Because the US Constitution can't defend itself (it's a piece of paper)? In order for the Constitution to be protected, 50% + 1 of those under its hypothetical sway must want to defend it, and the various organs contained within. If more than that say to hell with it, we will do as we please, it has no capacity to rectify things.
It survives because it's a useful tool for indoctrination. Some people will go their entire lives believing the US Constitution has never not been upheld. Many others will call upon the rights and privileges contained therein in their hour of need, and find it was all an illusion (usually about the same time their right to vote, and thus change the system, has been removed). Some realize, early on, that it's all smoke and mirrors, and that it's all rule of law; act like what you're doing is Constitutional, and people will believe it, especially if they think it serves their own self-interests. Because of the confusion surrounding whether or the US Constitution is being upheld, and with the more liberal (read: open, generous) readings of it by one Supreme Court, your rulers act as they please.
Yeah, right. Because all those college students picking up their books for less, freeing them up to spend funds on car payments or rent isn't helping the local economy. Or because people can buy books that local booksellers aren't carrying, but are perfectly willing to sell you, for a higher price, after you spend $10 in gas to drive to their store, and pay for the book in advance.
Or people selling things, like CDs or pottery on Amazon, who derive some income from said operations.
Bro, you have a twisted view of what 'helping your local economy' is supposed to look like.
No. Contractions and expansions are part of standard market operations, and prolonging them or putting them off until later (with accrued interest, which is the little gotcha) will always make things worse.
Over time, those interest payments amount to a large amount of capital spent repaying loans, as opposed to investment in new opportunities.
Cloud means multiple redundant servers, on the internet, running virtual machines. Usually hooked up to some 'pay as you go' billing & provisioning system.
Never met anyone like that. Most people looked at my Trinitron screen, realized their eyes were not getting tired, and came to the conclusion that a more expensive screen does make a difference.
Agreed. I long for the days of my Sony Trinitron, which did >120 Hz easily. I think I had it around 160 Hz for a fair portion of its life...and yet, every upgrade to those video drivers dropped the supported frame rate, so 120ish sounds about right towards the end.
Desperately want to smack the sh*t out of everyone who thinks 120 Hz LCD screens are the hotness.
Because it's bullsh*t. And frankly, I am tired of explaining why, but for one last time, I will.
The human genome is rather fragile. For every person we kill, we cut off part of the evolutionary tree we might actually need. Why do you ask? Because the human population was too small in its inception. Too few members, too few to shuffle out the 'bad' genes. Only because we've not engaged in any large wars recently has the degradation of the human genome paused. If we start playing the game of who lives and who dies, we all end up inbred to the point where our future descendants will be eating their meals through a stomach tube. And yes, this is assuming we out-breed a lot. What you see with incest in three generations, you may see in a few dozen (mild exaggeration, but only mild).
Google the research on it, I am too tired to post a link.
We need everyone who is left on this tree, and a possibly a fair amount of genetic engineering to restore those lost branches. And I grant you, I despise this need more than you do; I hate the idea that things are possibly this fucked up.
Even a child's doll can be used as a lure for a trap.
Perhaps the problem, at its heart, is that we profess to know what is right and wrong, but have no f*cking clue. No one has really cracked THAT problem, to the degree that anyone else can easily understand and implement it. Many have tried, but I still see "evil."
Scientists need only keep in mind their original objective.
Think of a scientific discovery as a safe with something valuable inside. If you blow up the safe to get what's inside, the safe has won. It sours the discovery, and makes it harder to put the new-found discovery into use.
I'd vote for wormhole weapons, but that's me. Perhaps I've watched too much Farscape, but the idea of turning the Universe to Swiss Cheese if they are ever deployed does kind of win my vote.
Because it's the ultimate 'scorched earth' weapon? Random guess.
You've seen the effects of nukes. No soldier, no matter how brave / suicidal, wants to be caught in a nuclear firestorm.
And let's be honest, a country's policy for anyone who points a loaded weapon, no matter how right they may be, at one of their own, is to destroy them and their family. You've heard them say "We will not negotiate with terrorists," typically followed by them killing the 'terrorists' as soon as the hostages are clear, despite what has been agreed upon. Many people think this is a deterrent, that it will put fear in 'evil-doers' everywhere. In reality, it just means that terrorists will bring more powerful weapons next time, so you will have to make a choice between '1.5 million dead (city buster)' or negotiating.
