is there ANY realistic reason why sending people to Mars is good science?
Who cares?! That's not the point. We are going just because we can and we haven't done it before, if for no other reason. I could get philosophical on you, but that's what it boils down to.
we got a movie based on politics that really doesn't have a bias or an op-ed piece, and just around Election Day. It's just a movie making fun of everyday politics and the current events that we face. Sometimes we just have to look at what's going on and laugh instead of picking sides and blaming people for it.
And I refuse to buy the argument that the debates are just Bush and Kerry spewing the stump speeches, party lines and canned answers. While many of the answers were like that (on both sides) there were many unscripted moments and the debates still give us a chance to see the different personalities in action.
Reminds of the old line:
If you want get ahead in politics, you've got to have sincerity. Once you can fake that, you can do anything.
While many here will debate the fairness of the 15% clause does anybody seriously think that the American public would have been served by having the debate canceled? And make no mistake that's exactly what would have happened. There's no way Bush or Kerry's people would let them debate w/Badnarik.
As for the "don't tax, don't spend," THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! When people have the cash in their pocket and it doesn't go to the IRS, then THEY have economic control. What sane person doesn't want that?
Supporters of the welfare system, supporters of state-sponsored education, supporters of the freeway system, people who believe the U.S. military does some degree of good in the world, people who believe U.S. foreign aid does some degree of good in the world, and some other people. I could probably go on if you'd like.
No need. The list is infinite, I'm sure. It can be summed as: People who like to spend other people's money. You can create the list of thing they want to spend other people's money.
There is, in fact, a middle ground between anarchocapitalist libertarianism and "insane" "statist"s,
Nice. That is, in fact, not the choice we're talking about out. Libertarianism != Anarcho-capitalism.
Welcome to the real world. This is why companies have sales people/help desks/managers. The OSS model does away with it, and so now you see why they are needed.
Those apps are a big part of my business -- I'd happily migrate them, but nobody's the least bit interested in the Pharmaceutical industry in moving away from MS Word and Excel.
Yeah, well, there's some apps still used that are written in COBOL. Some people just don't want to change with the times.
This is a pretty big country, and full of diversity and differing opinion. No matter what course of action is decided, there is at least one person out there who will disagree and who will not want his money spent on it.
All true. It is also true of the Internation Red Cross and any multinational corporation. In all cases other than a government entity, one can express thier displeasure by withdrawing their support.
I'm sure all those stockholders of Disney are unhappy that Eisner is still CEO, but they haven't sold their stock. Buy owning the stock, they at least give their consent, if only grudgingly. But they *could* walk away from the deal if they choose, by selling the stock. But it not a deal-breaker for them, so they keep the stock and try to affect change.
For a government entity, my consent is really not required, needed or even requested. They get my money whether I approve of thier actions or not. I am unable to walk away from the deal.
The ballot is insufficient to address this concern, because it is not possible to withdraw one's support if one's 'deal-breaker' concern is not addressed.
Although with no other avenue available, I am supporting Badnarik at the ballot.
What's stopping him is the fact that he does not have billions of dollars worth of weaponry and trained soldiers at his command.
I want a ferrari and private jet.
The United States does.
Bill Gates has $40+ Billion. Should I make him go get me what I want?
The members of the United States military joined voluntarily, with the knowledge that as a member of the armed forces, their purpose in life is to go to other people's countries, kill them, and break their shit. These people are also aware of the possibility of being killed in those places.
True enough, but small consolation to the national guard folks who signed up for skills, training, and college money -- just like the commercials said. They signed on the dotted line, but were they fully informed?
It wouldn't be such a shame if the military were actually upholding thier oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." (One could argue that the second part of the oath "obey the orders of the President of the United States" is in direct conflict with the first.)
I'm a member of the U.S. Air Force. Given the chance, I would gladly spend some time in Sudan or Iraq helping to end the bullshit that's going on there right now.
I salute you, sir. Truly. Your willingness to risk life and limb to affect positive change is admirable. It is marred only by your insistence on making me finance your activities involuntarily and on doing the work in my name without my agreement.
I have no problem with a person taking direct action to stop genocide.
That's far better than moaning about a problem saying things like, "Somebody should do something about that," or "There oughta be a law" or worse yet, sending someone else to do what you didn't think was important enough to do yourself -- and making yet another person pay for it.
Aid organizations are but one method of taking direct, responsible action. Perhaps they or some other group or even individuals could provide the needed security. Voluntarily. In thier own name.
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about Tickenest, or anyone, taking independent action in the name of the U.S., or in my name.
