Re:What can be done? Nothing.
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
"The answer to terrorism- find out who did it and who harbored them, and then destroy both. Not a missle into a factory, carpet bomb the whole area. "
A scorched Earth policy obviously doesn't work in this situation, you might as well hand out box knives to every child in the Middle East. Assuming this is bin Laden, you deliver an ultimatum and deadline for turning him over. Give them a few weeks to comply while we mobilize and prepare. If they hand him over, we do the same thing with Osama that we did with McVeigh: try him, convict him, and execute him like a common criminal, NOT A *MILITARY* TARGET! That would be more unbearable to him than any physical torture you can possibly think of.
If they don't hand him over, that's when we start invading people....and remember you *ALWAYS* treat your enemy the way we treated Japan after WWII: you help them rebuild so that they don't grow up wanting to kill you.
Assuming these were Palistinian terrorists, this attack still isn't justified nor provoked. I have sympathies towards those people's situation, I could understand them doing this to an Israeli city...but hitting us worse than you ever hit Israel, and a civilian target to boot? WTF are they smoking over there?
"We don't even know who did it yet. I'm already seeing anti Middle Eastern sentiments popping up around me. It makes me sick. "
I realize info isn't getting around very quick, but from what I undestand the DFLP has indeed claimed responsibility for this act. Regardless of whether that claim is authentic, this has all the key features of a Middle Eatern-style terrorist attack. The people involved in the plotting and execution clearly had prior competence and knowledge of how to properly hijack a plane, the operatives had to be well-trained and well-organized, the operatives had no problem dying themselves in the course of the attack. And the same target has been hit by Middle Eastern terrorists before, back in 1993.
"How would you feel growing up knowing that you were only birthed to satisfy someones curiosity? Sort of takes you away from that "conceived in love idea." "
As opposed to growing up knowing that you were conceived in horniness and alcohol??? C'mon, I really don't think clones would be all that more ill-adjusted nor have a more difficult upbringing than the rest of humanity.
You mean a strict constitutionalist? A judge that doesn't believe in legislation from the bench? What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that is that there is no such thing as a "strict constitutionalist" nor a judge who doesn't believe in "legislating from the bench."
Those are spin terms that you apply to people when you personally or politically disagree with their interpretation or application of law. It is an attempt to associate one's own particular ideology or political preference with "objectivity" and rationalism rather than actually admitting that your rulings are motivated by your personal social agenda, just like everyone else.
It's called "appropriating the middle ground" and it is an old debate ploy. Modern conservativism and Ayn Randianism both play it to the hilt.
"We are objective. Anyone who doesn't agree with us is prejudiced or irrational. We're not motivated by our personal prejudices. No really, we aren't. We swear. "
Quite easily. Did Nixon do a stupid thing? Yeah, just like Clinton. Did Nixon use his office to delay the investigation? Yeah, just like Clinton did. Did Nixon lie about his actions? Yeah, just like Clintion did. Note the pattern?
Did Reagan/Bush do a stupid thing? Yeah, just like Clinton. Did Reagan/Bush use their office to delay the investigation? Yeah, just like Clinton did. Did Reagan/Bush lie about their actions? Yeah, just like Clinton did. Notice a pattern?
How and why did these supposed ethical standards of conduct get magically repealed when Reagan and Bush were in office, but suddenly come back into effect when Clinton screwed up? How do you justify impeaching Bill but not Ronnie and George? You can't, you won't, you never did. Because "ethical conduct" is a weapon, not a standard, that we only apply to the people we don't like.
I wish people would be honest for a change and just admit that the real reason they hate Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Bush is because of their politics, and ethical conduct is just rationalizing after the fact.
Yes, I know. The Chinese had the W-88 back when Clinton was still governor of a certain Southern state. It was Reagan, that avatar of national defense, who was responsible for leaking the W-88 technology.
After Nixon politics got decidedly nastier.
Nastier than McCarthyism? I think not.
hypocritical Clinton apologists that will bash a Republican for doing much less
The worst thing Clinton did in office was perjure himself to the American people and to Congress about an extramarital affair. By contrast the LEAST bad thing Bush and Reagan did was perjure themselves to the American people and to Congress about selling drugs, our national security secrets and TOW missiles to our sworn enemies, funding private wars, bribing government officials, etc etc.
Who's being a hypocrite here? I'm just asking for some consistency.
and liberals that feel the income tax should be used as a tool to redistribute wealth.
The notions that "Wealth should never be redistributed" or "All wealth should be distributed equally" are equally unrealistic and over-ideological in my eyes. A limited redistribution of wealth, based on income, is pragmatic, realistic, and rationally-justified. Where exactly we want to set those limits is subject to debate.