Love reading up on this stuff, game theory, and what not. It's fascinating, watching the MAD doctrine evolve, time and again. Both sides believe that if they had just enough power, they could stop the other side permanently. And so they lie to each other, while rearming, and devising new strategies. Auto-Escalation, Predator / Prey Evolution. At some point, things will become so bad (probably already there), that people from a generation before will be incapable of telling who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys.
A few thousand will give you the raw materials you need for a respectable chemical weapon.
The knowledge to build it is a tad more expensive, state-side, priced at around $200,000 (bachelor's degree in chemistry).
The drive to build such a weapon is something that may or may not be available for money, and typically needs an added component (US troops shot up the chem major's parents, while raping his mom or something).
Well, more along the lines of other countries, and if necessary, hidden labs / boats in international waters. No Department of Defense is going to shutdown research into biological warfare, and with good reason -> they will probably need those results at some point, and it's the DoD's job to be (within reason, and then some) paranoid about national security. These are the people who have protocols, on the books, for every scenario they can think of, including, might I add, a chance meeting with extraterrestrials.
Nonsense. They typically have better (more evolved, dirty word, I know) ethics than the general populace.
"They seem to think "let's take the worst virus possible and make it even badder and then publish the results" is an okay line of thought to go down." -> And at no point did they say "Let's release it."
"Sometimes an adult needs to step in, slap down the geeks, and take away their toys." -> Why yes, we've seen how well that's worked. The "adults" tend to be politicians with scruples that...well, they don't have any. Which is why the geeks get to keep their toys, and the "adults," as well as the butterboobs who voted them in get to go sit in the time out corner. Because it's safer.
One need only go through most of the writings from various scientists to realize they worried and wrestled with many of the implications of their work. I doubt you will readily find such refined, and lengthy, writings among the general populace, let alone those who want the job of 'ethics counselor.'
Indeed. And even the ones who are not are considered fairly dangerous.
As a matter of fact, I have the names of some of the greatest terrorists the world has known. Their exploits are legendary, and their actions are said to have changed a nation: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson...
Slashdot Mirror
Do they contribute to said politicians' election campaigns?
Because the US Constitution can't defend itself (it's a piece of paper)? In order for the Constitution to be protected, 50% + 1 of those under its hypothetical sway must want to defend it, and the various organs contained within. If more than that say to hell with it, we will do as we please, it has no capacity to rectify things.
It survives because it's a useful tool for indoctrination. Some people will go their entire lives believing the US Constitution has never not been upheld. Many others will call upon the rights and privileges contained therein in their hour of need, and find it was all an illusion (usually about the same time their right to vote, and thus change the system, has been removed). Some realize, early on, that it's all smoke and mirrors, and that it's all rule of law; act like what you're doing is Constitutional, and people will believe it, especially if they think it serves their own self-interests. Because of the confusion surrounding whether or the US Constitution is being upheld, and with the more liberal (read: open, generous) readings of it by one Supreme Court, your rulers act as they please.
Indeed. The extra tax means I will not be spending money locally, but will more earnestly be looking abroad for people selling for much less.
Yeah, right. Because all those college students picking up their books for less, freeing them up to spend funds on car payments or rent isn't helping the local economy. Or because people can buy books that local booksellers aren't carrying, but are perfectly willing to sell you, for a higher price, after you spend $10 in gas to drive to their store, and pay for the book in advance.
Or people selling things, like CDs or pottery on Amazon, who derive some income from said operations.
Bro, you have a twisted view of what 'helping your local economy' is supposed to look like.
Sad, but true.
No. Contractions and expansions are part of standard market operations, and prolonging them or putting them off until later (with accrued interest, which is the little gotcha) will always make things worse.
Over time, those interest payments amount to a large amount of capital spent repaying loans, as opposed to investment in new opportunities.
That's what the California legislature thought as well...
Of course it is: the people still have some money left, and the government is in need of it.
I believe it's from the cult of the subgenius, or something to that effect. They explain the name on the site somewhere.
Slackware: the only distro of linux where it's always the user's fault.
No, no.
Cloud means multiple redundant servers, on the internet, running virtual machines. Usually hooked up to some 'pay as you go' billing & provisioning system.
Holy hell.
Slackware Linux, 13.37 CDROM set $ 49.95
Never met anyone like that. Most people looked at my Trinitron screen, realized their eyes were not getting tired, and came to the conclusion that a more expensive screen does make a difference.
Agreed. I long for the days of my Sony Trinitron, which did >120 Hz easily. I think I had it around 160 Hz for a fair portion of its life...and yet, every upgrade to those video drivers dropped the supported frame rate, so 120ish sounds about right towards the end.
