about that. Suppose you include polling information as well. If the polls say that 60% are voting for candidate A, with a 5% margin of error - why vote for either of the big two candidates? Then you certainly ARE wasting your vote, by piling on unnecessarily where your vote is not needed.
That's the strategy I use: if there is a real contest for my representative, I vote for the one that stands a chance who is least dangerous. If the outcome is a foregone conclusion, I vote in a way that sends a message.
how is this better? You are basically going with the lowest common denominator and thus encouraging voters to select other candidates whom they don't really like just to cover their ass that the one they *really* hate doesn't have a chance.
So maybe "lowest common denominator" is better than "lower than the lowest common denominator", which seems to be a real and increasing risk these days.
This emeritus professor is leaning pretty heavily toward nature in the nature vs. nurture debate. What effect will social conditioning have on the expression of such a gene, if it does in fact exist?
The most overwhelmingly obvious observation to be made about religion is that it is socially transmitted. No one wakes up one morning and decides they are (say) a Catholic, without having been exposed to Catholicism. Ditto for any other flavor.
Presumably even the most devout religionist will acknowledge that all the competing brands are just something someone made up. The interesting question is why our species is so inclined toward making such things up. And why people are so eager to go along with something that someone else made up.
Religion persists only because people have an use for it. But that's steadily disappearing.
The powerful and would-be powerful will always have a use for it.
I suspect that Marx's comment about religion, opium, and masses was not so much a comment about religion per se, as it was a comment about how rulers use it to manipulate people.
Supposedly lots of rulers have said the same thing in different words, e.g. I've seen Napoleon paraphrased as saying "Religion is great stuff for controlling the populace".
Look at how many cynical politicians in the "enlightened" USA use religion to turn out voters to support them.
"An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack."
Am I the only one who wonders what that kind of system is doing connected to the internet in the first place? Seems to me that if you want to protect infrastructure, the easiest and most sensible thing to do would be to unplug the ethernet cable.
Also, how are they going to know that the attack is imminent? Like, before they hear the rushing water?
It's also unconstitutional. I can not lay my hand on any power given to the Union Congress which allows them to shutdown the mail or the newspapers
Yeah, but those are mostly owned by the same corporations that own Congress, so they're easy enough to keep on message. But the internet still lets those scary citizens have their voices heard.
It doesn't stand a chance. All it needs is for one person to compare a sponsor of this bill to Mubarak and it should be dead in the water. You can't bring something like this up right after all this tumult.
Maybe it's a cleverly timed proposal by someone who doesn't think we should have one.
I can't see any reasonable purpose for a government being able to shut down internet access in broad swathes; any internet "emergency" could (and would) realistically be handled quite well by the array of network providers involved in standing up the internet. Otherwise botnets would have killed us all long ago.
The only substantial threat to the internet is censorship (whether by governments or corporations).
Besides, we've already seen that our telecoms are all too eager to help the government with illegal spying upon the citizenry during an "emergency". What makes anyone think they would hesitate to pull the plug at that same government's behest?
The funny thing is that I thought academics would lean towards the free will argument, but I guess sometimes they take "there must be an explanation for everything" too far and convince themselves that human behaviour is easily explained with statistical models with ridiculously weak premises.
So... how would you detect free will, if it does exist?
AND the Wheel of Time will end next year. If we find out that GNU Hurd is about to be released, I think Slashdot might spontaneously implode for lack of stalling jokes.
Slashdot Mirror
My source [wikipedia.org] makes no mention of the cause priority, so I picked a few at random. I apologize if my statement's in error
FWIW, some of the net media is saying exactly what you said.
But undoubtedly, everybody and their dog is trying to spin this to support their views.
I agree about the screwed up farming subsidies re: ethanol, and the price of wheat has certainly risen sharply since the middle of last year, but I don't see evidence for the fx markets having much to do with it.
Supposedly, now that the US mortgage bubble popped, hedge funds are moving into areas that result in a similarly inflated price for foodstuffs.
this isn't about getting information. It's about keeping army's hands busy with porn ... they loose porn, they eventually get off the barracks and pacify people.
I know you were mostly wisecracking, but FWIW some analysts are saying the the military is deliberately staying neutral, viewing their role in the national psyche as more important than Mubarak's tenure. So (according to what I've read) they did occupy some critical sites, but didn't try to quash the rebellion.
Is a kilogram in terms of fractions of an elephant please?
I dunno... how much does an 'elephant please' weigh?
Why don't they just take the weight of a gram and multiply it by 1024?
Greaaaat. Has anyone seen the kind of candidates the Libertarians have fielded lately? Barr spent his political career fighting against Libertarian positions until he suddenly switched after he left power, and Badnarik basically promised to institute an authoritarian dictatorship.
These days most Libertarians are just Republicans without the pretense of moral superiority.
I've long had a theory about that. Suppose you include polling information as well. If the polls say that 60% are voting for candidate A, with a 5% margin of error - why vote for either of the big two candidates? Then you certainly ARE wasting your vote, by piling on unnecessarily where your vote is not needed.
