Let's assume this was, indeed a deliberate, coordinated attack by a foreign government (or sponsored thereby)?
How many (American)/.ers would actually lift a finger to help the US, or be anything more than ambivalent about the whole thing? From the general political tenor of the commentary here, I'd guess few.
Funny, the German coworkers I frequently host here comment often that it's nice to see people so generally proud of their country. They remark notably that nobody flies German flags, and they wish it was more socially acceptable.
I dunno why the difference, though. Could it be that we're Americans FIRST, and Minnesotans (or whatever state you're from) second?* In Europe, from what I've seen, people are Bavarians first, and Germans second; or Bretons first and Frenchmen second. Perhaps I have a narrow experience, but that's what I've seen.
More importantly, how does it compare to failures and false-positives?
If it only caught 1200 people, but every one of them was trying something tricky, then it's a useful tool. If it caught 1200 guilty people out of 1,2 million flags, then it's worse than useless.
But it seems that the submitter was so breathlessly convinced of the TSA's incompetence that he didn't bother considering how to present the information usefully.
Let's use the smallest creature universally recognized to be alive, perhaps a mycoplasm (the smallest class of bacteria).
I believe that relatively soon (within a generation) we'll be able to build this atom-by-atom. If you build this creature identically to a living organism, and then are (much more tricky) able to impart a collection of electrical charges precisely identical to the living model - will it be alive?
Then, if once this is possible, larger creatures are merely a matter of scale. If you did this with a human model, what would you get? A living, breathing person? A vegetative humaniform... something?
If there is something ELSE to the mix that we can't yet measure that gives something the actual characteristic of aliveness, that's the soul.
Pretty much correct on the largest H-bomb, but not precisely so. Whether this matters is a question of your level of interest.
Largest bomb detonated was the 50mt Tsar bomba, by the Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomb). It was actually scaled down from it's theoretical max yield by 50% due to concerns about fallout. Some speculate that the real consideration was that the pilots couldn't get away sufficiently to survive a 100mt blast.
" The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane (so a 10km/6-mile diameter fireball), and was seen and felt almost 1,000 km (621 miles) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 km (40 miles) high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 40 km (25 miles) wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there.[7] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 km (621 mi) away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth.[8] Its Richter magnitude was about 5 to 5.25.[9]"
It was found to be ultimately inefficient as a weapon, except for the 1960's version of epeen.
Re:Those are usually pretty light.
on
Ender in Exile
·
· Score: 1
Not to pick on Frank Herbert, but how about Dune? The Godmakers?
The level of technology, and whether it's explained sufficiently or has a basis in science fact is *utterly* irrelevant to the depth and quality (again, two nearly disconnected characteristics) of the story.
(shrug) I have no idea if there's a diety, or if we're the result of the chemical equivalent of billions of years of monkeys at typewriters. All I know is that if you're postulating the 'random chemical' thing, you're not really solving the question at all, only moving the point of it further back in time. If the universe proceeded from the big bang, along a discrete set of physical laws with no diety present, where did the initial mass and laws come from? If you say it came from a bubble spawned off another universe, where did that come from.
I don't see infinite regression as somehow more scientifically 'valid' than saying there was some point some noodly appendage went "POOF" and it all started.
Have you considered that they might be building it with DC power for the data units? No transformers in every device SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the heat load, also makes the racks creepy-quiet.
Wouldn't it make MORE sense to perhaps spend the human/technical resources FIXING the most exploitable bugs rather than standing around with a beer in hand saying 'yep, that's going to explode for sure'.
"Suddenly, I'm no longer so sure that absolute freedom of the press is such a good idea any more."
Scary, but true.
True, that is, only insofar as the "press" is essentially an Oligarchy with nearly homogenous political views (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455) and a willingness to spend their reputational capital by blatantly stumping for one side or the other, say, by hardly bothering to question clearly falsified documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate). Should any organization NOT subscribing to their beliefs dare to break their monopoly (http://www.foxnews.com) they would be habitually vilified and demonized as 'biased' and 'propoganda'.
The chink in this monopoly, however, are alternative news sources. As long as they were private mailing lists, newsletters of trivial circulation, or word-of-mouth, they were inconsequential. But beginning in the 1980's, AM Talk Radio saw the rise of Limbaugh (et al) as a direct commercial and philosophical opposition to the main media outlets. Decried by the mandarins of media as 'crassly commercial' (then again, why are the big media organizations in business themselves? Shhh!) Talk Radio was the first place for the other half of Americans not self-identifying as Liberal could get news spun in a way that they preferred. Arguably, this resulted in the first Republican-controlled House in FIFTY years.
Subsequently, of course, the internet has now taken up the mantle of being the news source that 'unfilterable' by a sole set of precepts; this also weakens it because it remains filterable by ANY set of precepts forcing consumers to either check multiple sources or consume only one source (although they at least are probably more aware of the dogmatic 'spin' they're getting).
Next, you will see a massive effort by the Democrats now controlling government to broaden the 'Fairness Doctrine', specifically as regards AM talk radio. (I don't believe even Democrats are stupid enough to try to control the internet...but I might be wrong.) It is everything to them to RESTORE control of the bulk dispersal of information BACK into the hands of the friendly media barons.
Obama- -a fresh, young, handsome guy - with a message of change - drawing HUGE crowds at his rallies - inspiring worldwide excitement - defeating a CLINTON in the primaries - having the historic distinction of being a black guy with a serious chance at winning the Presidency (actually half-black/half-white, which was even MORE interesting).
- whose political views agree with 90% of reporters anyway
"The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable."
You mean, aside from the 10 minutes of previews and actual commercial ads that precede theater films, or the 15 minutes of ads, unskippable warnings, and "DON'T BE A DVD PIRATE! PIRATING IS STEALING" infomercials that precede the feature on every goddamn dvd?
No, I don't believe I'll be surprised at whatever Hollywood deems "necessary" to make something profitable. I mean, according to Hollywood accountants Spider Man, Forrest Gump, and Lord of the Rings all failed to make a profit, right? Of course we can trust them.
Despite my voting for McCain, I'm not unpleased at the results of the 2008 presidential election.
No, I don't expect Obama will be able to accomplish any significant change - I believe as a neophyte he's going to be circumscribed by the cavalcade of Democratic hangers-on "cannonballing exuberantly into Washington like the caddies into the pool in Caddyshack" (credit National Review with that imagery), or if he doesn't toe the line in handouts, he'll be checkmated and rendered impotent by the Kennedy's, Pelosi's, and Frank's of that town.
But something I recognize as a staunch Republican: Bush's presidency was a series of colossal blunders, the worst was not the war(s) specifically, but the squandering of the ephemeral but not insignificant moral high-ground that the US really did occupy on-and-off for the last 50 years. If we insist that the US is somehow 'special' (and I indeed do) then we can't simply do what other countries might do. We're better than that, and I think we need to remember it. Does it mean that we are sometimes handicapped in our response? Yep. But regardless of 'advantage', there's something to being able to hold one's head up from day to day.
There is no question that the election of a half-Arab, half-Black child of a broken home to the Presidency of the United States *says* something to the world and to history about us as a country, as an ideal, that can never, ever, be taken away.
His presidency may be the "Return to Camelot" that some naive voters seem to priapistically expect, which I doubt. (Even Kennedy's 'Camelot' days weren't quite as rose-colored as they are remembered...) His presidency may be a catastrophe that ends the Republic, even less likely.
In reality, his presidency will find a middle course, with some successes, some failures, and we will be back in 2016* once again exercising our democratic will in a way that is intrinsically, basically, American.
*2012 is the next election, sure, but barring a cataclysmic blunder, most presidents now serve 8 years with the middle election merely being little more than a referendum on the presidency.
Congratulations to President-Elect Obama, I didn't vote for you, but as an American citizen, I wish you all the success in the world. You will be my president.
"Useful idiots" in this document is referring SOLELY to the 'patriotic hackers' - ie unofficial pro-China hackers who cheerfully attack anti-Chinese or other targets of opportunity without official support or sanction.
The Useful Idiots that the summary refers to have been around forever: people who are easily manipulated by professional intelligence services without a great deal of effort because they are naive, idealistic, or simply ignorant - such as the Red Army Faction, the German anti-nuke movement, and protests against Reagan in the 80s.
I'd like to have a webcam in your home, so I could see you swallow your tongue if he doesn't win.