"Never mind that the Chinese government funneled money to the Clinton and Gore campaigns in exchange for nuclear secrets. "
You mean that warhead technology that the Chinese government tested during the Bush I administration?
"And FYI, the modern era of dragging public officials through the mud can be traced back to the Democrats doing it to Nixon. "
Dragging your opponents through the mud is an ancient political strategy predating the U.S. by a few millenia. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of perpetuating it but neither can realistically be blamed for originating it.
"Don't blame me. I'm a Libertarian "
Keep voting Libertarian. Third parties are good for democracy. I reserve most of my contempt for moral, cultural, and religious conservatives, libertarians and the occasional bout of fiscal conservativism I can live with.
The holy grail of computer science is to make a program that will write every other program. Someday, they will reach that goal, making all computer scientists obsolete.
The holy grail of CE is to make a hardware system with enough computational ability to design all other hardware platforms, making all computer engineers obsolete.
Software is always limited by hardware.Hardware is limited by the laws of physics. Which would you rather be bound by?
Hardware is always limited by the laws of physics. CS is limited by the laws of logic. Which would you rather be bound by?
Additionally, need I remind you that the problem of laying out all those jillions of gates, pathways and sinks is only accomplisheable because software people have developed efficient algorithms for doing so? Circuit design algorithms are the primary tool that CE uses for designing new architectures, and these algorithms come from CS.
In some ways this question kinda shows you who truly personifies the conventional understanding of the hacker ethic. The people who are saying "Follow the money" don't get it. The people who are saying "Follow the education that will make you elite" don't get it. The people who are saying "Study what interests you" get it.
What does a Liberal Arts Grad say to an Engineering Grad?
Would you like fries with that sir?
One of these days you may find yourself sitting across from a liberal arts degree holder wearing black robes and holding a small wooden hammer in his hand. Please be sure to tell him that joke for me. I'm sure he will agree that his useless education has rendered him utterly powerless in the presence of your vast engineering prowess.
I double-majored in Philosophy and CSc and am getting my MS in CSc in May. Definitely the liberal arts courses have shed light on the technical courses, and vice versa. It's also going to be very good for your upward-mobility in your professional career that you actually have the ability to write a clear paper or memo: many CS/CE people can't.
Computer Scientist:Computer Engineer:: Biologist : Chemist
I'm not sure what you meant by this analogy, and I think I understand it backwards from you: CE focuses on constructing one specific, silicon-based architecture for computers, whereas CS focuses on the abstract rules that govern all possible physical architectures.
I remember a guy telling me that the CS hardware class I was taking in college was a waste of time because I was learning theories which "change from day to day as the rate of technology advances."
Of course, he's got it backwards: the specific implementations are what change from day to day. The theoretical rules that govern those implementations, the stuff I learned in that class, has not changed since the dawn of time.
I've seen CE students run screaming from some of the CS courses that I took, and vice versa. As an undergrad I noticed no correlation between CS and CE and difficulty of the degree, the intelligence of the person getting the degree, or anything else. But as a grad student the CE courses were generally easier and more "dot-com whore" oriented than the CS courses, oddly enough.
My previous understanding of the magnetites found in that rock were that they were apparently too smooth to have been created naturally. This is the first I've heard about their configuration in chains.
It does seem a bit premature of NASA, though.
"Well, I claim that those who take drugs are cowards who are unable to face the reality around them. "
Correction: Hallucinogens and opiates are there to provide an escape from ordinary reality. Stimulants are taken for boosting alertness and keeping a person awake for longer periods of time, and their use is rampant in the professional world.
Coffee, anyone?
Of course, I personally have found that I am more productive and healthy if I take the occasional break from reality. That's why we have fiction, religion, sleep, and I try not to fault or condemn the people who rely on those things that I do not. This "occasional escape in my free time" argument seems to be the point he was making in his original post, not "drop acid and try to work on code", though his condemnation of those who choose not to use drugs was way too harsh and judgemental and certainly earned a heated response.
If you want to get a feeling for what I believe in, pick up some of Ayn Rand's books. I suggest "Virtue of Selfishness : A New Concept of Egoism " and "For the New Intellectual". "
Oh for Christ's sake....and you were dogging on him for being a flake. Look man, Ayn Rand was a big old crank fiend and her paranoid self-centered ideas attract social lepers the way continental philosophy attracts star-eyed undergrads. The only difference in these two opposing intellectual types is that the star-eyed undergrad actually has an active sex life and friends.
An unconstitutional interpretation of 2nd amendmt.
on
Information Poisoning
·
· Score: 1
The Supreme Court has already stated that the various equal-protection amendments make it unconstitutional to extend a civil right to only one class of adult citizens based on any discriminatory criteria mentioned in the protecting amendments. Therefore any interpretation of the 2nd amendment that only guarantees its protections to males between 17-45 has already been ruled invalid by the Supreme Court.
I'm not necessarily pro-gun control (enforcement issues would probably guarantee that only honest people don't have guns) but the whole "guns keep us safe from government" argument is just unmitigated bunk.
You guys always leave out the fact that one of the main impetuses for holding the Constitutional Convention in the first place was the inability under the Articles of Confederation to provide a strong central government capable of putting down citizens' rebellions.
The Constitution specifically states in Article IV Section 4 that the federal government (not "the people" or "the citizenry") is responsible for protecting the States from both invasion and domestic violence.
Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to "suppress" insurrection. Depending on which definition of "suppress" you choose to invoke, this could quite reasonably include preventing individuals from stock-piling military weaponry.
The current situation we have right now, in which individuals have access to firepower adequate for the defense of their home but inadequate to mount a serious military action, is a pretty good middle-ground IMHO.
When the capacity for violent force is equalized, intimidation becomes much more difficult.
"Equal access to violent force" sounds like a fairy tale to me. In reality, when all citizens have equal access to violent force, the group with the largest number of subscribers takes measures to insure that other groups cannot have the same access to violent force.
(In the USA, this will be a right-wing Christian conservative group--SCARY!!!)
Ironically, your rights are better preserved when the capacity for violent force is in the hands of a higher, democratically-authorized authority. Your neighbors will not have the consideration of giving you a trial.
Aero, that was the name of that damned thing! Yes, the Aero bar sucks. I'm not making this up.
I only drink microbrews. I didn't encounter anything better in Canada, and that's the same report I got from a canuck buddy who now lives here. He is well-mannered for a Northener, though.
And yes, we are dumbasses for popularizing Celine Dion. I hang my head in shame.
I don't want to dog Canada here, they have one of the best countries in the world and I would just as soon live there as America. That said, in my experience the Canadians are just as likely to spout that obnoxious "We're the best country in the world" rhetoric as the Americans. Contrary to what Canadians tell me, every person I know of who has lived there for any length of time, including two international students, has told me that people there tended to be rude and impolite. (Apparently if they know you are from America you automatically become an "ignorant redneck" even if you're from Boston and have a PhD in particle physics). And the chocolate bars sucked. And the beer wasn't any better than what you can get here.
On the other hand you guys have Wolverine and RUSH. And Mounties dress way cooler than Rangers. And basic education is better. And you didn't keep slaves. And while you gave birth to Celine Dion, we're the dumbasses that popularized her.
Slashdot Mirror
"The answer to terrorism- find out who did it and who harbored them, and then destroy both. Not a missle into a factory, carpet bomb the whole area. "
A scorched Earth policy obviously doesn't work in this situation, you might as well hand out box knives to every child in the Middle East. Assuming this is bin Laden, you deliver an ultimatum and deadline for turning him over. Give them a few weeks to comply while we mobilize and prepare. If they hand him over, we do the same thing with Osama that we did with McVeigh: try him, convict him, and execute him like a common criminal, NOT A *MILITARY* TARGET! That would be more unbearable to him than any physical torture you can possibly think of.
If they don't hand him over, that's when we start invading people....and remember you *ALWAYS* treat your enemy the way we treated Japan after WWII: you help them rebuild so that they don't grow up wanting to kill you.
Assuming these were Palistinian terrorists, this attack still isn't justified nor provoked. I have sympathies towards those people's situation, I could understand them doing this to an Israeli city...but hitting us worse than you ever hit Israel, and a civilian target to boot? WTF are they smoking over there?
"We don't even know who did it yet. I'm already seeing anti Middle Eastern sentiments popping up around me. It makes me sick. "
I realize info isn't getting around very quick, but from what I undestand the DFLP has indeed claimed responsibility for this act. Regardless of whether that claim is authentic, this has all the key features of a Middle Eatern-style terrorist attack. The people involved in the plotting and execution clearly had prior competence and knowledge of how to properly hijack a plane, the operatives had to be well-trained and well-organized, the operatives had no problem dying themselves in the course of the attack. And the same target has been hit by Middle Eastern terrorists before, back in 1993.