Desperately want to smack the sh*t out of everyone who thinks 120 Hz LCD screens are the hotness.
Dude, the number of times, as a kid, that I started watching that movie, then turned it off when I saw it was black and white...
Because it's bullsh*t. And frankly, I am tired of explaining why, but for one last time, I will.
The human genome is rather fragile. For every person we kill, we cut off part of the evolutionary tree we might actually need. Why do you ask? Because the human population was too small in its inception. Too few members, too few to shuffle out the 'bad' genes. Only because we've not engaged in any large wars recently has the degradation of the human genome paused. If we start playing the game of who lives and who dies, we all end up inbred to the point where our future descendants will be eating their meals through a stomach tube. And yes, this is assuming we out-breed a lot. What you see with incest in three generations, you may see in a few dozen (mild exaggeration, but only mild).
Google the research on it, I am too tired to post a link.
We need everyone who is left on this tree, and a possibly a fair amount of genetic engineering to restore those lost branches. And I grant you, I despise this need more than you do; I hate the idea that things are possibly this fucked up.
Everything man creates is a dual-edged sword.
Even a child's doll can be used as a lure for a trap.
Perhaps the problem, at its heart, is that we profess to know what is right and wrong, but have no f*cking clue. No one has really cracked THAT problem, to the degree that anyone else can easily understand and implement it. Many have tried, but I still see "evil."
Could do the same by treating the only sane man as the insane one (TV Tropes reference).
Scientists need only keep in mind their original objective.
Think of a scientific discovery as a safe with something valuable inside. If you blow up the safe to get what's inside, the safe has won. It sours the discovery, and makes it harder to put the new-found discovery into use.
I'd vote for wormhole weapons, but that's me. Perhaps I've watched too much Farscape, but the idea of turning the Universe to Swiss Cheese if they are ever deployed does kind of win my vote.
Because it's the ultimate 'scorched earth' weapon? Random guess.
You've seen the effects of nukes. No soldier, no matter how brave / suicidal, wants to be caught in a nuclear firestorm.
And let's be honest, a country's policy for anyone who points a loaded weapon, no matter how right they may be, at one of their own, is to destroy them and their family. You've heard them say "We will not negotiate with terrorists," typically followed by them killing the 'terrorists' as soon as the hostages are clear, despite what has been agreed upon. Many people think this is a deterrent, that it will put fear in 'evil-doers' everywhere. In reality, it just means that terrorists will bring more powerful weapons next time, so you will have to make a choice between '1.5 million dead (city buster)' or negotiating.
Love reading up on this stuff, game theory, and what not. It's fascinating, watching the MAD doctrine evolve, time and again. Both sides believe that if they had just enough power, they could stop the other side permanently. And so they lie to each other, while rearming, and devising new strategies. Auto-Escalation, Predator / Prey Evolution. At some point, things will become so bad (probably already there), that people from a generation before will be incapable of telling who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys.
A few thousand will give you the raw materials you need for a respectable chemical weapon.
The knowledge to build it is a tad more expensive, state-side, priced at around $200,000 (bachelor's degree in chemistry).
The drive to build such a weapon is something that may or may not be available for money, and typically needs an added component (US troops shot up the chem major's parents, while raping his mom or something).
Well, more along the lines of other countries, and if necessary, hidden labs / boats in international waters. No Department of Defense is going to shutdown research into biological warfare, and with good reason -> they will probably need those results at some point, and it's the DoD's job to be (within reason, and then some) paranoid about national security. These are the people who have protocols, on the books, for every scenario they can think of, including, might I add, a chance meeting with extraterrestrials.
Nonsense. They typically have better (more evolved, dirty word, I know) ethics than the general populace.
"They seem to think "let's take the worst virus possible and make it even badder and then publish the results" is an okay line of thought to go down." -> And at no point did they say "Let's release it."
"Sometimes an adult needs to step in, slap down the geeks, and take away their toys." -> Why yes, we've seen how well that's worked. The "adults" tend to be politicians with scruples that...well, they don't have any. Which is why the geeks get to keep their toys, and the "adults," as well as the butterboobs who voted them in get to go sit in the time out corner. Because it's safer.
One need only go through most of the writings from various scientists to realize they worried and wrestled with many of the implications of their work. I doubt you will readily find such refined, and lengthy, writings among the general populace, let alone those who want the job of 'ethics counselor.'
Indeed. And even the ones who are not are considered fairly dangerous.
As a matter of fact, I have the names of some of the greatest terrorists the world has known. Their exploits are legendary, and their actions are said to have changed a nation: George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson...