That's a lovely tautology you're wearing. Where did you get it?
So let's see: 1. you go into histrionics about something you think I did 2. it turns out I didn't do it 3. you claim that's irrelevant, because 'all that other stuff I did' made you prone to throw that hissy anyway 4.... 5. Profit?!
I think it's been conclusively proven since the congressman questioned the Secretary of the Navy about the danger of capsizing Guam that US Congressmen are really the stupidest creatures on the planet.
And, as Senator Dodd pointed out, they don't even have the sense of a reliable whore to stay bought when they've been purchased.
Seriously, they bring each other up on ethics charges, as if our opinion of them could get any lower?
Oh, is that the oil being exported by the country that's so energy-starved it needs to develop nuclear power?
Seriously, though: It's not about dollar-backed oil, despite the lovely conspiracy theories that enables.
Traders - for all their sins - are perhaps the most nakedly utilitarian animals on the planet. They will use the currency that they feel is most likely to hold its value one day to the next. Hell, they'd short-trade their grandmothers' kidneys if they'd hold their value reliably.
Please let me know what currency world wide is more transparent and stable than the dollar?
As much as the US economy is going down the craphole thanks to 50+ years of self-interested and gutless politicians on both sides, it is STILL better off than the EU oligarchies. Britain, sadly, just doesn't have the throw-weight anymore to buttress a 'world currency' or I'm certain the Pound would hold that position. The EU? I think that's self-evidently a disaster. The Ruble? Hahahahah. The Yuan? Sure, traders are going to use the currency of a command-economy that unashamedly conceals statistics, manipulates their currency, statistics, and economy to their own advantage (to a degree that would even embarrass the worst such actors in the US or Europe).
I'm no biologist, but isn't this almost statistically certain to be happening all over?
I recall that in the London subway, evolutionary variation into distinct species was observed in insects (?) in different tube lines.
Hell, my house is over 100 yrs old, and I suspect that we probably have at least 3 identifiable strains of otherwise-common animals: - house spiders: the ones on the living levels of the house are much more spindly, with darker colors that match our woodwork more closely. They are much calmer, staying still when disturbed. Their webs tend to be very fine and delicate. - basement spiders: our cellar hosts a healthy population of spiders, roughly similar in form to the house spiders, but much paler, more aggressive, weaving thicker webs. - houseflies: in our attic (not finished until we moved in, in 1992) there is a particularly massive type of housefly. Not a bottlefly, it is as far as I can see simply a gigantic version of a typical housefly, roughly 2x the size in each dimension (ie about the size of a large bluebottle fly). It's our speculation that they are seriously inbred and stupid - they are very slow-reacting, flying slow in straight lines, our dog bites them out of the air....and he's not too quick either. In fact, last summer we noticed one of these flies was killed by a closing door.
It's more a matter of at what point a 'drift' in some subgroup is significant enough to say "this is a new species" than "OMG, look, totally new frog here!", no?
Generally, I find 'statistics' on the gaming industry too liable to... er, "gaming" to be useful. Generally it has to do with the breadth of how they define 'computer game'.
As the op referenced, there were dire warnings that 'pc gaming was dying'. Then it was apparent that the huge bulk of units/sales - the majority of the discussion, in fact - was considering products that many "gamers" wouldn't even be likely to include in the "gaming ouevre", ie Barbie Fashion Designer, or Exxtreme Deer Hunter 3D.*
*granted, they are played on a computer, and they are games, so perhaps it was just a sort of cliquish snobbiness that excluded them. But on the other hand by that same definition I'm pretty sure the dominant 'computer game' ever would be Minesweeper or Freecell.
This is further setting aside that it's still common that to broader audiences, 'computer games' can interchangeably refer to consoles or computers.
Finally now we're once again subjected to PCs vs consoles, which starts to sort of sound like a debate between "Surrey or Fiacre" when compared to the explosive growth of mobile/phone games. But does the growth of these mobile platforms have anything to do with consoles or PCs? I'd contend its completely independent - thus really irrelevant; if I have a gaming inclination that wants to be satisfied by something engaging and complex for hours, I'm probably not going to play Tetris. But if I have 15 mins until the bus I doubt I'm going to turn on my computer or even Xbox.