"How would you feel growing up knowing that you were only birthed to satisfy someones curiosity? Sort of takes you away from that "conceived in love idea." " As opposed to growing up knowing that you were conceived in horniness and alcohol??? C'mon, I really don't think clones would be all that more ill-adjusted nor have a more difficult upbringing than the rest of humanity.
Yes, and this is why history clearly shows that there were virtually no shootings or murders in the Old West.
"Whatever happened to CRAZY????" (this in response to your statement "But whatever happened to personal responsibility?")
What's wrong with that is that there is no such thing as a "strict constitutionalist" nor a judge who doesn't believe in "legislating from the bench."
Those are spin terms that you apply to people when you personally or politically disagree with their interpretation or application of law. It is an attempt to associate one's own particular ideology or political preference with "objectivity" and rationalism rather than actually admitting that your rulings are motivated by your personal social agenda, just like everyone else.
It's called "appropriating the middle ground" and it is an old debate ploy. Modern conservativism and Ayn Randianism both play it to the hilt.
"We are objective. Anyone who doesn't agree with us is prejudiced or irrational. We're not motivated by our personal prejudices. No really, we aren't. We swear. "
Did Reagan/Bush do a stupid thing? Yeah, just like Clinton. Did Reagan/Bush use their office to delay the investigation? Yeah, just like Clinton did. Did Reagan/Bush lie about their actions? Yeah, just like Clinton did. Notice a pattern?
How and why did these supposed ethical standards of conduct get magically repealed when Reagan and Bush were in office, but suddenly come back into effect when Clinton screwed up? How do you justify impeaching Bill but not Ronnie and George? You can't, you won't, you never did. Because "ethical conduct" is a weapon, not a standard, that we only apply to the people we don't like.
I wish people would be honest for a change and just admit that the real reason they hate Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Bush is because of their politics, and ethical conduct is just rationalizing after the fact.
Yes, I know. The Chinese had the W-88 back when Clinton was still governor of a certain Southern state. It was Reagan, that avatar of national defense, who was responsible for leaking the W-88 technology.
After Nixon politics got decidedly nastier.
Nastier than McCarthyism? I think not.
hypocritical Clinton apologists that will bash a Republican for doing much less
The worst thing Clinton did in office was perjure himself to the American people and to Congress about an extramarital affair. By contrast the LEAST bad thing Bush and Reagan did was perjure themselves to the American people and to Congress about selling drugs, our national security secrets and TOW missiles to our sworn enemies, funding private wars, bribing government officials, etc etc.
Who's being a hypocrite here? I'm just asking for some consistency.
and liberals that feel the income tax should be used as a tool to redistribute wealth.
The notions that "Wealth should never be redistributed" or "All wealth should be distributed equally" are equally unrealistic and over-ideological in my eyes. A limited redistribution of wealth, based on income, is pragmatic, realistic, and rationally-justified. Where exactly we want to set those limits is subject to debate.
You mean that warhead technology that the Chinese government tested during the Bush I administration?
"And FYI, the modern era of dragging public officials through the mud can be traced back to the Democrats doing it to Nixon. "
Dragging your opponents through the mud is an ancient political strategy predating the U.S. by a few millenia. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of perpetuating it but neither can realistically be blamed for originating it.
"Don't blame me. I'm a Libertarian "
Keep voting Libertarian. Third parties are good for democracy. I reserve most of my contempt for moral, cultural, and religious conservatives, libertarians and the occasional bout of fiscal conservativism I can live with.
The holy grail of CE is to make a hardware system with enough computational ability to design all other hardware platforms, making all computer engineers obsolete.
Software is always limited by hardware.Hardware is limited by the laws of physics. Which would you rather be bound by?
Hardware is always limited by the laws of physics. CS is limited by the laws of logic. Which would you rather be bound by?
Additionally, need I remind you that the problem of laying out all those jillions of gates, pathways and sinks is only accomplisheable because software people have developed efficient algorithms for doing so? Circuit design algorithms are the primary tool that CE uses for designing new architectures, and these algorithms come from CS.
It's a mutual relationship, sorry buddy.
In some ways this question kinda shows you who truly personifies the conventional understanding of the hacker ethic. The people who are saying "Follow the money" don't get it. The people who are saying "Follow the education that will make you elite" don't get it. The people who are saying "Study what interests you" get it.
One of these days you may find yourself sitting across from a liberal arts degree holder wearing black robes and holding a small wooden hammer in his hand. Please be sure to tell him that joke for me. I'm sure he will agree that his useless education has rendered him utterly powerless in the presence of your vast engineering prowess.