I'm talking about him, personally, taking action to solve a problem that he, personally, perceives -- on his own terms and with his own resources, representing himself, taking responsibility for his actions.
And yes, it most definitely *is* in the interest of Americans to act based on their own conceptions. That's what people do.
I'd much rather have that than a group of people implementing foreign policy based on the conceptions of a right-wing nutjob with a messianic complex -- in my name, no less. I'd feel much better if the people of Iraq knew that the occupation of Iraq was not being in my name.
People should be able to act on their own, and face the consequences of their own actions -- not force other people to act in their stead and die for it.
These efforts can and are being done both collectively and voluntarily through organizations like The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, International Crisis Group, and scores of others if you care too look. I don't know of any armed groups that act in defense of helpless people, but there should be. I'd much rather support that than what happened at Abu Ghraib.
The point is that there is a bulk of organizations with history and a wealth of experience that works with volunteers and donations that practice what what you call "foreign policy" -- not in the name of government, but just because they want to do good in the world, and care enough to do something about it. It *could* be done. The infrastructre and experience is there.
I think it's a good thing. I'd like to see more of it.
right now it's probably now very cost friendly for most people
If you could embed hardware into the frame (all firmware), and then have a USB port to load images/video, you could just hang it on the wall and update the screen by swapping out a USB key-chain sized drive.
I think this idea has a market. College dorms, crappy apartments, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
is there ANY realistic reason why sending people to Mars is good science?
Who cares?! That's not the point. We are going just because we can and we haven't done it before, if for no other reason. I could get philosophical on you, but that's what it boils down to.
we need a craft that is at least 100 times stronger than anything we launch now
Two words: Force Field
Whatever, so long as we kill the assumption the a linear spectrum is sufficient.
A basic spectrum goes (left to right): Socialist, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian.
This is flatly incorrect. Political ideologies do not exist across a linear spectrum, but can be placed on a grid.
More information on the Nolan Chart.
10-question, 2-minute quiz to chart your political leanings on the grid.
TreyParker.is_funny(true);r ian(true);
TreyParker.is_liberta
if (TreyParker.is_funny() && TreyParker.is_libertarian)
{
TreyParker.is_funny_libertarian(1);
}
we got a movie based on politics that really doesn't have a bias or an op-ed piece, and just around Election Day. It's just a movie making fun of everyday politics and the current events that we face. Sometimes we just have to look at what's going on and laugh instead of picking sides and blaming people for it.
Trey Parker makes fun of left and right because he thinks they are both stupid. That's right, folks -- Trey Parker is a Libertarian. And you thought Libertarians couldn't be funny!
Jon Katz, where are you??
Dude, shut up! You might wake him up!
And I refuse to buy the argument that the debates are just Bush and Kerry spewing the stump speeches, party lines and canned answers. While many of the answers were like that (on both sides) there were many unscripted moments and the debates still give us a chance to see the different personalities in action.
Reminds of the old line:
If you want get ahead in politics, you've got to have sincerity. Once you can fake that, you can do anything.
Let's see what the choices are:
I'll take #1, Alex.
Supporters of the welfare system, supporters of state-sponsored education, supporters of the freeway system, people who believe the U.S. military does some degree of good in the world, people who believe U.S. foreign aid does some degree of good in the world, and some other people. I could probably go on if you'd like.
No need. The list is infinite, I'm sure. It can be summed as: People who like to spend other people's money. You can create the list of thing they want to spend other people's money.
There is, in fact, a middle ground between anarchocapitalist libertarianism and "insane" "statist"s,
Nice. That is, in fact, not the choice we're talking about out. Libertarianism != Anarcho-capitalism.
I guess you don't know what you're talking.
Welcome to the real world. This is why companies have sales people/help desks/managers. The OSS model does away with it, and so now you see why they are needed.
Needed for what? Free Software is not Big Business!
Those apps are a big part of my business -- I'd happily migrate them, but nobody's the least bit interested in the Pharmaceutical industry in moving away from MS Word and Excel.
Yeah, well, there's some apps still used that are written in COBOL. Some people just don't want to change with the times.
But the times, they ARE a-changin'.
Um, I've been tracking this for a while.
http://mshiltonj.com/sm/">SkillMarket -- A daily look at in-demand tech skills
Obviously with the current unpopularity of Bush and Kerry the final vote is down to either you or Ralph Nader.
Bullshit. Did you forget or purposely omit Michael Badnarik? Badnarik will be on 49 state ballots. Can Cobb say that? No!
