Good grief! The only solution that the shotgun approach gives is for all humans to go live in caves--with the caveat that 5 billion or so of us dissappear (remember that farming and ranching contribute to global warming as well).
Having tricked onto the Green Movement's ultimate goal, Anonymous Coward was last seen being bundled into a hippy van headed for Ingrid Newkirk's secluded, heavily-fortified private estate.
Spain financed Columbus because he was in search of conquest; gold, shorter trade routes, etc. It was a bit of a crapshoot, but they figured that if he came back at all, they stood a great chance of making a killing, and they were right. The difference here is that we have nothing to gain from exploration of Mars or the Moon; it's a childish pipe-dream to think we'll find anything practical in terms of natural resources on either planets. Putting a couple hundred people on 3 ships for a few months PALES in comparison to the challenges involved in a manned trip to Mars. There is no giant cache of gold on the moon or mars, and even if there was- the economics just don't add up, and they don't get better as you throw more money at the problem. People with a space exploration fetish concoct the most amazing chains of "if we..." arguments to justify exploration...
First, let me point out that I agree with your original premise - the ISS is a boondoggle. The comparison with Columbus is flawed; more accurately one would ask if the 'Columbus' venture would have made sense had they outfitted him with gold-plated ships, silken sails, the highest-paid crew...and then asked him to 'test the capability for long term voyaging' by floating 100 miles offshore for a month. You are right that the investment is staggering and gross, for a mission that's tentative and whose value is questionable.
However, I'm going to take serious issue with your rationale. You question the value of space exploration; really? Are you prepared to live in a Logan's Run world where people are terminated at the end of their useful age? Or perhaps a Soylent Green world? Because, I think it's an unquestionable fact that the earth is a closed system. Resources are finite. However, population keeps increasing, the standard of living for everyone is also increasing, and people's lifespans are increasing. Where are you willing to impose the brake? Have any idea what sort of governance and enforcement will be required to STOP people from having children? Personally, I see it as a Hobson's choice: either we accept that there are limited resources on the planet and resign ourselves to being trapped here. Or, we spend huge sums of money NOW in the hopes that will parlay into someting akin to the discovery of the New World of the 15th century. Can we bank on it? No, obviously not. But I don't see much of an alternative, maybe you prefer a police-state existence.
Is space exploration hideously expensive? Yep. But you trivialize the challenges of the 15th century mariner when you say that "Putting a couple hundred people on 3 ships for a few months PALES in comparison to the challenges involved in a manned trip to Mars." - that's a joke. We can calculate with a reasonable degree of certainty what's involved, they had ABSOLUTELY no idea. They had a significant expectation that they would NOT be coming back, at least of them surely WOULD die on the trip. You might think it's insignificant that a bunch of dirty, uneducated sailors risked their lives but I assure you it mattered to THEM. Welcome to 2006 - we substitute money for risk.
And finally, your 'comparison' is specious: "Did you ever notice that countries that were not involved in the space and weapons races have remarkably better socities and infrastructure, because they devoted resources to taking care of their people?" Did you ever notice that the countries that were not involved in the space and weapons races spent the last 40 years being protected by the countries that DID? Duh. Although I can sense behind your words that you probably thought the Cold War was just a trivial dispute between esoteric philosophies.
But even the record labels know that music videos are like advertisements for songs. They make far more money selling records than videos. Free videos give their music more exposure, which means more sales.
These are the same people that objected to (can't remember the site's name).com putting a server on the web where you could download companies' COMMERCIALS. This was not 'something that's practically a commercial' these were genuine PRODUCT ADVERTISEMENTS that were being hosted on someone's server, at their expense, using their bandwidth, just so people could go and download the funniest, interesting, and creative content therein. They still contained the full advertisement, product and all, yet the the 'powers that be' tried to tell the hosts that they needed to pay some sort of licensing or royalty fee to give away these commercials or run the risk of lawsuit.
I believe that since then, a number of people in advertising have seen the absurdity of this position and one can once again pretty much find them on the web. But back around 1999-2000, it wasn't so clear, and I remember my disappointment at that site going down.
Do not expect the MPAA/RIAA to behave self-consistently or rationally at any time.
Hey, you know, it's your project - you can restrict it however you want. However, then don't act all sanctimonious when someone comes out with the nnPL - the "no negro Public License", because they could use the same (specious) justification for their own twisted morality:
"We are software developers who dedicate part of our free time to open source development. The fact is that open source is used by negroes. Open source operating systems can be used by rap artists, gangbangers, and all sorts of unsavory types who are frequently brown-colored people, or somewhat dark anyway. [This] patch should make clear to users of the software that use by those people is definitely not allowed by the licenser."
Soon to be followed by the nGPL (no-Gay Public License), the nPPL (no-Pagan Public License) and the NCPL (No Chicks Public License).
Thanks for your reply, it's thoughtful and well-argued.
"It seems to me an almost-essential characteristic of the early socialization of the human animal: very basic concepts of dominance, social order, and the coping of the various individuals to their places therein. Social ontogeny recapitulating social phylogeny?" But that doesn't make it right or, more importantly, just. In fact, it seems rather antethetical to the just society we're supposed to be creating; if kids aren't allowed to see what justice looks like, why would they pursue it as adults?
