I keep expecting Jar-Jar to show up in the US senate, and sponsor a bill to destroy the last of the republic in the name of safety...It would probably have a nice touchy-feely name, perhaps called something like the Patriot Act...er um nm, we seem to have enough jar jars there already.
First off, the general principles behind a nuclear weapon are NOT complicated. Nor are many biological or chemical weapons. Just get some basic chemistry knowledge and you could probably brew some VERY nasty stuff at home.
So should we tag everyone with any knowledge of chemistry or biology?
Also, I believe the founding fathers would disagree with you regarding the control of knowledge. Most of the guns they used to overthrow the British, (which was by the way a TERRORIST action against established authority) were made locally because people in the colonies had the knowledge of gunsmithing.
The original intent of our federal system was not set up to play nanny, and it is a shame people today have come to expect that.
I am amused by your statement "What is right, does not always coincide with what you (or a group of people) want."
In your mind, Who determines what is right? Is it just a majority of people, or something else? If the majority of people here decide slavery is once again acceptable would that make it right in your mind?
I will close with this:
"Anyone that gives up liberty for saftey deserves neither..." Ben Franklin
It seems in today's society most people think almost everything their neighbor does infringes on their rights. All the hot button issues such as gay marriage, drug use, protesting the war, etc. Not to mention inane things like painting your house an un-approved color.
"Infringes" to me means I do physical harm to you or your property. Thus, I would say you can use all the drugs you want, just dont get behind the wheel. Either we realize that freedom means leave your neighbor alone, even if he makes choices you dont agree with, or we live in an orwellian world where public opinion is dictated from on high, and independant thought is no longer allowed. The pendulum swings back and forth between these extremes, and I would rather live in the former than the latter world.
First, ALL information is possibly dangerous. It depends on the use not the information itself. It is the same with anything else, it is intent that determines the outcome. I.E. I cannot take a knife on a plane because it is dangerous. However I CAN take a ball point pen on board. The problem is, you can kill someone with a ball point if you use it as a stabbing weapon. So do we ban ball points? What about shoe laces, belts, or the plastic silverware from the on board meals? Each of these could be dangerous if misused. IMO it is all PERCEPTION (a blade is dangerous and a pen is not) that governs these silly types of rules.
As for "anti-social" behaviours, so what? are you saying punish people for having mohawks?
I would sum it up with a simple rule, do whatever the heck you want, as long as you do not infringe upon anothers ability to do the same.
"In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary"???
I was with him till this sentence. The control of culture is sometimes necessary???
I for one do not welcome our new Brittany spears-Clearchannel-Fox news overlords....
As for the control of information, that imo is a red-herring too. In a "free" society, there should be no control of information as the free flow of information is crucial to an informed citizenry, and thus to civilian oversight of governmental deeds and misdeeds.
Congratulations, you are now considered a terrorist with these remarks. An unmarked van will shortly be coming to your home, to give you an all expenses paid vacation at a secure and undisclosed location. You will never have to work again. (At least until the "Arbeit macht frei" slogans appear at your re-education resort)
I hate the way the government has perverted the interstate commerce clause. To my mind that has been the biggest erosion of rights this country has ever had. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand the intent of the clause, "to regulate commerce between the states". Now it has become a catch-all for any federal law, and a judicial test is no longer required.
I would say this "mutant" gene has probably been around since the hunter gatherer stage. I would also think that it has been deselected by the advent of agriculture.
According to many studies, so called "primitive" man was actually better fed, and had more lesiure time etc than those at the beginning of agriculture.
The driving force making agriculture a more viable option was probably the rise in population. With a relatively small amount of people on the planet, an HG lifestye is viable as there is plenty of game. However as the # of humans increase the pressure on foodstocks would increase almost geometrically. This would drive human activity towards a method of making food supply predictable (even if the overall diet became less nutritious). If we were like other predators, we would have gone through the feast famine cycle, and probably stayed roughly the same in terms of population (roughly 8 million or so). Because of our brain and tool making abilites, we found a another way out, to manipulate the enviornment to suit our needs.
Perhaps he meant the 20's were the peak of our country in terms of a FREE democracy?
IMO our democracy is running on fumes. The country is fine, and will continue to be so, but as an EMPIRE, not a true Republic.
As for the "In conclusion if you aren't happy you were born here," line, I'm sure the British could've used the same line on our founding fathers.
You may not understand it, but as an american citizen, you not only have the right, but the DUTY to criticize the government when you think it has gone wrong. The founding fathers knew the government would grow in power, and begin to abuse it. They expected the citizens to try to keep it in check. They also knew we would fail at some point, and the whole cycle would begin again. That is history. Read "The decline and fall of the roman empire" and see how well it compares to us today.....