Cut it out with the 'obvious' crap and trying to mislead people.
This is a pretty big country, and full of diversity and differing opinion. No matter what course of action is decided, there is at least one person out there who will disagree and who will not want his money spent on it.
All true. It is also true of the Internation Red Cross and any multinational corporation. In all cases other than a government entity, one can express thier displeasure by withdrawing their support.
I'm sure all those stockholders of Disney are unhappy that Eisner is still CEO, but they haven't sold their stock. Buy owning the stock, they at least give their consent, if only grudgingly. But they *could* walk away from the deal if they choose, by selling the stock. But it not a deal-breaker for them, so they keep the stock and try to affect change.
For a government entity, my consent is really not required, needed or even requested. They get my money whether I approve of thier actions or not. I am unable to walk away from the deal.
The ballot is insufficient to address this concern, because it is not possible to withdraw one's support if one's 'deal-breaker' concern is not addressed.
Although with no other avenue available, I am supporting Badnarik at the ballot.
While a 42-inch Sony (SNE) Wega LCD TV retails for $10,000, a 42-inch plasma set can be had for about $4,500.
Why don't they make plasma computer monitors?
What's stopping him is the fact that he does not have billions of dollars worth of weaponry and trained soldiers at his command.
I want a ferrari and private jet.
The United States does.
Bill Gates has $40+ Billion. Should I make him go get me what I want?
The members of the United States military joined voluntarily, with the knowledge that as a member of the armed forces, their purpose in life is to go to other people's countries, kill them, and break their shit. These people are also aware of the possibility of being killed in those places.
True enough, but small consolation to the national guard folks who signed up for skills, training, and college money -- just like the commercials said. They signed on the dotted line, but were they fully informed?
It wouldn't be such a shame if the military were actually upholding thier oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." (One could argue that the second part of the oath "obey the orders of the President of the United States" is in direct conflict with the first.)
I'm a member of the U.S. Air Force. Given the chance, I would gladly spend some time in Sudan or Iraq helping to end the bullshit that's going on there right now.
I salute you, sir. Truly. Your willingness to risk life and limb to affect positive change is admirable. It is marred only by your insistence on making me finance your activities involuntarily and on doing the work in my name without my agreement.
I have no problem with a person taking direct action to stop genocide.
That's far better than moaning about a problem saying things like, "Somebody should do something about that," or "There oughta be a law" or worse yet, sending someone else to do what you didn't think was important enough to do yourself -- and making yet another person pay for it.
Aid organizations are but one method of taking direct, responsible action. Perhaps they or some other group or even individuals could provide the needed security. Voluntarily. In thier own name.
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about Tickenest, or anyone, taking independent action in the name of the U.S., or in my name.
I'm talking about him, personally, taking action to solve a problem that he, personally, perceives -- on his own terms and with his own resources, representing himself, taking responsibility for his actions.
And yes, it most definitely *is* in the interest of Americans to act based on their own conceptions. That's what people do.
I'd much rather have that than a group of people implementing foreign policy based on the conceptions of a right-wing nutjob with a messianic complex -- in my name, no less. I'd feel much better if the people of Iraq knew that the occupation of Iraq was not being in my name.
People should be able to act on their own, and face the consequences of their own actions -- not force other people to act in their stead and die for it.
These efforts can and are being done both collectively and voluntarily through organizations like The Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, International Crisis Group, and scores of others if you care too look. I don't know of any armed groups that act in defense of helpless people, but there should be. I'd much rather support that than what happened at Abu Ghraib.
The point is that there is a bulk of organizations with history and a wealth of experience that works with volunteers and donations that practice what what you call "foreign policy" -- not in the name of government, but just because they want to do good in the world, and care enough to do something about it. It *could* be done. The infrastructre and experience is there.
I think it's a good thing. I'd like to see more of it.
Unfortunately, it allows things like the genocide going on in Sudan right this minute to continue.
What's stopping _you_ from going over there and putting a stop to it? If you care so much, hop to it.
Don't be so willing to send other people to go die for a cause in your name while you surf slashdot.
Political Parties Explained In One Sentence
Vote Demopublican
The latest turn in the computer science industry is a new development process called "Market Programming."
right now it's probably now very cost friendly for most people
If you could embed hardware into the frame (all firmware), and then have a USB port to load images/video, you could just hang it on the wall and update the screen by swapping out a USB key-chain sized drive.
I think this idea has a market. College dorms, crappy apartments, etc.
It would be a useful feature of windows if they lost contrast as they receeded to the desktop.
No, it wouldn't. It would be stupid.