I'd disagree with your basic premise. I believe we already live in an essentially just society. Bullies, when they're caught, are punished. I'm not in any way saying that we shouldn't. I'm pointing specifically to the difference between expectations and reality - some kids are BAD KIDS. Some people are just BAD PEOPLE. We cannot build a society based on the assumption that there is going to be a teacher/hall monitor/cop/surveillance camera on every corner at every minute of the day to witness and prosecute the perpetrator of your victimization. I think our dispute lies in the fact that I do not presume that there is a Nanny-State authority that is (or should be) hovering to protect us. To use a perhaps flawed analogy: if "Bill" walks down a dark alley in a bad part of town with big bags of cash, and gets mugged - what then? I fully believe the criminals are the ones who committed the crime - robbing Bill. They should be severely punished. But it's naive to believe that Bill's choice had NO impact in the result, and that he (due to his victim hood) is somehow entirely absolved of the results of HIS choice. I expect you probably disagree.
"I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped." I take it this was before today's "zero tolerence" rules.
It didn't mean anything that would have anything to do with today's rules. It had everything to do with internal fortitude (born frankly of despair) reflected in external attitude. When walking down the hall of my newest school, when two male students walking down the hall gave me the intimidating eye contact, I didn't look away (as I would have before). When they deliberately walked into my path, I didn't veer but looking them straight in the eye, bulled between them. When another time another bully threatened to 'beat me up' afterschool, I showed up. When I saw that he had an angle iron in his hand, I didn't give him an excuse to use it, but showed (I believe) absolutely no fear despite gut-watering terror inside. I can only use my experience as a lesson; when I refused to allow myself to be emotionally and psychologically dominated - and was TRULY ready to accept the physical consequences, the bullying ceased. Again, that's MY experience. (Interestingly, in re-reading my preview, it occurred to me that this was not terribly long after I'd seen the movie Ghandi in the theater. That last sentence I can practically hear Ben Kingsley saying it. There was certainly no conscious emulation going on - in fact, I dismiss non-violence as extremely limited as a tactic in real-world issues. Perhaps I've learned something....a little personal revelation.)
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact." No, your "it's just a fact" stance passivley condones it. Regardless of whether or not you feel the victims should just suck it up and deal with it, unprovoked attacks should not be happening in schools my tax dollars pay for.
Personally, I'd rather the schools my tax dollars pay for use the money to educate kids. Too much time is wasted on analyzing thuggery, mainly IMO because the s
Interesting, but more interesting the number of people that can't seem to get past it.
People have been 'psychophysically tortured' for, well, ever. That doesn't excuse it, and doesn't mean that it shouldn't be dealt with aggressively where possible. But it's like complaining about the rain or gravity. It seems to me an almost-essential characteristic of the early socialization of the human animal: very basic concepts of dominance, social order, and the coping of the various individuals to their places therein. Social ontogeny recapitulating social phylogeny?
I too (this is an empty truism, just about EVERYONE can say it) was a victim of such abuse. From beatings, to humiliation, to psychological 'abuse' throughout my elementary and junior high school years, including yes, frequent principal visits and school changes.
But you know what?
I'm *convinced* that a great deal of it has to do with a 'victim' mentality. Around 10th grade: 5th school in 5 years, I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped. And before you say it: there's a GIGANTIC step from 'resolving to no longer be a victim' to 'cheerfully murdering fellow students'.
Part of the socialization process is understanding and learning social norms. It's *just* possible that you're not being picked on because you're "too smart" (a frequent excuse...if you're that smart, why haven't you figured out how to avoid the abuse?). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact.
I recommend instead that you carefully consider how much your 'individualism' is worth - at a certain point it's just narcissism anyway.
Too many people use this sort of life experience as a crutch to blame everything else on. Exaggerating the experience suggests to me that this is mentally where you're at - inflating and dwelling on it as an emotional airbag for all the shitty stuff life hands us. (You said it stopped when you were a Junior. Unless you repeated a lot of grades, you were what, 15? 16? Even assuming the 'torture' started day 1 of kindergarten, that's 10-11 years...not the "better part of 2 decades".) I'm not going to blame my lack of success with women on being bullied (is anyone as successful with them as they want to be?). I'm certainly not going to tell you my IQ as some sort of ego-assuaging self-justification for my misery.
You can blame bullies, you can blame your parents, you can blame society; whatever. YOU are the one that has to cope with your life for all 70-some years you get on this Earth, and no amount of chemical assistance or directed blame is going to change that YOU (alone) need to get along every damn day.
Current information coming over the Beeb is that the plot may have included up to 9 planes simultaneously or in successive waves.
Explosives are suspected to have been carried on in hand luggage as liquids, suggesting that they were planning to use binary agents (where two non-explosive chemicals are mixed to form a 3rd reactive substance).
Currently travelers from the UK are being told that (IIRC) they may board the planes with absolutely no more than 7 carryon items, limited to a select list such as: - 1 book - 1 newspaper - wallet - passport etc.