Sure, he may, and it seems like he's ahead in the polls. But the smugness of the Left is fairly sickening. I don't recall the whacky Right being that smug last election when Bush won somewhat comfortably.
I'm pleased that you responded, and I'm happy to reply in turn about why I claim that one's use of western technology DOES in fact imply endorsement of Western industrial civilization.
"I didn't choose to be born in this system, yet I am forced to live in it." Why? Who's forcing you to stay? That's the first bit of disingenuity that leads me to the inflammatory term of hypocrisy. If you can give me a credible reason that you are UNABLE to go to any place that ISN'T dominated by the Western Industrial paradigm, I'd be happy to recant. As an example, you could travel to Mogadishu - the closest think I can think of pure anarchy, so why aren't you there, "walking the tough talk"?
"Going off into the woods will not let me escape government and capitalism (governments will tax you if they can, land tax, or whatever, and if you don't own the land, they'll do you for trespass). And even if I could, it isn't plausible for all those who object to the system to up and leave. Leave hospitals, schools etc." Wait - again, your comment screams HYPOCRITE. Those schools and hospitals are the RESULT of the system, they don't exist DESPITE it. You need to finish your degree? Why? Isn't that just 'selling out' to the capitalist system? Again, I'll suggest - I don't think the dudes in Mogadishu give a flying crap about if you finish your degree or not. You can't claim that you need to stay here and accept the benefits of Western (capitalist) schools and (capitalist) medical care, or state/charity institutions who exist off the taxes generated by capitalists. You can't (without being a blatant hypocrite) say you hate a system and simultaneously reap the benefits of that same system.
"...justify your claim that I'm a hypocrite for using technology (even when I never said anything about it)..." Is your sig not 'DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization.'?
"I bet you would saying something about capitalism producing the technology. Does that mean you endorse slavery because the USA was built upon it? Oh, and capitalism isn't the only system to have produced technology... I bet you support feudalism because guns were invented in that time." That's a pretty feeble argument that begs so many questions it's hard to even formulate a reply. Capitalism DID by & large produce the technology you use as a result of market and PROFIT-DRIVEN innovation. And in a causal chain of events, it's fallacious to suggest that you can somehow divorce effects from cause.
The idea that the US was "built on slavery"? - WTF kind of sophomoric stupidity is that? Firstly, I'm not sure you noticed, but pretty much every pre 19th-century society had slavery in one form or another. The US neither invented it, nor really accomplished anything exceptional with it aside from the development of the largely agrarian south into a textile powerhouse. The northern (industrial, technical) states of course had slavery as a legal institution, but slaves were found to be inefficient and economically unviable for the sort of factory labor that was common in the north by 1840+. Certainly, the great wealth generated by cotton in the south (directly attributable to slave labor) generated flows of cash which partially funded the north's economic and industrial expansion, but this is more a factor of the SPEED of industrialization, not that industrialization wouldn't have happened at all if not for the south's use of slaves. In fact, slavery was recognized by 1850 to be an IMPEDIMENT to industrialization, by undercutting the workers' fair salary scale. Finally, if the US was "built on" slavery as you assert, then one would see a flattening of the US GDP growth after 1865, yet US growth ACCELERATES thereafter.
Besides, your comparisons don't even make logical sense. It's reductio ad absurdam to suggest that capitalism should be broadly condemned because slavery was one sad permutation of the system. It's like condemning humanity because there
"their electronic vote for 'Barack Obama' kept flipping to 'John McCain.'""
Sure it did.
If you push "VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA" and "+1 VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN" comes up, why would you go home, think about it, then tell someone there was a problem.
It's impossible to turn around, call the attendant over (there are always a half-dozen helpers at these things), and say "look at this"?
" the project, sponsored by the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, a recorded video therapist guides astronauts through a widely used depression therapy called 'problem-solving treatment.'""
Slashdot Mirror
Let's assume this was, indeed a deliberate, coordinated attack by a foreign government (or sponsored thereby)?
How many (American) /.ers would actually lift a finger to help the US, or be anything more than ambivalent about the whole thing? From the general political tenor of the commentary here, I'd guess few.
Funny, the German coworkers I frequently host here comment often that it's nice to see people so generally proud of their country. They remark notably that nobody flies German flags, and they wish it was more socially acceptable.