That's the strategy I use: if there is a real contest for my representative, I vote for the one that stands a chance who is least dangerous. If the outcome is a foregone conclusion, I vote in a way that sends a message.
how is this better? You are basically going with the lowest common denominator and thus encouraging voters to select other candidates whom they don't really like just to cover their ass that the one they *really* hate doesn't have a chance.
So maybe "lowest common denominator" is better than "lower than the lowest common denominator", which seems to be a real and increasing risk these days.
And I almost expected this Congress to be a little different. Oh well.
You did? Why?
This emeritus professor is leaning pretty heavily toward nature in the nature vs. nurture debate. What effect will social conditioning have on the expression of such a gene, if it does in fact exist?
The most overwhelmingly obvious observation to be made about religion is that it is socially transmitted. No one wakes up one morning and decides they are (say) a Catholic, without having been exposed to Catholicism. Ditto for any other flavor.
Presumably even the most devout religionist will acknowledge that all the competing brands are just something someone made up. The interesting question is why our species is so inclined toward making such things up. And why people are so eager to go along with something that someone else made up.
I've always suspected that a species will evolve intelligence and then devolve into lawyers and politicians.
A plausible explanation for the Fermi Paradox...
Religion persists only because people have an use for it. But that's steadily disappearing.
The powerful and would-be powerful will always have a use for it.
I suspect that Marx's comment about religion, opium, and masses was not so much a comment about religion per se, as it was a comment about how rulers use it to manipulate people.
Supposedly lots of rulers have said the same thing in different words, e.g. I've seen Napoleon paraphrased as saying "Religion is great stuff for controlling the populace".
Look at how many cynical politicians in the "enlightened" USA use religion to turn out voters to support them.
"An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack."
Am I the only one who wonders what that kind of system is doing connected to the internet in the first place? Seems to me that if you want to protect infrastructure, the easiest and most sensible thing to do would be to unplug the ethernet cable.
Also, how are they going to know that the attack is imminent? Like, before they hear the rushing water?
It's also unconstitutional. I can not lay my hand on any power given to the Union Congress which allows them to shutdown the mail or the newspapers
Yeah, but those are mostly owned by the same corporations that own Congress, so they're easy enough to keep on message. But the internet still lets those scary citizens have their voices heard.
It doesn't stand a chance. All it needs is for one person to compare a sponsor of this bill to Mubarak and it should be dead in the water. You can't bring something like this up right after all this tumult.
Maybe it's a cleverly timed proposal by someone who doesn't think we should have one.
Sarcasm aside, what would the BENEFIT of such a thing be?
a) Someone posts to Slashdot, pointing out that countries are being run for the benefit of the elite; global rioting results.
b) Politician gets in trouble, corporate-owned media politely decline to cover it, but voters find out about it on the innertube.
c) Terrists invent a code phrase that makes people's heads explode when they read it.
d) Solar system passes through a cloud of interstellar gas that makes people lose interest in porn, threatening global economic collapse.
e) Uhm, I'm really having trouble thinking of good excuses.
I can't see any reasonable purpose for a government being able to shut down internet access in broad swathes; any internet "emergency" could (and would) realistically be handled quite well by the array of network providers involved in standing up the internet. Otherwise botnets would have killed us all long ago.
The only substantial threat to the internet is censorship (whether by governments or corporations).
Besides, we've already seen that our telecoms are all too eager to help the government with illegal spying upon the citizenry during an "emergency". What makes anyone think they would hesitate to pull the plug at that same government's behest?
Damnit, beaten by 10 mins. That's what I get for researching a comment!
I bet you're the kind who takes the time to RTAF before posting, too.
Emeritus professors really have nothing else to do ?
I'm sure not every professor emeritus is whackadoodle, but the ones you hear about sure tend in that direction.
Can't they you know hunt down university girls and propose to "help improve their grades"
Then write a paper about how the Dirty Old Man gene is self-sustaining?
There is NO SUCH THING as a gene that dictates your behavior, preferences, or predisposition!
What's your favorite explanation for instinct?
(Assuming you believe such a thing exists.)
The funny thing is that I thought academics would lean towards the free will argument, but I guess sometimes they take "there must be an explanation for everything" too far and convince themselves that human behaviour is easily explained with statistical models with ridiculously weak premises.
So... how would you detect free will, if it does exist?
Still smell as sweet?
FWIW, I always thought that Shakespeare's observation, though technically correct, was a strange sentiment for a poet.
FWIW, some of the pundits were wondering aloud whether the Tunisian 'revolt' was going to spread throughout the region.
Correct. Cold fusion isn't a theoretical impossibility, like perpetual motion - it can, in princible, be done.
IANAPhysicist, but I'm pretty sure PM can't be done even in principle.
AND the Wheel of Time will end next year. If we find out that GNU Hurd is about to be released, I think Slashdot might spontaneously implode for lack of stalling jokes.
That's why the world has to end in 2012.