Take one under-airconditioned gaming convention stuffed full of prepubescent boys (and immature men) for whom Xena (or Gabriella, or Callisto, depending on your particular fetish) is their idyllic archetype of femininity. Add one electronic gaming convention, famous for its babealicious flesh-pottery and heedlessness of social convention in order to market its products.
It's going to be like... nerd-vana.
At least you've got decent odds that you'd have a Gen Con where the attendees *maybe* took a shower, if only because it's the closest they've come to a nearly naked breast and DEFINITELY the closest they'll EVER come to booth-babe-caliber hotties.
Then again, recalling the stench of some of the anticipatory crowds at the E3's I attended...maybe not.
You're hilarious. You're either tragically stupid or comically subtle.
Million-dollar, heavily pimped propaganda of dubious provenance (again, I ask, who paid for An Inconvenient Truth?) = a call to action! (holy chimes ringing in the background)
Cheaply made, unpersuasive, guerilla-marketed blipvert of dubious provenance = teh EVIL!!!!
Try to follow along, read it a couple times if you have to: BOTH are propaganda.
NEITHER comes right out and says "hi, I'm a piece of political literature disguised as something else, and I was paid for by X because X would like you to do {whatever}." One uses guerilla-marketing, WoM tactics to send its message. The other cloaks its message(s) in the ostensibly "inarguable" good of saving baby bunnies. And hey, if some idiot starts composting because he accidentally swallowed a little extra purple kool-aide, great!
My subsequent point about your ad hominems speaks directly to the point: you are apparently intellectually incapable of conceiving that a reasonably intelligent person might come to different conclusions than you. Nope, they HAVE to be 'stupid' or better still 'morally bankrupt' - that's even better, because then you've dehumanized them and your conscience will be clear no matter what you do. You don't have to be nice. You don't even have to be civil. You are a PERFECT 'footsoldier' for propaganda.
Here's the difference. I disagree STRONGLY with you, I'm guessing on a whole HOST of issues. However, I don't need to assume you're stupid; we simply disagree. I don't have a problem starting from there. If you need the id-masturbation of egotism and personal attacks to get through the day, hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't expect that fervor is intrinsically convincing.
I'm not a relativist, you're just a self-righteous hypocrite. Could be that you're a dumbass ALSO, but that is really irrelevant.
Please, it's your turn to launch into more personal attacks below.
I considered it for the longest time, but eventually disposed of the idea for a number of reasons: - a TV is instant-on. In 15 seconds, I'm already browsing for shows. PC? Turn it on, then go get coffee while everything initializes. - I have a TV, a VCR, and a DVD. Media PC couldn't play the VCR tapes anyway, and frankly browsing through my shelves of DVDs is no slower than digging through menu trees to find the files if I ripped them to a drive. - A TV with VCR and DVD is a No brainer. Kids can run them without any reasonable likelihood of destruction. No driver issues, compatibility issues, no mysteriousness: Turn it on, insert media, watch. - TV resolution is retarded for using any computer function. Even Hi-def TVs are nice, but they're not 1920x1280 like the top end computer monitor. - the 'setup' of a typically-comfortable tv-viewing home theater is rarely conducive (IMO) to getting productive work done in most contexts.
Similar equipment, superficially similar functions, but in actuality polar opposites.
In particular, the right wing of the political spectrum has become masterful at this, pulling mainstream America way to the right with hyperbole and fear mongering.
What was that you were saying about 'everyone has bias, not everyone has an agenda'? Mainstream America has been 'pulled' to the right with 'hyperbole' and 'fear mongering'?
Nice unbiased word choices. LOL. Of course, an alternative interpretation is that the public has swung naturally rightward after the strong veer to the Left in the 60's and 70's.
If America has shifted Rightward in the tug-of-war of public opinion, it's not because they're the only ones pulling on the rope, it's because the Left lost their anchor man (the Soviet Union and communism in general) in the early '90s. Let's be honest, many of the most ardently Leftist programs (particularly in Europe, but also in the USA) were funded by money that started somewhere in the KGB.
The Left has been struggling along since then. Other Leftward FUD-mantras (Greenpeace, global warming (ice ages before that), freshwater, pollution, gay rights, ACLU, PETA, globalisation, etc.) all have turned out to be too lightweight/marginal to have any actual PULL. Although an Inconvenient Truth was a healthy tug on the line, its messenger was too obviously politically motivated to have much credibility, either.
Interesting. So you consider "An Inconvenient Truth" to be an 'up front presentation', why? Because it agrees with your personal beliefs?
I, on the other hand, would say that it's loaded with begged questions, dubious science, and is presented not-coincidentally by a PURELY political animal, Mr. Gore.
How would you feel about Dick Cheney doing an 'informational film' about the need for a stronger Defense establishment in 2010? In what essential way is that different from what Gore presents (leaving aside the self-imputed 'righteousness' of environmentalism)?
What is so characteristic about your post is that (presumeably because I'm questioning your sacred cow) you immediately launch into a personal attack, calling me 'stupid' or 'morally bankrupt'. It's apparently inconceivable to you that a rational person could look at the facts and come to a different conclusion?