I dunno why the difference, though. Could it be that we're Americans FIRST, and Minnesotans (or whatever state you're from) second?* In Europe, from what I've seen, people are Bavarians first, and Germans second; or Bretons first and Frenchmen second. Perhaps I have a narrow experience, but that's what I've seen.
* Texas probably excepted here.
More importantly, how does it compare to failures and false-positives?
If it only caught 1200 people, but every one of them was trying something tricky, then it's a useful tool.
If it caught 1200 guilty people out of 1,2 million flags, then it's worse than useless.
But it seems that the submitter was so breathlessly convinced of the TSA's incompetence that he didn't bother considering how to present the information usefully.
Let's use the smallest creature universally recognized to be alive, perhaps a mycoplasm (the smallest class of bacteria).
I believe that relatively soon (within a generation) we'll be able to build this atom-by-atom. If you build this creature identically to a living organism, and then are (much more tricky) able to impart a collection of electrical charges precisely identical to the living model - will it be alive?
Then, if once this is possible, larger creatures are merely a matter of scale. ... something?
If you did this with a human model, what would you get? A living, breathing person? A vegetative humaniform
If there is something ELSE to the mix that we can't yet measure that gives something the actual characteristic of aliveness, that's the soul.
IMO.
Pretty much correct on the largest H-bomb, but not precisely so. Whether this matters is a question of your level of interest.
Largest bomb detonated was the 50mt Tsar bomba, by the Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomb). It was actually scaled down from it's theoretical max yield by 50% due to concerns about fallout. Some speculate that the real consideration was that the pilots couldn't get away sufficiently to survive a 100mt blast.
" The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane (so a 10km/6-mile diameter fireball), and was seen and felt almost 1,000 km (621 miles) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 km (40 miles) high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 40 km (25 miles) wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there.[7] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 km (621 mi) away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth.[8] Its Richter magnitude was about 5 to 5.25.[9]"
It was found to be ultimately inefficient as a weapon, except for the 1960's version of epeen.
Not to pick on Frank Herbert, but how about Dune? The Godmakers?
The level of technology, and whether it's explained sufficiently or has a basis in science fact is *utterly* irrelevant to the depth and quality (again, two nearly disconnected characteristics) of the story.
(shrug)
I have no idea if there's a diety, or if we're the result of the chemical equivalent of billions of years of monkeys at typewriters. All I know is that if you're postulating the 'random chemical' thing, you're not really solving the question at all, only moving the point of it further back in time. If the universe proceeded from the big bang, along a discrete set of physical laws with no diety present, where did the initial mass and laws come from? If you say it came from a bubble spawned off another universe, where did that come from.
I don't see infinite regression as somehow more scientifically 'valid' than saying there was some point some noodly appendage went "POOF" and it all started.
Have you considered that they might be building it with DC power for the data units?
No transformers in every device SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the heat load, also makes the racks creepy-quiet.
Fuck you.
Signed,
H. Clinton.
Yes, this IS bad or wrong or something.
Wouldn't it make MORE sense to perhaps spend the human/technical resources FIXING the most exploitable bugs rather than standing around with a beer in hand saying 'yep, that's going to explode for sure'.
*BOOM*
'See? I told you so.'
"Most parts of the Maldives are just 150 cm above water"
Considering that as little as 800-1000 years ago, the Maldives were apparently under meters of seawater, where did the Maldivians come from?
Isn't this something like building your house on the beach at low tide, and then panicking as the sea rolls in, but on a slower scale?
"Suddenly, I'm no longer so sure that absolute freedom of the press is such a good idea any more."
Scary, but true.
True, that is, only insofar as the "press" is essentially an Oligarchy with nearly homogenous political views (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455) and a willingness to spend their reputational capital by blatantly stumping for one side or the other, say, by hardly bothering to question clearly falsified documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate). Should any organization NOT subscribing to their beliefs dare to break their monopoly (http://www.foxnews.com) they would be habitually vilified and demonized as 'biased' and 'propoganda'.