FWIW I personally believe that consoles are most likely the genre that has a finite product lifespan. As mobile platforms are now truly handheld computers, and computers meanwhile get amazingly cheap, it seems that consoles are getting squeezed out. Ultimately, I suspect anything that can access the web's infinite flashgames is going to kill the game market for anything casual.
...but if it's so easy/cheap to do (since everyone's claiming most of pharma $$ are spent on advertising, etc), why doesn't India just develop it themselves?
In other news, were I a pharma company, I would immediately stop selling anything in India...PARTICULARLY where there's an exposure in a local-owned subsidiary that could be nationalized (which is effectively what this decision does).
You're missing the point. The OP declared Republicans (solely) to be responsible for the lies on WMDs.
I have no problem declaring the 'government class' of BOTH "sides" as collusive scoundrels who have more in common with each other than with any of us unwashed residing outside the beltway.
I DO have a problem with some brainwashed fanatic's mendacity claiming that somehow "his" side is lily white, and "those other guys" are evil - when they are both patently filthy scum.
Considering how absurdly and inhumanly statuesque they've made the women, I'm perfectly fine without them going on to the same level of anatomical "realism" (hahah) on men.
"If there was some way I could turn off life support for all the flat-lined Slashdot readers, I'd do it in an instant." Anyone else see the irony of a person ranting about the brutality of George Bush's arbitrary and brutal war, posting in a public forum that he would unhesitatingly MURDER the people that disagree with him?
And that folks, is what passes for public discourse on policy issues in the USA.
Note to the OP: "...And now Republicans, who lied their teeth out over Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, are screaming that WE MUST ATTACK IRAN RIGHT NOW!!!" 2 points: 1) you might want to check which party holds the presidency, and thus sets foreign policy. 2) Those darn Republican liars! Wait, no:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton (D), Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton (D), Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright (D), Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger (D), Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, (all D)
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore (D), Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore (D), Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weap
I'm sure the "voters are too stupid for democracy" research coming out on the eve of an election in which the candidate of the Left/Academia is likely to get trounced* is sheer coincidence?
*fwiw I don't believe it will be as lopsided as "everyone" assumes. The GOP has assembled a pretty unattractive field.
Or maybe he, and Bush before him, know some things you don't?
I'm not saying that anyone should blindly follow their elected leaders but: - both these men were from radically different backgrounds and philosophical stances - both these men achieved the office of POTUS. Of course, I know it's a concrete fundamental that Bush was an idiot, and it's a concrete fundamental of the Right that Obama was elected only because he was was a charmingly coffee-colored candidate for the politically-correct drones of the Democrats, but seriously: both of them were/are PRESIDENT. That's a hell of an accomplishment.
Could it just *possibly* be that both men, of at least reasonable intellect, when faced with the full disclosure of what the US intelligence community knows, decided on the SAME course for reasons that are mutually sound? Reasons we don't know, and probably won't know for 50 years if ever?
"From the hunter gatherers of then, to the few surviving bands in South America, Africa and Asia today, the hunter gatherers often have to work less hours per week to provide for themselves than the people with their hands on the most sophisticated technology we have available today. One may ask why the wheel should be invented in the first place....Then I watch birds flying around and realize they don't need anyone or anything to create jobs for them, they are self-sufficient. It's the majority of humans who in are social structure are dependent on these wealthy "job creators" to create jobs so that they can survive."
And this is the sort of cosseted, indolent speculation that leads to absurdities like the OWS protests. Seriously - the only way that people who are by and large comfortable, healthy, well-fed, well-clothed, most college-educated, and wealthy could possibly motivate themselves to protest the 'unfairness' of a system is to contrive some sort of fantastic utopian ideal about the conditions they SHOULD be living in, and then wallow in their own self-pity about the system not conforming to this ideal.
Part (I believe) of the problem is that the citizenry today in the West are so insulated against risk and discomfort that they quite literally have forgotten how life works.
For the OP quoted above, he/she looks at hunter/gatherers and even birds, and actually wonders "why would have anyone bothered"?
My answer is: you've obviously never really survival-camped. Does that seem tangential? It isn't.
I believe that survival camping is the closest we can reasonably come to living the lives of our primitive ancestors - to appreciate what a shitty, hard existence life was and (most importantly) to appreciate what a magnificent accomplishment is today's civilization.