"When people can police themselves then they are responsible enough to not need a large government."
Let's take a look at this shall we?
Assume you care for a small child. Now because you don't want him to hurt himself, or get sick etc. You decide to keep him inside the house, for his "own good". Assuming the house does not burn down, and you supply him with food etc. He will not probably hurt himself as he grows up.
Now consider you wait until he's 18 and then say okay you are grown up now you can go outside.... Chances are the first time he goes out it will scare the crap out of him and he will not do it again. Thus the system of "safety and security" is the only acceptable world he can live in.
IMO this is the world we are moving towards, where personal responsiblity is minimized or discounted, and everything is considered "not my fault". People cannot and will not learn to be independent in this type of environment.
Imagine if that nutcase with the gun didn't just have it on the plane, but took it with him off the plane...
Whatever would you do if he had access to a gun, and lived NEXT DOOR??? I mean he might decide to just start shooting is neighbors! Boy oh Boy, The Dept of Half-assed security better find some sort of terrorist exemption to run around and pick all these gun-loving potential terrorists up!
Interesting idea, but from looking at blood type distribution it does not seem to closely related to differing areas of the world. The blood types seem to be rather evenly spread.
My thinking is that the prehistoric people regardless of blood type would have all had to survive on the available local foods. I would think that the lack of choice, i.e. "rabbit or nothing" would have killed off those in the region incapable or less well suited to digesting most of the local quisine.
The question for me is are there other genetic predispositions like lactose tolerance (although to a lesser degree) which would allow some to make better use of certain types of food than others?
"I'd venture to guess we have a lot more junk DNA that needs to exit (eg, propensity to develop diabetes if not on a hunter/gatherer diet) than we have need to reactivate old junk DNA."
I was struck by this as it is connected with something I have been thinking about for awhile. Namely the impact of Race and DNA on diet.
We know that issues such as lactose intolerance are regional:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001681.html
I would suspect that tolerance of other foods are as well, given the differing availabilty of food around the world. With the above, it surprises me that instead of things like Atkins, there is not a more racial approach to diet. I.E. A "northern european" diet heavier on dairy, an asian diet heavier on fish etc.
You are right, but not in the way you mean.
If we really cared about "winning" the war on terror, we would change our foreign policies
which are blatantly imperialist, pro-corporation
and in some cases racist.
We are not seen as neutral in the arab world when it comes to Israel vs Palestine.
Another thing is the CIA needs to stop training
insurgentsin other countries. They seem to come back and biteus.
So by your argument, all Humans except those in africa should be culled....
I hate the "not native" argument. Life grows, expands, adapts and dies out all the time.
What if they had come across to the island on a log? Are they native because they made it on their own? Or do we simply look at the world as it was when we started recording history and decide that is how the world was, is and always should be?
All they would need is a Carbon-based nanomachine that self replicates. Drop it in country, and guess what? All carbon based items, people, livestock, food, etc. dissolve. The only question IMO is WHEN not IF someone develops it.
but both of those IMO are different for a couple of reasons.
Both the MPAA and RIAA deal in what is essentially information, which although produced in a phyiscal form lends itself to be copied and mass produced cheaply and easily. IMO we have the current movie/music problem precisely because they did not anticipate the growth of technology that would enable these things to happen.
Consumer goods on the other hand are not easy to replicate. You may argue that mass produced consumer goods can be made cheaply, but they cannot be copied by me at home at the present time. This ability would render the current centralized system of production obsolete and put most working class people out of a job. Not to mention making most corporations worthless, and their stockholders poor. Now if you as a monied individual see a technology as disruptive as this one, what are you going to do? Scream at your congress-critter who (more than likely also has money and investments) has a vested interest in keeping you happy. Thus restrictions on the technology to approved corporations and government centers only.
I can only hope that the same short sightedness will apply to an invention such as this. I do not think it will happen though short of a major change in our economic and political system.
I mean two machines. Now I can give the second to anyone I please and they can do the same. Thus the orignial maker makes no profit or almost none unless he cripples the orignial machine so it will not copy itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Reality follows art.
I keep expecting Jar-Jar to show up in the US senate, and sponsor a bill to destroy the last
of the republic in the name of safety...It would probably have a nice touchy-feely name, perhaps
called something like the Patriot Act...er um nm, we seem to have enough jar jars there already.
First off, the general principles behind a nuclear weapon are NOT complicated. Nor are many biological or chemical weapons. Just get some basic chemistry knowledge and you could probably brew some VERY nasty stuff at home.
:
So should we tag everyone with any knowledge of chemistry or biology?
Also, I believe the founding fathers would disagree with you regarding the control of knowledge. Most of the guns they used to overthrow the British, (which was by the way a TERRORIST action against established authority) were made locally because people in the colonies had the knowledge of gunsmithing.
The original intent of our federal system was not set up to play nanny, and it is a shame people today have come to expect that.
I am amused by your statement "What is right, does not always coincide with what you (or a group of people) want."
In your mind, Who determines what is right? Is it just a majority of people, or something else?
If the majority of people here decide slavery is once again acceptable would that make it right in your mind?
I will close with this
"Anyone that gives up liberty for saftey deserves neither..." Ben Franklin
It seems in today's society most people think almost everything their neighbor does infringes on their rights. All the hot button issues such as gay marriage, drug use, protesting the war, etc. Not to mention inane things like painting your house an un-approved color.
"Infringes" to me means I do physical harm to you or your property. Thus, I would say you can use all the drugs you want, just dont get behind the wheel. Either we realize that freedom means leave your neighbor alone, even if he makes choices you dont agree with, or we live in an orwellian world where public opinion is dictated from on high, and independant thought is no longer allowed. The pendulum swings back and forth
between these extremes, and I would rather live in the former than the latter world.
First, ALL information is possibly dangerous. It depends on the use not the information itself. It is the same with anything else, it is intent that determines the outcome. I.E. I cannot take a knife on a plane because it is dangerous. However I CAN take a ball point pen on board. The problem is, you can kill someone with a ball point if you use it as a stabbing weapon. So do we ban ball points? What about shoe laces, belts, or the plastic silverware from the on board meals? Each of these could be dangerous if misused. IMO it is all PERCEPTION (a blade is dangerous and a pen is not) that governs these silly types of rules.
As for "anti-social" behaviours, so what? are you saying punish people for having mohawks?
I would sum it up with a simple rule, do whatever the heck you want, as long as you do not infringe upon anothers ability to do the same.
"In the end, Siva's moderation is demonstrated as he concludes that there are seldom easy answers in a world where control of information and culture is sometimes necessary"???
I was with him till this sentence. The control of culture is sometimes necessary???
I for one do not welcome our new Brittany spears-Clearchannel-Fox news overlords....
As for the control of information, that imo is a red-herring too. In a "free" society, there should be no control of information as the free flow of information is crucial to an informed citizenry, and thus to civilian oversight of governmental deeds and misdeeds.
"America's days as a viable nation are numbered"
Congratulations, you are now considered a terrorist with these remarks. An unmarked van will shortly be coming to your home, to give you an all expenses paid vacation at a secure and undisclosed location. You will never have to work again. (At least until the "Arbeit macht frei" slogans appear at your re-education resort)
I hate the way the government has perverted the interstate commerce clause. To my mind that has been the biggest erosion of rights this country has ever had. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to understand the intent of the clause, "to regulate commerce between the states". Now it has become a catch-all for any federal law, and a judicial test is no longer required.
I would say this "mutant" gene has probably been around since the hunter gatherer stage. I would also think that it has been deselected by the advent of agriculture.
According to many studies, so called "primitive" man was actually better fed, and had more lesiure time etc than those at the beginning of agriculture.
The driving force making agriculture a more viable option was probably the rise in population. With a relatively small amount of people on the planet, an HG lifestye is viable as there is plenty of game. However as the # of humans increase the pressure on foodstocks would increase almost geometrically. This would drive human activity towards a method of making food supply predictable (even if the overall diet became less nutritious). If we were like other predators, we would have gone through the feast famine cycle, and probably stayed roughly the same in terms of population (roughly 8 million or so). Because of our brain and tool making abilites, we found a another way out, to manipulate the enviornment to suit our needs.
You know that chimpanzees hunt?
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html
We may not have been hunting the bigger animals, but I am sure we were hunting the small things because we did not need claws etc to get them.
Perhaps he meant the 20's were the peak of our country in terms of a FREE democracy?
IMO our democracy is running on fumes. The country is fine, and will continue to be so, but as an EMPIRE, not a true Republic.
As for the "In conclusion if you aren't happy you were born here," line, I'm sure the British could've used the same line on our founding fathers.
You may not understand it, but as an american citizen, you not only have the right, but the DUTY to criticize the government when you think it has gone wrong. The founding fathers knew the government would grow in power, and begin to abuse it. They expected the citizens to try to keep it in check. They also knew we would fail at some point, and the whole cycle would begin again. That is history. Read "The decline and fall of the roman empire" and see how well it compares to us today.....