The chink in this monopoly, however, are alternative news sources. As long as they were private mailing lists, newsletters of trivial circulation, or word-of-mouth, they were inconsequential. But beginning in the 1980's, AM Talk Radio saw the rise of Limbaugh (et al) as a direct commercial and philosophical opposition to the main media outlets. Decried by the mandarins of media as 'crassly commercial' (then again, why are the big media organizations in business themselves? Shhh!) Talk Radio was the first place for the other half of Americans not self-identifying as Liberal could get news spun in a way that they preferred. Arguably, this resulted in the first Republican-controlled House in FIFTY years.
Subsequently, of course, the internet has now taken up the mantle of being the news source that 'unfilterable' by a sole set of precepts; this also weakens it because it remains filterable by ANY set of precepts forcing consumers to either check multiple sources or consume only one source (although they at least are probably more aware of the dogmatic 'spin' they're getting).
Next, you will see a massive effort by the Democrats now controlling government to broaden the 'Fairness Doctrine', specifically as regards AM talk radio. (I don't believe even Democrats are stupid enough to try to control the internet...but I might be wrong.) It is everything to them to RESTORE control of the bulk dispersal of information BACK into the hands of the friendly media barons.
- whose political views agree with 90% of reporters anyway
You missed a teeny one, but I fixed it for you.
I can't be the first person to have read the story and immediately thought "KILLDOZER!", could I?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071717/
"The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable."
You mean, aside from the 10 minutes of previews and actual commercial ads that precede theater films, or the 15 minutes of ads, unskippable warnings, and "DON'T BE A DVD PIRATE! PIRATING IS STEALING" infomercials that precede the feature on every goddamn dvd?
No, I don't believe I'll be surprised at whatever Hollywood deems "necessary" to make something profitable. I mean, according to Hollywood accountants Spider Man, Forrest Gump, and Lord of the Rings all failed to make a profit, right? Of course we can trust them.
Met any Obama supporters lately?
It's PRECISELY the word I meant to use.
Despite my voting for McCain, I'm not unpleased at the results of the 2008 presidential election.
No, I don't expect Obama will be able to accomplish any significant change - I believe as a neophyte he's going to be circumscribed by the cavalcade of Democratic hangers-on "cannonballing exuberantly into Washington like the caddies into the pool in Caddyshack" (credit National Review with that imagery), or if he doesn't toe the line in handouts, he'll be checkmated and rendered impotent by the Kennedy's, Pelosi's, and Frank's of that town.
But something I recognize as a staunch Republican: Bush's presidency was a series of colossal blunders, the worst was not the war(s) specifically, but the squandering of the ephemeral but not insignificant moral high-ground that the US really did occupy on-and-off for the last 50 years. If we insist that the US is somehow 'special' (and I indeed do) then we can't simply do what other countries might do. We're better than that, and I think we need to remember it. Does it mean that we are sometimes handicapped in our response? Yep. But regardless of 'advantage', there's something to being able to hold one's head up from day to day.
There is no question that the election of a half-Arab, half-Black child of a broken home to the Presidency of the United States *says* something to the world and to history about us as a country, as an ideal, that can never, ever, be taken away.
His presidency may be the "Return to Camelot" that some naive voters seem to priapistically expect, which I doubt. (Even Kennedy's 'Camelot' days weren't quite as rose-colored as they are remembered...) His presidency may be a catastrophe that ends the Republic, even less likely.
In reality, his presidency will find a middle course, with some successes, some failures, and we will be back in 2016* once again exercising our democratic will in a way that is intrinsically, basically, American.
*2012 is the next election, sure, but barring a cataclysmic blunder, most presidents now serve 8 years with the middle election merely being little more than a referendum on the presidency.
Congratulations to President-Elect Obama, I didn't vote for you, but as an American citizen, I wish you all the success in the world. You will be my president.
"Useful idiots" in this document is referring SOLELY to the 'patriotic hackers' - ie unofficial pro-China hackers who cheerfully attack anti-Chinese or other targets of opportunity without official support or sanction.
The Useful Idiots that the summary refers to have been around forever: people who are easily manipulated by professional intelligence services without a great deal of effort because they are naive, idealistic, or simply ignorant - such as the Red Army Faction, the German anti-nuke movement, and protests against Reagan in the 80s.
I'd like to have a webcam in your home, so I could see you swallow your tongue if he doesn't win.