I'd love to live in a world of such certainty. The last people I knew that did so were glassy-eyed missionaries that were headed out to the jungle to 'enlighten' some poor brown people to the 'word of Jesus'. They responded precisely the same way you did when I asked pointed questions expressing my disbelief in the beliefs they also held with religious fervor.
Let's see, multibillion dollar commercial firms using whatever method they can to get their (anti-Gore) message across?
How is that news?
Next thing you're going to tell me is that Mr. Gore made this movie all by his poor little self, without the backing of multimillion dollar enviro-conglomerates? Or perhaps a handy billionaire or two, who might have a vested interest in attacking the current administration? (And please, if you believe that Greenpeace & Co. don't have an agenda, just don't even bother posting. Just hit 'cancel, I'm naive'.) What's so ironic is that it was MR GORE's administration that refused to sign Kyoto. Anyone remember that?
Anyone got any idea who paid for "An Inconvenient Truth"? Or did the crew just make it out of the goodness of their hearts?
Amazing.
One side spends millions (ok, I've seen the movie...maybe tens of thousands) of dollars to make a pure propoganda movie that would make Leni Riefenstahl wince with it's unsubtlety, and the OTHER side is 'evil' for having its own propoganda campaign? Could we mod this story -1, hypocritical?
Logically they have to say that it's for "something else".
If they (admit that they) are just paying to link, then they've set a precedent that would mean that they would have to pay AFP, Reuters, and every other new organization.
Well put. Part of the problem is that people seem to be no longer capable of reasonable disagreement.
The simplest parallel is the medical research results collected by the Nazis using their Jewish victims as nonvoluntary subjects. This research is DONE, it's in the can, and can quite likely be used to save people's lives (for example designing lifesaving cold weather/water gear for sailors). Is it moral to use the information? You're not saving anyone by NOT using it, you're merely making a moral point at some cost in human life.
Same with these embryos - they are going to be wasted anyway, isn't it in some sense better that they be used productively?
I don't have the answer, I don't know it. I think there are very reasonable positions on both sides, and you don't have to be a Luddite or Flat Earther or Religious Zealot to take the anti-use side, either.
But I do know that one side of the debate calling the other 'douchebags' (/. comment, below - of course rated '5' informative) isn't even LOOKING for reasonable resolution, it's playground name-calling and demagoguery.
1) Which do you want? As confused as you say THEY are, you're sending just as mixed messages. There are two 'factoids' being presented here by the administration. First, that there is danger from rogue states, and second, that we're shutting down Cheyenne Mtn due to the lack of needful risk. Yes, you can complain that they are contradictory (if that's your bag) but no matter what side of the political fence you're on, at least 50% of those factoids MUST be positive for you, no? I really can't see how neither would satisfy SOMEONE.
2) Actually, your point about the worthlessness of Cheyenne Mtn is entirely off the mark. It was supremely well designed as a command HQ for the early nuclear era. Could it withstand a direct multi megaton nuclear strike? No, obviously not. But the odds of it being hit dead-on were infinitesimal. Soviet missiles are/were known to have CEP's orders of magnitude larger than American missiles. That's precisely why the Soviets built bigger and bigger warheads - there was some likelihood that they'd entirely miss even CITY-sized targets. So Cheyenne Mtn was built to withstand a relatively nearby near-miss...an entirely more likely event. And it would have done so rather admirably, or so we believe. From Wiki: "The underground Combat Operations Center (COC) was originally intended to provide 70% probability of continuing to function if a five-megaton nuclear weapon detonated three miles (5 km) away, but was ultimately built to withstand a multimegaton blast within 1.5 nautical miles."
"'Imagine a mobile game that alerts you that a bomb is going to go off in 24 hours." Cool!
Imagine the consequences, you're sitting in an airline passenger lounge, & your cell phone bleeps it has a message. You pop it open and a flashing red popup tells you there is a BOMB times to go off in 24:00:00 and it starts counting down!
The adventure forks at this point - either into an 'action adventure' or a 'low key suspenseful thriller':
1) Mrs Johnson, sitting beside you, happens to see it and starts screaming. You've just aggro'd the whole airport full of security and police. 2) Mr Parker, on the other side, happens to see it and quietly mentions you to the gate agent, who has a halfdozen massive dudes in dark suits and glasses appear out of nowhere to quietly 'suggest' you come along with them.
Either way, AT BEST you end up strapped down spread-eagle on an examining table while the FBI crams a camera up your butt looking for proof you're a terrorist. FUN!
"Hi, I'm a famous researcher, can I see that ancient, impossibly valuable gem for a second?" "Thanks, let me put it into my closed 'examination device'." (Waits a moment) "Ok, it's done." Hands chunk of yellow glass back to curator, "Yeah, it was just glass all along. Funny, huh?"
Walks quickly away with 'examination device', whistling happily.
My expectation is that this fellow will probably also find that the Hope Diamond, the British Crown Jewels, and pretty much any other gem he examines to have been glass all along. AMAZING!
Slashdot Mirror
Good grief! The only solution that the shotgun approach gives is for all humans to go live in caves--with the caveat that 5 billion or so of us dissappear (remember that farming and ranching contribute to global warming as well).