I double-majored in Philosophy and CSc and am getting my MS in CSc in May. Definitely the liberal arts courses have shed light on the technical courses, and vice versa. It's also going to be very good for your upward-mobility in your professional career that you actually have the ability to write a clear paper or memo: many CS/CE people can't.
Computer Scientist:Computer Engineer :: Biologist : Chemist
I'm not sure what you meant by this analogy, and I think I understand it backwards from you: CE focuses on constructing one specific, silicon-based architecture for computers, whereas CS focuses on the abstract rules that govern all possible physical architectures.
I remember a guy telling me that the CS hardware class I was taking in college was a waste of time because I was learning theories which "change from day to day as the rate of technology advances."
Of course, he's got it backwards: the specific implementations are what change from day to day. The theoretical rules that govern those implementations, the stuff I learned in that class, has not changed since the dawn of time.
I've seen CE students run screaming from some of the CS courses that I took, and vice versa. As an undergrad I noticed no correlation between CS and CE and difficulty of the degree, the intelligence of the person getting the degree, or anything else. But as a grad student the CE courses were generally easier and more "dot-com whore" oriented than the CS courses, oddly enough.
My previous understanding of the magnetites found in that rock were that they were apparently too smooth to have been created naturally. This is the first I've heard about their configuration in chains. It does seem a bit premature of NASA, though.
Correction: Hallucinogens and opiates are there to provide an escape from ordinary reality. Stimulants are taken for boosting alertness and keeping a person awake for longer periods of time, and their use is rampant in the professional world.
Coffee, anyone?
Of course, I personally have found that I am more productive and healthy if I take the occasional break from reality. That's why we have fiction, religion, sleep, and I try not to fault or condemn the people who rely on those things that I do not. This "occasional escape in my free time" argument seems to be the point he was making in his original post, not "drop acid and try to work on code", though his condemnation of those who choose not to use drugs was way too harsh and judgemental and certainly earned a heated response.
If you want to get a feeling for what I believe in, pick up some of Ayn Rand's books. I suggest "Virtue of Selfishness : A New Concept of Egoism " and "For the New Intellectual". "
Oh for Christ's sake....and you were dogging on him for being a flake. Look man, Ayn Rand was a big old crank fiend and her paranoid self-centered ideas attract social lepers the way continental philosophy attracts star-eyed undergrads. The only difference in these two opposing intellectual types is that the star-eyed undergrad actually has an active sex life and friends.
I'm not necessarily pro-gun control (enforcement issues would probably guarantee that only honest people don't have guns) but the whole "guns keep us safe from government" argument is just unmitigated bunk.
You guys always leave out the fact that one of the main impetuses for holding the Constitutional Convention in the first place was the inability under the Articles of Confederation to provide a strong central government capable of putting down citizens' rebellions.
The Constitution specifically states in Article IV Section 4 that the federal government (not "the people" or "the citizenry") is responsible for protecting the States from both invasion and domestic violence.
Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to "suppress" insurrection. Depending on which definition of "suppress" you choose to invoke, this could quite reasonably include preventing individuals from stock-piling military weaponry.
The current situation we have right now, in which individuals have access to firepower adequate for the defense of their home but inadequate to mount a serious military action, is a pretty good middle-ground IMHO.
In my mind, that would be a real good start to cleaning up government.
Last time I checked our government is doing just fine. Why is everybody in such a rush to "fix" it when it isn't broken?
"Equal access to violent force" sounds like a fairy tale to me. In reality, when all citizens have equal access to violent force, the group with the largest number of subscribers takes measures to insure that other groups cannot have the same access to violent force.
(In the USA, this will be a right-wing Christian conservative group--SCARY!!!)
Ironically, your rights are better preserved when the capacity for violent force is in the hands of a higher, democratically-authorized authority. Your neighbors will not have the consideration of giving you a trial.
Aero, that was the name of that damned thing! Yes, the Aero bar sucks. I'm not making this up.
I only drink microbrews. I didn't encounter anything better in Canada, and that's the same report I got from a canuck buddy who now lives here. He is well-mannered for a Northener, though.
And yes, we are dumbasses for popularizing Celine Dion. I hang my head in shame.
Because it isn't a stretch. Everywhere in the world that you have a populace with general access to actual military-grade firearms you have chaos.
Britain also didn't enter the war until provoked.
Where were you guys when we were fighting the Japanese?
On the other hand you guys have Wolverine and RUSH. And Mounties dress way cooler than Rangers. And basic education is better. And you didn't keep slaves. And while you gave birth to Celine Dion, we're the dumbasses that popularized her.