Sure, he may, and it seems like he's ahead in the polls. But the smugness of the Left is fairly sickening. I don't recall the whacky Right being that smug last election when Bush won somewhat comfortably.
He's a member of a bigoted, ethnocentric, racist CHRISTIAN church.
I'm pleased that you responded, and I'm happy to reply in turn about why I claim that one's use of western technology DOES in fact imply endorsement of Western industrial civilization.
"I didn't choose to be born in this system, yet I am forced to live in it."
Why? Who's forcing you to stay? That's the first bit of disingenuity that leads me to the inflammatory term of hypocrisy. If you can give me a credible reason that you are UNABLE to go to any place that ISN'T dominated by the Western Industrial paradigm, I'd be happy to recant. As an example, you could travel to Mogadishu - the closest think I can think of pure anarchy, so why aren't you there, "walking the tough talk"?
"Going off into the woods will not let me escape government and capitalism (governments will tax you if they can, land tax, or whatever, and if you don't own the land, they'll do you for trespass). And even if I could, it isn't plausible for all those who object to the system to up and leave. Leave hospitals, schools etc."
Wait - again, your comment screams HYPOCRITE. Those schools and hospitals are the RESULT of the system, they don't exist DESPITE it. You need to finish your degree? Why? Isn't that just 'selling out' to the capitalist system? Again, I'll suggest - I don't think the dudes in Mogadishu give a flying crap about if you finish your degree or not. You can't claim that you need to stay here and accept the benefits of Western (capitalist) schools and (capitalist) medical care, or state/charity institutions who exist off the taxes generated by capitalists. You can't (without being a blatant hypocrite) say you hate a system and simultaneously reap the benefits of that same system.
"...justify your claim that I'm a hypocrite for using technology (even when I never said anything about it)..."
Is your sig not 'DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization.'?
"I bet you would saying something about capitalism producing the technology. Does that mean you endorse slavery because the USA was built upon it? Oh, and capitalism isn't the only system to have produced technology... I bet you support feudalism because guns were invented in that time."
That's a pretty feeble argument that begs so many questions it's hard to even formulate a reply.
Capitalism DID by & large produce the technology you use as a result of market and PROFIT-DRIVEN innovation. And in a causal chain of events, it's fallacious to suggest that you can somehow divorce effects from cause.
The idea that the US was "built on slavery"? - WTF kind of sophomoric stupidity is that? Firstly, I'm not sure you noticed, but pretty much every pre 19th-century society had slavery in one form or another. The US neither invented it, nor really accomplished anything exceptional with it aside from the development of the largely agrarian south into a textile powerhouse. The northern (industrial, technical) states of course had slavery as a legal institution, but slaves were found to be inefficient and economically unviable for the sort of factory labor that was common in the north by 1840+. Certainly, the great wealth generated by cotton in the south (directly attributable to slave labor) generated flows of cash which partially funded the north's economic and industrial expansion, but this is more a factor of the SPEED of industrialization, not that industrialization wouldn't have happened at all if not for the south's use of slaves. In fact, slavery was recognized by 1850 to be an IMPEDIMENT to industrialization, by undercutting the workers' fair salary scale. Finally, if the US was "built on" slavery as you assert, then one would see a flattening of the US GDP growth after 1865, yet US growth ACCELERATES thereafter.
Besides, your comparisons don't even make logical sense. It's reductio ad absurdam to suggest that capitalism should be broadly condemned because slavery was one sad permutation of the system. It's like condemning humanity because there
"DISCLAIMER: Use of this advanced computing technology does not imply an endorsement of Western industrial civilization."
Actually, yes, it does. You're just too much of a hypocrite to recognize it.
What the hell does "almost completely translucent" mean? Does "completely translucent" = transparent?
Isn't 'translucent' merely a descriptor for a state somewhere between transparent and opaque?
"their electronic vote for 'Barack Obama' kept flipping to 'John McCain.'""
Sure it did.
If you push "VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA" and "+1 VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN" comes up, why would you go home, think about it, then tell someone there was a problem.
It's impossible to turn around, call the attendant over (there are always a half-dozen helpers at these things), and say "look at this"?
I call complete BS.
" the project, sponsored by the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, a recorded video therapist guides astronauts through a widely used depression therapy called 'problem-solving treatment.'""
On Earth, we just call it porn.