(Please note, I mean camping with a minimum of frills. If your definition of "camping" involves a popup trailer, a generator, swathing yourself in modern hyperengineered synthetics and footwear, and dining on foil-packs of carefully-designed and packaged trail foods...well, you might or might not "get" what I'm saying.)
Life - in a primitive setting - sucks. Not just "oh I can't go down and get a Latte because Starbucks is closed today" sucks, but really, really suck in a life-shortening way.
First, for a large portion of the time you're simply not comfortable; either too hot in the day and trying to find shade, or too bloody cold. A significant amount of time you're wet - which leads to cold, but also is simply uncomfortable over long spans in its own right. Even finding a place to SIT can be a challenge. You sit on the grass in a park or your yard and think "ok, this isn't so bad"...except that there are lots of places that aren't covered by a nicely manicured cushion of grass. Ever sit on rock in Wyoming in July? Not super-comfortable. Try to find a place to sit in a forest, and usually the ground is wet or at least damp, so you try to find a comfortable section of fallen tree which can be surprisingly challenging. You may think 'comfort' is a trivial thing...but after hours and days and weeks it's bad enough; I can't even begin to fathom how nearly-constant discomfort would impact you over years. The pleasure of simply being dry, comfortable, and sitting in a comfortable chair inside a structure is almost indescribable, especially if one was recently in difficult (cold, wet) conditions.
Second, as a indolent, probably overweight Westerner, it's probably understandable if you don't quite comprehend the grinding, overarching necessity of food and water. Generally, whatever you want to eat (barring what must have been the almost-heavenly luxury of Autumn when everything was fruiting) is as hard to get as it can accomplish. It's either trying to run away from you, kill you in turn, or protected by defenses that will at least discourage you (ie thorns, or things that make the retrieving of the food-bits prohibitively difficult or painful) or possibly kill you (like mimicry - is
1) stop the massive systemic subsidies to petro-firms (including tax breaks and hidden subsidies like free/cheap land use fees, etc.)
2) apply a DIRECT user-tax to vehicles, based on their mileage at registration (ie you buy your annual tabs, report your mileage, pay a tax). This would be based on road maintenance costs.
3) tax gas like any other sale.
I drive 100 miles a day, I don't mind paying a user tax on those miles, because I'm using the shared resource of roads. But it's bullshit that they can apply a gas tax (ostensibly for highway maintenance) and then steal that money for other purposes in government, then come back saying the tax isn't high enough.
With a tax code that (depending on who you talk to) is 50k pages and 5 million words long, we really need to stop social engineering in our tax code. It's a crazy idea, but maybe taxes could just be about, oh, covering the cost of government, and not about incentives or disincentives decided by some dude in an office somewhere.
Interesting that we see many optimistic posts on/. about alternative energy sources regularly, electric cars, etc. but the post about using Natural Gas as fuel begins with this pessimism "...Natural gas has never been much of an option for U.S. car drivers, and it's going to take a lot of effort by the government and auto manufacturers to make it a viable alternative to gas..."
Look, I think the US government - particularly Congress - are a bunch of supercilious idiots, prone to trying to make comprehensive rules about things they totally don't understand and (importantly) don't care that they don't.
Nevertheless, probably the worst possible way to get these people to react in the way you want them to* is not to try to look like an even more supercilious tool than they are. "(John Gilmore)...one of our philosophers/elders..." OK, you're really not going to impress anyone with trying to clothe network design/maintenance with some quasi-religious overtones. Philosophers? Elders? Really? As intelligent as ESR may be, I wouldn't necessarily credit him or John Gilmore with the intellectual chops to debate angels and pins with, say, Voltaire or Kant. They're no more Philosophers than anyone whose long service at a task gives them insight into how it works. Sorry Eric, that doesn't rate you the title "Philosopher". "Elder" might carry a touch more credence as "an elder person with some special dignity or authority in a tribe or community" but still, it still sounds as silly as calling him a rabbi or 'network buddha' which might even be more accurate.
*of course, this assumes you're actually trying to solve the problem, not grandstand to the crowd or stroke your epeen.