Having tricked onto the Green Movement's ultimate goal, Anonymous Coward was last seen being bundled into a hippy van headed for Ingrid Newkirk's secluded, heavily-fortified private estate.
Spain financed Columbus because he was in search of conquest; gold, shorter trade routes, etc. It was a bit of a crapshoot, but they figured that if he came back at all, they stood a great chance of making a killing, and they were right. The difference here is that we have nothing to gain from exploration of Mars or the Moon; it's a childish pipe-dream to think we'll find anything practical in terms of natural resources on either planets. Putting a couple hundred people on 3 ships for a few months PALES in comparison to the challenges involved in a manned trip to Mars. There is no giant cache of gold on the moon or mars, and even if there was- the economics just don't add up, and they don't get better as you throw more money at the problem. People with a space exploration fetish concoct the most amazing chains of "if we..." arguments to justify exploration...
First, let me point out that I agree with your original premise - the ISS is a boondoggle.
The comparison with Columbus is flawed; more accurately one would ask if the 'Columbus' venture would have made sense had they outfitted him with gold-plated ships, silken sails, the highest-paid crew...and then asked him to 'test the capability for long term voyaging' by floating 100 miles offshore for a month. You are right that the investment is staggering and gross, for a mission that's tentative and whose value is questionable.
However, I'm going to take serious issue with your rationale. You question the value of space exploration; really? Are you prepared to live in a Logan's Run world where people are terminated at the end of their useful age? Or perhaps a Soylent Green world? Because, I think it's an unquestionable fact that the earth is a closed system. Resources are finite. However, population keeps increasing, the standard of living for everyone is also increasing, and people's lifespans are increasing. Where are you willing to impose the brake? Have any idea what sort of governance and enforcement will be required to STOP people from having children?
Personally, I see it as a Hobson's choice: either we accept that there are limited resources on the planet and resign ourselves to being trapped here. Or, we spend huge sums of money NOW in the hopes that will parlay into someting akin to the discovery of the New World of the 15th century. Can we bank on it? No, obviously not. But I don't see much of an alternative, maybe you prefer a police-state existence.
Is space exploration hideously expensive? Yep. But you trivialize the challenges of the 15th century mariner when you say that "Putting a couple hundred people on 3 ships for a few months PALES in comparison to the challenges involved in a manned trip to Mars." - that's a joke. We can calculate with a reasonable degree of certainty what's involved, they had ABSOLUTELY no idea. They had a significant expectation that they would NOT be coming back, at least of them surely WOULD die on the trip. You might think it's insignificant that a bunch of dirty, uneducated sailors risked their lives but I assure you it mattered to THEM. Welcome to 2006 - we substitute money for risk.
And finally, your 'comparison' is specious: "Did you ever notice that countries that were not involved in the space and weapons races have remarkably better socities and infrastructure, because they devoted resources to taking care of their people?"
Did you ever notice that the countries that were not involved in the space and weapons races spent the last 40 years being protected by the countries that DID? Duh. Although I can sense behind your words that you probably thought the Cold War was just a trivial dispute between esoteric philosophies.
But even the record labels know that music videos are like advertisements for songs. They make far more money selling records than videos. Free videos give their music more exposure, which means more sales.
These are the same people that objected to (can't remember the site's name).com putting a server on the web where you could download companies' COMMERCIALS. This was not 'something that's practically a commercial' these were genuine PRODUCT ADVERTISEMENTS that were being hosted on someone's server, at their expense, using their bandwidth, just so people could go and download the funniest, interesting, and creative content therein. They still contained the full advertisement, product and all, yet the the 'powers that be' tried to tell the hosts that they needed to pay some sort of licensing or royalty fee to give away these commercials or run the risk of lawsuit.
I believe that since then, a number of people in advertising have seen the absurdity of this position and one can once again pretty much find them on the web. But back around 1999-2000, it wasn't so clear, and I remember my disappointment at that site going down.
Do not expect the MPAA/RIAA to behave self-consistently or rationally at any time.
No single piece of software has wasted so much time.
Don't use Windows, do you?
This reeks of moral hypocrisy.
Hey, you know, it's your project - you can restrict it however you want. However, then don't act all sanctimonious when someone comes out with the nnPL - the "no negro Public License", because they could use the same (specious) justification for their own twisted morality:
"We are software developers who dedicate part of our free time to open source development. The fact is that open source is used by negroes. Open source operating systems can be used by rap artists, gangbangers, and all sorts of unsavory types who are frequently brown-colored people, or somewhat dark anyway. [This] patch should make clear to users of the software that use by those people is definitely not allowed by the licenser."
Soon to be followed by the nGPL (no-Gay Public License), the nPPL (no-Pagan Public License) and the NCPL (No Chicks Public License).
These guys should be ok with that, then - right?
OK, let me ask a stupid question.
I've seen video after video of this, and it's darn impressive.
I'd buy it if the guy was willing to demo it on HIS OWN HAND.
At first I thought WDDM stood for Windows' Damn Digital Management.
"ensure that composers and songwriters will continue to have incentive to create new music for generations to come."