"When people can police themselves then they are responsible enough to not need a large government."
Let's take a look at this shall we?
Assume you care for a small child. Now because you don't want him to hurt himself, or get sick etc. You decide to keep him inside the house, for his "own good".
Assuming the house does not burn down, and you supply him with food etc. He will not probably hurt himself as he grows up.
Now consider you wait until he's 18 and then say okay you are grown up now you can go outside.... Chances are the first time he goes out it will scare the crap out of him and he will not do it again. Thus the system of "safety and security" is the only acceptable world he can live in.
IMO this is the world we are moving towards, where personal responsiblity is minimized or discounted, and everything is considered "not my fault". People cannot and will not learn to be independent in this type of environment.
Guns on the plane? Thats just terrible!
Imagine if that nutcase with the gun didn't just have it on the plane, but took it with him off the plane...
Whatever would you do if he had access to a gun, and lived NEXT DOOR??? I mean he might decide to just start shooting is neighbors! Boy oh Boy, The Dept of Half-assed security better find some sort of terrorist exemption to run around and pick all these gun-loving potential terrorists up!
I don't kno...AHHHHHHHHH!
If only we had STARTED with Grendel clusters.... ;-)
I suppose we could call them Gilgamesh Clusters instead.
I hereby recommend when Quantum clusters come out we call them :
Grendel Clusters!
Obscure joke I know but hey, I'm a geek....
Interesting idea, but from looking at blood type distribution it does not seem to closely related to differing areas of the world. The blood types seem to be rather evenly spread.
My thinking is that the prehistoric people regardless of blood type would have all had to survive on the available local foods. I would think that the lack of choice, i.e. "rabbit or nothing" would have killed off those in the region incapable or less well suited to digesting most of the local quisine.
The question for me is are there other genetic predispositions like lactose tolerance (although to a lesser degree) which would allow some to make better use of certain types of food than others?
"I'd venture to guess we have a lot more junk DNA that needs to exit (eg, propensity to develop diabetes if not on a hunter/gatherer diet) than we have need to reactivate old junk DNA."
:
I was struck by this as it is connected with something I have been thinking about for awhile.
Namely the impact of Race and DNA on diet.
We know that issues such as lactose intolerance are regional
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001681.html
I would suspect that tolerance of other foods are as well, given the differing availabilty of food around the world. With the above, it surprises me that instead of things like Atkins, there is not a more racial approach to diet. I.E. A "northern european" diet heavier on dairy, an asian diet heavier on fish etc.
As in : "The database will be down temporarily while I shizzle the records.."?
Or "That kitty cat screensaver you installed shizzled your computer..."
I can see it now,
Windows Advanced Server 2008 : "Who do you want to Shizzle today?"
I highly suggest either :
1.Tai Chi
2.Kendo (Samurai swordsmanship)
both are very good at clearing the mind.
Too bad we cant capture it and put it in a lagrange point.
Makes more sense to do it that way than shuttle all the crap up from earth....
So by your argument, all Humans except those in africa should be culled....
I hate the "not native" argument. Life grows, expands, adapts and dies out all the time.
What if they had come across to the island on a log? Are they native because they made it on their own? Or do we simply look at the world as it was when we started recording history and decide that is how the world was, is and always should be?
All they would need is a Carbon-based nanomachine that self replicates. Drop it in country, and guess what? All carbon based items, people, livestock, food, etc. dissolve. The only question IMO is WHEN not IF someone develops it.
but both of those IMO are different for a couple of reasons.
Both the MPAA and RIAA deal in what is essentially information, which although produced in a phyiscal form lends itself to be copied and mass produced cheaply and easily. IMO we have the current movie/music problem precisely because they did not anticipate the growth of technology that would enable these things to happen.
Consumer goods on the other hand are not easy to replicate. You may argue that mass produced consumer goods can be made cheaply, but they cannot be copied by me at home at the present time. This ability would render the current centralized system of production obsolete and put most working class people out of a job.
Not to mention making most corporations worthless, and their stockholders poor. Now if you as a monied individual see a technology as disruptive as this one, what are you going to do? Scream at your congress-critter who (more than likely also has money and investments) has a vested interest in keeping you happy. Thus restrictions on the technology to approved corporations and government centers only.
I can only hope that the same short sightedness will apply to an invention such as this. I do not think it will happen though short of a major change in our economic and political system.
I mean two machines. Now I can give the second
to anyone I please and they can do the same.
Thus the orignial maker makes no profit or
almost none unless he cripples the orignial
machine so it will not copy itself.