"...(the internet is)...also a sort of reactive social organism..." Now we're into some sort of sophomoric psychosocial commentary. If you want to be specific, the internet really is just a bunch of wires and protocols, within which reside a number of different creatures - your 'reactive social organism' (which, sadly, isn't the sort of higher consciousness that you imply; the huge majority is about a sort of hedonistic narcissism that would have made Caligula blush) being one, the Greater Internet Dickwad being another example. I'm part of this network, and I'll tell you that while I agree with most of your logical premises (minus the ego), and I find Chris Dodd a repellent archetype of Congresspeople as a subspecies, I find your note itself so off-putting that it's impossible to support you.
It IS fair to say that the protocols are designed to see any interruption in information flow - ie censorship - as damage. But then to say "...And there are some things we will not stand having done to our network...." - I can PROMISE you that the last way you're going to get cooperative, constructive help from a US government official is to THREATEN them.
In fact "ESR", they're about the only people on this planet who have as inflated a sense of self importance as, well, you seem to.
A purchase is an investment in the credibility of the seller.
There are so many ways a seller can screw over a purchaser, that's why letters of credit were invented.
If you're purchasing something (effectively) that you have no idea how it works, from someone you don't know, and you give them (by update) the authority to make changes at will...well, to suggest that you are trusting is an understatement.
We've become so habituated to this model, we've forgotten that in the same way that Darwinism works by death, capitalism works by failure. For people to realize a seller can be identified as unscrupulous, a number of people have to get screwed.
I noted in the referenced article that it says the Roku 2 doesn't play Youtube.
I have a Roku 1 and I have a youtube channel, dunno if I added it as one of the roku 'secret' channels one time (I don't think so - I think it's just an available channel), or if they've removed the functionality in Roku 2 but I know I can play it.
I was an early adopter of Roku, buying one the first Xmas they were out and have absolutely loved it. Rock solid stability is no joke. I think I've had one problem in multiple years of constant heavy usage, and that was solved by a hard reboot. My only issues with the Roku are fairly trivial: - no 1080i, even though it does do 720p (which would seem 'harder'). I have an early HD-tube tv, and it goes only up to 1080i so no HD for me. Changing that soon tho.:) - their menu'ing system really has been kludgy for a long time. Better than it was, sure, but still pretty clumsy. - AFAIK no ability to just go buy a backup remote if you lose it.
If there was substance, it would be meaningful and might offend someone - either his corporate donor/masters, or his slavering popular worshipp...er, followers.
The previous president was no substance, and no image. The current one has improved, he has "image" out the kazoo.
...buy a phone from ebay or whatever. Put your sim card in it. VOILA, smartphone without data plan.
NOTE: we discovered that T Mobile actually detects your sim in a smartphone and auto-dumps you into a data plan at some stupid +$40/month or whatever. Go into your phone and turn off the data connection. Then, be SURE to call T-Mobile and immediately make sure that they take the data plan OFF your account. Then you can have a smart phone (that works just fine in wifi areas...which is nearly everywhere. When not in wifi, you can text and use the phone. Works great.
" The mine is the only source of rare earths in North America, one of the only alternatives to the mineral cartels in China, and one of the only sources for the key metals such as tantalum needed in cell phones"
Only, only, only! Oh noes!
As if anyone doesn't already know or understand. The term 'rare' in rare earth doesn't mean rare as in "hard to locate any". It means "rare" in the sense that you'll never find VEINS of it, or nuggets lying around. It exists in many many places, but requires the refining of tons to get ounces.
I understand the 'publish or perish' thing, but when the PRIMARY measure of their performance is their production of texts...doesn't that make them AUTHORS, not academics?
I mean, good luck going to your board of regents (or state funding authority) telling them that instead of 4000 teachers on the payroll, you actually have 4000 authors who also teach....I'm going to guess that the "sell" for that funding is going to be a little bit harder to justify.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a lovely tautology you're wearing. Where did you get it?
So let's see: ...
1. you go into histrionics about something you think I did
2. it turns out I didn't do it
3. you claim that's irrelevant, because 'all that other stuff I did' made you prone to throw that hissy anyway
4.
5. Profit?!
I think it's been conclusively proven since the congressman questioned the Secretary of the Navy about the danger of capsizing Guam that US Congressmen are really the stupidest creatures on the planet.
And, as Senator Dodd pointed out, they don't even have the sense of a reliable whore to stay bought when they've been purchased.
Seriously, they bring each other up on ethics charges, as if our opinion of them could get any lower?
So how do you downrank 300 posts of self-righteous "damn those bible bangers!" outrage as -1 misguided and irrelevant?
Oh, is that the oil being exported by the country that's so energy-starved it needs to develop nuclear power?
Seriously, though: It's not about dollar-backed oil, despite the lovely conspiracy theories that enables.
Traders - for all their sins - are perhaps the most nakedly utilitarian animals on the planet. They will use the currency that they feel is most likely to hold its value one day to the next. Hell, they'd short-trade their grandmothers' kidneys if they'd hold their value reliably.
Please let me know what currency world wide is more transparent and stable than the dollar?
As much as the US economy is going down the craphole thanks to 50+ years of self-interested and gutless politicians on both sides, it is STILL better off than the EU oligarchies. Britain, sadly, just doesn't have the throw-weight anymore to buttress a 'world currency' or I'm certain the Pound would hold that position. The EU? I think that's self-evidently a disaster. The Ruble? Hahahahah. The Yuan? Sure, traders are going to use the currency of a command-economy that unashamedly conceals statistics, manipulates their currency, statistics, and economy to their own advantage (to a degree that would even embarrass the worst such actors in the US or Europe).
I'm no biologist, but isn't this almost statistically certain to be happening all over?
I recall that in the London subway, evolutionary variation into distinct species was observed in insects (?) in different tube lines.
Hell, my house is over 100 yrs old, and I suspect that we probably have at least 3 identifiable strains of otherwise-common animals:
- house spiders: the ones on the living levels of the house are much more spindly, with darker colors that match our woodwork more closely. They are much calmer, staying still when disturbed. Their webs tend to be very fine and delicate.
- basement spiders: our cellar hosts a healthy population of spiders, roughly similar in form to the house spiders, but much paler, more aggressive, weaving thicker webs.
- houseflies: in our attic (not finished until we moved in, in 1992) there is a particularly massive type of housefly. Not a bottlefly, it is as far as I can see simply a gigantic version of a typical housefly, roughly 2x the size in each dimension (ie about the size of a large bluebottle fly). It's our speculation that they are seriously inbred and stupid - they are very slow-reacting, flying slow in straight lines, our dog bites them out of the air....and he's not too quick either. In fact, last summer we noticed one of these flies was killed by a closing door.
It's more a matter of at what point a 'drift' in some subgroup is significant enough to say "this is a new species" than "OMG, look, totally new frog here!", no?
Generally, I find 'statistics' on the gaming industry too liable to ... er, "gaming" to be useful. Generally it has to do with the breadth of how they define 'computer game'.
As the op referenced, there were dire warnings that 'pc gaming was dying'. Then it was apparent that the huge bulk of units/sales - the majority of the discussion, in fact - was considering products that many "gamers" wouldn't even be likely to include in the "gaming ouevre", ie Barbie Fashion Designer, or Exxtreme Deer Hunter 3D.*
*granted, they are played on a computer, and they are games, so perhaps it was just a sort of cliquish snobbiness that excluded them. But on the other hand by that same definition I'm pretty sure the dominant 'computer game' ever would be Minesweeper or Freecell.
This is further setting aside that it's still common that to broader audiences, 'computer games' can interchangeably refer to consoles or computers.
Finally now we're once again subjected to PCs vs consoles, which starts to sort of sound like a debate between "Surrey or Fiacre" when compared to the explosive growth of mobile/phone games. But does the growth of these mobile platforms have anything to do with consoles or PCs? I'd contend its completely independent - thus really irrelevant; if I have a gaming inclination that wants to be satisfied by something engaging and complex for hours, I'm probably not going to play Tetris. But if I have 15 mins until the bus I doubt I'm going to turn on my computer or even Xbox.
FWIW I personally believe that consoles are most likely the genre that has a finite product lifespan. As mobile platforms are now truly handheld computers, and computers meanwhile get amazingly cheap, it seems that consoles are getting squeezed out. Ultimately, I suspect anything that can access the web's infinite flashgames is going to kill the game market for anything casual.
...but if it's so easy/cheap to do (since everyone's claiming most of pharma $$ are spent on advertising, etc), why doesn't India just develop it themselves?
In other news, were I a pharma company, I would immediately stop selling anything in India...PARTICULARLY where there's an exposure in a local-owned subsidiary that could be nationalized (which is effectively what this decision does).
You're missing the point.
The OP declared Republicans (solely) to be responsible for the lies on WMDs.
I have no problem declaring the 'government class' of BOTH "sides" as collusive scoundrels who have more in common with each other than with any of us unwashed residing outside the beltway.
I DO have a problem with some brainwashed fanatic's mendacity claiming that somehow "his" side is lily white, and "those other guys" are evil - when they are both patently filthy scum.
Considering how absurdly and inhumanly statuesque they've made the women, I'm perfectly fine without them going on to the same level of anatomical "realism" (hahah) on men.
I'm already insecure enough.
"If there was some way I could turn off life support for all the flat-lined Slashdot readers, I'd do it in an instant."
Anyone else see the irony of a person ranting about the brutality of George Bush's arbitrary and brutal war, posting in a public forum that he would unhesitatingly MURDER the people that disagree with him?
And that folks, is what passes for public discourse on policy issues in the USA.
Note to the OP:
"...And now Republicans, who lied their teeth out over Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, are screaming that WE MUST ATTACK IRAN RIGHT NOW!!!"
2 points:
1) you might want to check which party holds the presidency, and thus sets foreign policy.
2) Those darn Republican liars! Wait, no:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton (D), Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton (D), Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright (D), Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger (D), Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, (all D)
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore (D), Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore (D), Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weap
I'm certain that there is some sort of scientific value to this.
Of course, demonstrating to the Chinese that we can rapidly launch a barrage of orbit-capable warheads, er, payloads isn't a bad thing either.
I'm sure the "voters are too stupid for democracy" research coming out on the eve of an election in which the candidate of the Left/Academia is likely to get trounced* is sheer coincidence?
*fwiw I don't believe it will be as lopsided as "everyone" assumes. The GOP has assembled a pretty unattractive field.
Or maybe he, and Bush before him, know some things you don't?
I'm not saying that anyone should blindly follow their elected leaders but:
- both these men were from radically different backgrounds and philosophical stances
- both these men achieved the office of POTUS. Of course, I know it's a concrete fundamental that Bush was an idiot, and it's a concrete fundamental of the Right that Obama was elected only because he was was a charmingly coffee-colored candidate for the politically-correct drones of the Democrats, but seriously: both of them were/are PRESIDENT. That's a hell of an accomplishment.
Could it just *possibly* be that both men, of at least reasonable intellect, when faced with the full disclosure of what the US intelligence community knows, decided on the SAME course for reasons that are mutually sound? Reasons we don't know, and probably won't know for 50 years if ever?
Nah, that's unpossible.
"From the hunter gatherers of then, to the few surviving bands in South America, Africa and Asia today, the hunter gatherers often have to work less hours per week to provide for themselves than the people with their hands on the most sophisticated technology we have available today. One may ask why the wheel should be invented in the first place....Then I watch birds flying around and realize they don't need anyone or anything to create jobs for them, they are self-sufficient. It's the majority of humans who in are social structure are dependent on these wealthy "job creators" to create jobs so that they can survive."
And this is the sort of cosseted, indolent speculation that leads to absurdities like the OWS protests. Seriously - the only way that people who are by and large comfortable, healthy, well-fed, well-clothed, most college-educated, and wealthy could possibly motivate themselves to protest the 'unfairness' of a system is to contrive some sort of fantastic utopian ideal about the conditions they SHOULD be living in, and then wallow in their own self-pity about the system not conforming to this ideal.
Part (I believe) of the problem is that the citizenry today in the West are so insulated against risk and discomfort that they quite literally have forgotten how life works.
For the OP quoted above, he/she looks at hunter/gatherers and even birds, and actually wonders "why would have anyone bothered"?
My answer is: you've obviously never really survival-camped. Does that seem tangential? It isn't.
I believe that survival camping is the closest we can reasonably come to living the lives of our primitive ancestors - to appreciate what a shitty, hard existence life was and (most importantly) to appreciate what a magnificent accomplishment is today's civilization.
(Please note, I mean camping with a minimum of frills. If your definition of "camping" involves a popup trailer, a generator, swathing yourself in modern hyperengineered synthetics and footwear, and dining on foil-packs of carefully-designed and packaged trail foods...well, you might or might not "get" what I'm saying.)
Life - in a primitive setting - sucks. Not just "oh I can't go down and get a Latte because Starbucks is closed today" sucks, but really, really suck in a life-shortening way.
First, for a large portion of the time you're simply not comfortable; either too hot in the day and trying to find shade, or too bloody cold. A significant amount of time you're wet - which leads to cold, but also is simply uncomfortable over long spans in its own right. Even finding a place to SIT can be a challenge. You sit on the grass in a park or your yard and think "ok, this isn't so bad"...except that there are lots of places that aren't covered by a nicely manicured cushion of grass. Ever sit on rock in Wyoming in July? Not super-comfortable. Try to find a place to sit in a forest, and usually the ground is wet or at least damp, so you try to find a comfortable section of fallen tree which can be surprisingly challenging. You may think 'comfort' is a trivial thing...but after hours and days and weeks it's bad enough; I can't even begin to fathom how nearly-constant discomfort would impact you over years. The pleasure of simply being dry, comfortable, and sitting in a comfortable chair inside a structure is almost indescribable, especially if one was recently in difficult (cold, wet) conditions.
Second, as a indolent, probably overweight Westerner, it's probably understandable if you don't quite comprehend the grinding, overarching necessity of food and water. Generally, whatever you want to eat (barring what must have been the almost-heavenly luxury of Autumn when everything was fruiting) is as hard to get as it can accomplish. It's either trying to run away from you, kill you in turn, or protected by defenses that will at least discourage you (ie thorns, or things that make the retrieving of the food-bits prohibitively difficult or painful) or possibly kill you (like mimicry - is
You can even practice defeating this with Microsoft Windows microphone application...
"I am listening for the sound of my voice..."
(I haven't yet met the person that can talk through that sentence the FIRST time without stumbling.)
1) stop the massive systemic subsidies to petro-firms (including tax breaks and hidden subsidies like free/cheap land use fees, etc.)
2) apply a DIRECT user-tax to vehicles, based on their mileage at registration (ie you buy your annual tabs, report your mileage, pay a tax). This would be based on road maintenance costs.
3) tax gas like any other sale.
I drive 100 miles a day, I don't mind paying a user tax on those miles, because I'm using the shared resource of roads. But it's bullshit that they can apply a gas tax (ostensibly for highway maintenance) and then steal that money for other purposes in government, then come back saying the tax isn't high enough.
With a tax code that (depending on who you talk to) is 50k pages and 5 million words long, we really need to stop social engineering in our tax code. It's a crazy idea, but maybe taxes could just be about, oh, covering the cost of government, and not about incentives or disincentives decided by some dude in an office somewhere.
I know, crazy ideas.
"People who are happy with their handful of decades followed by decline and don't have the courage to live longer can ignore these things."
Who, exactly, are these people?
I'm just curious that you believe some people are actually AFRAID to live longer? That's a curious worldview and I wonder where it comes from?
Interesting that we see many optimistic posts on /. about alternative energy sources regularly, electric cars, etc. but the post about using Natural Gas as fuel begins with this pessimism "...Natural gas has never been much of an option for U.S. car drivers, and it's going to take a lot of effort by the government and auto manufacturers to make it a viable alternative to gas..."
Look, I think the US government - particularly Congress - are a bunch of supercilious idiots, prone to trying to make comprehensive rules about things they totally don't understand and (importantly) don't care that they don't.
Nevertheless, probably the worst possible way to get these people to react in the way you want them to* is not to try to look like an even more supercilious tool than they are. "(John Gilmore)...one of our philosophers/elders..." OK, you're really not going to impress anyone with trying to clothe network design/maintenance with some quasi-religious overtones. Philosophers? Elders? Really? As intelligent as ESR may be, I wouldn't necessarily credit him or John Gilmore with the intellectual chops to debate angels and pins with, say, Voltaire or Kant. They're no more Philosophers than anyone whose long service at a task gives them insight into how it works. Sorry Eric, that doesn't rate you the title "Philosopher". "Elder" might carry a touch more credence as "an elder person with some special dignity or authority in a tribe or community" but still, it still sounds as silly as calling him a rabbi or 'network buddha' which might even be more accurate.
*of course, this assumes you're actually trying to solve the problem, not grandstand to the crowd or stroke your epeen.
"...(the internet is)...also a sort of reactive social organism..." Now we're into some sort of sophomoric psychosocial commentary. If you want to be specific, the internet really is just a bunch of wires and protocols, within which reside a number of different creatures - your 'reactive social organism' (which, sadly, isn't the sort of higher consciousness that you imply; the huge majority is about a sort of hedonistic narcissism that would have made Caligula blush) being one, the Greater Internet Dickwad being another example. I'm part of this network, and I'll tell you that while I agree with most of your logical premises (minus the ego), and I find Chris Dodd a repellent archetype of Congresspeople as a subspecies, I find your note itself so off-putting that it's impossible to support you.
It IS fair to say that the protocols are designed to see any interruption in information flow - ie censorship - as damage. But then to say "...And there are some things we will not stand having done to our network...." - I can PROMISE you that the last way you're going to get cooperative, constructive help from a US government official is to THREATEN them.
In fact "ESR", they're about the only people on this planet who have as inflated a sense of self importance as, well, you seem to.
A purchase is an investment in the credibility of the seller.
There are so many ways a seller can screw over a purchaser, that's why letters of credit were invented.
If you're purchasing something (effectively) that you have no idea how it works, from someone you don't know, and you give them (by update) the authority to make changes at will...well, to suggest that you are trusting is an understatement.
We've become so habituated to this model, we've forgotten that in the same way that Darwinism works by death, capitalism works by failure. For people to realize a seller can be identified as unscrupulous, a number of people have to get screwed.
I noted in the referenced article that it says the Roku 2 doesn't play Youtube.
I have a Roku 1 and I have a youtube channel, dunno if I added it as one of the roku 'secret' channels one time (I don't think so - I think it's just an available channel), or if they've removed the functionality in Roku 2 but I know I can play it.
I was an early adopter of Roku, buying one the first Xmas they were out and have absolutely loved it. Rock solid stability is no joke. I think I've had one problem in multiple years of constant heavy usage, and that was solved by a hard reboot. My only issues with the Roku are fairly trivial: :)
- no 1080i, even though it does do 720p (which would seem 'harder'). I have an early HD-tube tv, and it goes only up to 1080i so no HD for me. Changing that soon tho.
- their menu'ing system really has been kludgy for a long time. Better than it was, sure, but still pretty clumsy.
- AFAIK no ability to just go buy a backup remote if you lose it.
If there was substance, it would be meaningful and might offend someone - either his corporate donor/masters, or his slavering popular worshipp...er, followers.
The previous president was no substance, and no image.
The current one has improved, he has "image" out the kazoo.
...buy a phone from ebay or whatever.
Put your sim card in it.
VOILA, smartphone without data plan.
NOTE: we discovered that T Mobile actually detects your sim in a smartphone and auto-dumps you into a data plan at some stupid +$40/month or whatever. Go into your phone and turn off the data connection. Then, be SURE to call T-Mobile and immediately make sure that they take the data plan OFF your account. Then you can have a smart phone (that works just fine in wifi areas...which is nearly everywhere. When not in wifi, you can text and use the phone. Works great.
" The mine is the only source of rare earths in North America, one of the only alternatives to the mineral cartels in China, and one of the only sources for the key metals such as tantalum needed in cell phones"
Only, only, only! Oh noes!
As if anyone doesn't already know or understand. The term 'rare' in rare earth doesn't mean rare as in "hard to locate any". It means "rare" in the sense that you'll never find VEINS of it, or nuggets lying around. It exists in many many places, but requires the refining of tons to get ounces.
I understand the 'publish or perish' thing, but when the PRIMARY measure of their performance is their production of texts...doesn't that make them AUTHORS, not academics?
I mean, good luck going to your board of regents (or state funding authority) telling them that instead of 4000 teachers on the payroll, you actually have 4000 authors who also teach....I'm going to guess that the "sell" for that funding is going to be a little bit harder to justify.