Because without profit there's no reason to write music?
Thanks for your reply, it's thoughtful and well-argued.
"It seems to me an almost-essential characteristic of the early socialization of the human animal: very basic concepts of dominance, social order, and the coping of the various individuals to their places therein. Social ontogeny recapitulating social phylogeny?"
But that doesn't make it right or, more importantly, just. In fact, it seems rather antethetical to the just society we're supposed to be creating; if kids aren't allowed to see what justice looks like, why would they pursue it as adults?
I'd disagree with your basic premise. I believe we already live in an essentially just society. Bullies, when they're caught, are punished. I'm not in any way saying that we shouldn't. I'm pointing specifically to the difference between expectations and reality - some kids are BAD KIDS. Some people are just BAD PEOPLE. We cannot build a society based on the assumption that there is going to be a teacher/hall monitor/cop/surveillance camera on every corner at every minute of the day to witness and prosecute the perpetrator of your victimization. I think our dispute lies in the fact that I do not presume that there is a Nanny-State authority that is (or should be) hovering to protect us.
To use a perhaps flawed analogy: if "Bill" walks down a dark alley in a bad part of town with big bags of cash, and gets mugged - what then? I fully believe the criminals are the ones who committed the crime - robbing Bill. They should be severely punished. But it's naive to believe that Bill's choice had NO impact in the result, and that he (due to his victim hood) is somehow entirely absolved of the results of HIS choice. I expect you probably disagree.
"I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped."
I take it this was before today's "zero tolerence" rules.
It didn't mean anything that would have anything to do with today's rules. It had everything to do with internal fortitude (born frankly of despair) reflected in external attitude. When walking down the hall of my newest school, when two male students walking down the hall gave me the intimidating eye contact, I didn't look away (as I would have before). When they deliberately walked into my path, I didn't veer but looking them straight in the eye, bulled between them. When another time another bully threatened to 'beat me up' afterschool, I showed up. When I saw that he had an angle iron in his hand, I didn't give him an excuse to use it, but showed (I believe) absolutely no fear despite gut-watering terror inside.
I can only use my experience as a lesson; when I refused to allow myself to be emotionally and psychologically dominated - and was TRULY ready to accept the physical consequences, the bullying ceased.
Again, that's MY experience. (Interestingly, in re-reading my preview, it occurred to me that this was not terribly long after I'd seen the movie Ghandi in the theater. That last sentence I can practically hear Ben Kingsley saying it. There was certainly no conscious emulation going on - in fact, I dismiss non-violence as extremely limited as a tactic in real-world issues. Perhaps I've learned something....a little personal revelation.)
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact."
No, your "it's just a fact" stance passivley condones it. Regardless of whether or not you feel the victims should just suck it up and deal with it, unprovoked attacks should not be happening in schools my tax dollars pay for.
Personally, I'd rather the schools my tax dollars pay for use the money to educate kids. Too much time is wasted on analyzing thuggery, mainly IMO because the s
Interesting, but more interesting the number of people that can't seem to get past it.
People have been 'psychophysically tortured' for, well, ever. That doesn't excuse it, and doesn't mean that it shouldn't be dealt with aggressively where possible. But it's like complaining about the rain or gravity. It seems to me an almost-essential characteristic of the early socialization of the human animal: very basic concepts of dominance, social order, and the coping of the various individuals to their places therein. Social ontogeny recapitulating social phylogeny?
I too (this is an empty truism, just about EVERYONE can say it) was a victim of such abuse. From beatings, to humiliation, to psychological 'abuse' throughout my elementary and junior high school years, including yes, frequent principal visits and school changes.
But you know what?
I'm *convinced* that a great deal of it has to do with a 'victim' mentality. Around 10th grade: 5th school in 5 years, I determined that I was NOT going to meekly take it anymore, regardless of the consequences (to my physical well-being, to my performance in school, etc). And the abuse stopped. And before you say it: there's a GIGANTIC step from 'resolving to no longer be a victim' to 'cheerfully murdering fellow students'.
Part of the socialization process is understanding and learning social norms. It's *just* possible that you're not being picked on because you're "too smart" (a frequent excuse...if you're that smart, why haven't you figured out how to avoid the abuse?). Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes you're being picked on simply becase you're a wierdo and adolescents haven't always learned that we tolerate benign wierdos - like chimps or apes, they act to drive oddballs from the group. I don't condone that, but again, it's a fact.
I recommend instead that you carefully consider how much your 'individualism' is worth - at a certain point it's just narcissism anyway.
Too many people use this sort of life experience as a crutch to blame everything else on. Exaggerating the experience suggests to me that this is mentally where you're at - inflating and dwelling on it as an emotional airbag for all the shitty stuff life hands us. (You said it stopped when you were a Junior. Unless you repeated a lot of grades, you were what, 15? 16? Even assuming the 'torture' started day 1 of kindergarten, that's 10-11 years...not the "better part of 2 decades".) I'm not going to blame my lack of success with women on being bullied (is anyone as successful with them as they want to be?). I'm certainly not going to tell you my IQ as some sort of ego-assuaging self-justification for my misery.
You can blame bullies, you can blame your parents, you can blame society; whatever. YOU are the one that has to cope with your life for all 70-some years you get on this Earth, and no amount of chemical assistance or directed blame is going to change that YOU (alone) need to get along every damn day.
Current information coming over the Beeb is that the plot may have included up to 9 planes simultaneously or in successive waves.
Explosives are suspected to have been carried on in hand luggage as liquids, suggesting that they were planning to use binary agents (where two non-explosive chemicals are mixed to form a 3rd reactive substance).
Currently travelers from the UK are being told that (IIRC) they may board the planes with absolutely no more than 7 carryon items, limited to a select list such as:
- 1 book
- 1 newspaper
- wallet
- passport
etc.
Take one under-airconditioned gaming convention stuffed full of prepubescent boys (and immature men) for whom Xena (or Gabriella, or Callisto, depending on your particular fetish) is their idyllic archetype of femininity.
... nerd-vana.
Add one electronic gaming convention, famous for its babealicious flesh-pottery and heedlessness of social convention in order to market its products.
It's going to be like
At least you've got decent odds that you'd have a Gen Con where the attendees *maybe* took a shower, if only because it's the closest they've come to a nearly naked breast and DEFINITELY the closest they'll EVER come to booth-babe-caliber hotties.
Then again, recalling the stench of some of the anticipatory crowds at the E3's I attended...maybe not.
You're hilarious. You're either tragically stupid or comically subtle.
Million-dollar, heavily pimped propaganda of dubious provenance (again, I ask, who paid for An Inconvenient Truth?) = a call to action! (holy chimes ringing in the background)
Cheaply made, unpersuasive, guerilla-marketed blipvert of dubious provenance = teh EVIL!!!!
Try to follow along, read it a couple times if you have to: BOTH are propaganda.
NEITHER comes right out and says "hi, I'm a piece of political literature disguised as something else, and I was paid for by X because X would like you to do {whatever}."
One uses guerilla-marketing, WoM tactics to send its message.
The other cloaks its message(s) in the ostensibly "inarguable" good of saving baby bunnies. And hey, if some idiot starts composting because he accidentally swallowed a little extra purple kool-aide, great!
My subsequent point about your ad hominems speaks directly to the point: you are apparently intellectually incapable of conceiving that a reasonably intelligent person might come to different conclusions than you. Nope, they HAVE to be 'stupid' or better still 'morally bankrupt' - that's even better, because then you've dehumanized them and your conscience will be clear no matter what you do. You don't have to be nice. You don't even have to be civil. You are a PERFECT 'footsoldier' for propaganda.
Here's the difference. I disagree STRONGLY with you, I'm guessing on a whole HOST of issues. However, I don't need to assume you're stupid; we simply disagree. I don't have a problem starting from there. If you need the id-masturbation of egotism and personal attacks to get through the day, hey, whatever floats your boat. Just don't expect that fervor is intrinsically convincing.
I'm not a relativist, you're just a self-righteous hypocrite. Could be that you're a dumbass ALSO, but that is really irrelevant.
Please, it's your turn to launch into more personal attacks below.
I considered it for the longest time, but eventually disposed of the idea for a number of reasons:
- a TV is instant-on. In 15 seconds, I'm already browsing for shows. PC? Turn it on, then go get coffee while everything initializes.
- I have a TV, a VCR, and a DVD. Media PC couldn't play the VCR tapes anyway, and frankly browsing through my shelves of DVDs is no slower than digging through menu trees to find the files if I ripped them to a drive.
- A TV with VCR and DVD is a No brainer. Kids can run them without any reasonable likelihood of destruction. No driver issues, compatibility issues, no mysteriousness: Turn it on, insert media, watch.
- TV resolution is retarded for using any computer function. Even Hi-def TVs are nice, but they're not 1920x1280 like the top end computer monitor.
- the 'setup' of a typically-comfortable tv-viewing home theater is rarely conducive (IMO) to getting productive work done in most contexts.
Similar equipment, superficially similar functions, but in actuality polar opposites.
In particular, the right wing of the political spectrum has become masterful at this, pulling mainstream America way to the right with hyperbole and fear mongering.
What was that you were saying about 'everyone has bias, not everyone has an agenda'?
Mainstream America has been 'pulled' to the right with 'hyperbole' and 'fear mongering'?
Nice unbiased word choices. LOL. Of course, an alternative interpretation is that the public has swung naturally rightward after the strong veer to the Left in the 60's and 70's.
If America has shifted Rightward in the tug-of-war of public opinion, it's not because they're the only ones pulling on the rope, it's because the Left lost their anchor man (the Soviet Union and communism in general) in the early '90s. Let's be honest, many of the most ardently Leftist programs (particularly in Europe, but also in the USA) were funded by money that started somewhere in the KGB.
The Left has been struggling along since then. Other Leftward FUD-mantras (Greenpeace, global warming (ice ages before that), freshwater, pollution, gay rights, ACLU, PETA, globalisation, etc.) all have turned out to be too lightweight/marginal to have any actual PULL. Although an Inconvenient Truth was a healthy tug on the line, its messenger was too obviously politically motivated to have much credibility, either.
Interesting.
So you consider "An Inconvenient Truth" to be an 'up front presentation', why? Because it agrees with your personal beliefs?
I, on the other hand, would say that it's loaded with begged questions, dubious science, and is presented not-coincidentally by a PURELY political animal, Mr. Gore.
How would you feel about Dick Cheney doing an 'informational film' about the need for a stronger Defense establishment in 2010? In what essential way is that different from what Gore presents (leaving aside the self-imputed 'righteousness' of environmentalism)?
What is so characteristic about your post is that (presumeably because I'm questioning your sacred cow) you immediately launch into a personal attack, calling me 'stupid' or 'morally bankrupt'. It's apparently inconceivable to you that a rational person could look at the facts and come to a different conclusion?
I'd love to live in a world of such certainty. The last people I knew that did so were glassy-eyed missionaries that were headed out to the jungle to 'enlighten' some poor brown people to the 'word of Jesus'. They responded precisely the same way you did when I asked pointed questions expressing my disbelief in the beliefs they also held with religious fervor.
Coincidence, I'm sure.
Let's see, multibillion dollar commercial firms using whatever method they can to get their (anti-Gore) message across?
How is that news?
Next thing you're going to tell me is that Mr. Gore made this movie all by his poor little self, without the backing of multimillion dollar enviro-conglomerates? Or perhaps a handy billionaire or two, who might have a vested interest in attacking the current administration?
(And please, if you believe that Greenpeace & Co. don't have an agenda, just don't even bother posting. Just hit 'cancel, I'm naive'.) What's so ironic is that it was MR GORE's administration that refused to sign Kyoto. Anyone remember that?
Anyone got any idea who paid for "An Inconvenient Truth"? Or did the crew just make it out of the goodness of their hearts?
Amazing.
One side spends millions (ok, I've seen the movie...maybe tens of thousands) of dollars to make a pure propoganda movie that would make Leni Riefenstahl wince with it's unsubtlety, and the OTHER side is 'evil' for having its own propoganda campaign? Could we mod this story -1, hypocritical?
Well....
Logically they have to say that it's for "something else".
If they (admit that they) are just paying to link, then they've set a precedent that would mean that they would have to pay AFP, Reuters, and every other new organization.
Everyone resents the moon?
I know this is pedantic, but shouldn't it be "SHEAR-thickening liquid"?
TFA says sheer-thickening but that doesn't make sense to me.
sheer != shear.
More accurately, in response to any new Star Wars thing:
/. lameness filter intercepted my post and prevented it. Sadly, the irony didn't reach Mr. Lucas FIRST.)
"NOOOO!!!!!!"
(I had more O's and more !'s, but the
Well put. Part of the problem is that people seem to be no longer capable of reasonable disagreement.
The simplest parallel is the medical research results collected by the Nazis using their Jewish victims as nonvoluntary subjects. This research is DONE, it's in the can, and can quite likely be used to save people's lives (for example designing lifesaving cold weather/water gear for sailors).
Is it moral to use the information? You're not saving anyone by NOT using it, you're merely making a moral point at some cost in human life.
Same with these embryos - they are going to be wasted anyway, isn't it in some sense better that they be used productively?
I don't have the answer, I don't know it. I think there are very reasonable positions on both sides, and you don't have to be a Luddite or Flat Earther or Religious Zealot to take the anti-use side, either.
But I do know that one side of the debate calling the other 'douchebags' (/. comment, below - of course rated '5' informative) isn't even LOOKING for reasonable resolution, it's playground name-calling and demagoguery.
1) Which do you want? As confused as you say THEY are, you're sending just as mixed messages. There are two 'factoids' being presented here by the administration. First, that there is danger from rogue states, and second, that we're shutting down Cheyenne Mtn due to the lack of needful risk. Yes, you can complain that they are contradictory (if that's your bag) but no matter what side of the political fence you're on, at least 50% of those factoids MUST be positive for you, no? I really can't see how neither would satisfy SOMEONE.
2) Actually, your point about the worthlessness of Cheyenne Mtn is entirely off the mark. It was supremely well designed as a command HQ for the early nuclear era. Could it withstand a direct multi megaton nuclear strike? No, obviously not. But the odds of it being hit dead-on were infinitesimal. Soviet missiles are/were known to have CEP's orders of magnitude larger than American missiles. That's precisely why the Soviets built bigger and bigger warheads - there was some likelihood that they'd entirely miss even CITY-sized targets. So Cheyenne Mtn was built to withstand a relatively nearby near-miss...an entirely more likely event. And it would have done so rather admirably, or so we believe.
From Wiki:
"The underground Combat Operations Center (COC) was originally intended to provide 70% probability of continuing to function if a five-megaton nuclear weapon detonated three miles (5 km) away, but was ultimately built to withstand a multimegaton blast within 1.5 nautical miles."
Or, if we're talking Real Life (tm) 2006...
"'Imagine a mobile game that alerts you that a bomb is going to go off in 24 hours."
Cool!
Imagine the consequences, you're sitting in an airline passenger lounge, & your cell phone bleeps it has a message. You pop it open and a flashing red popup tells you there is a BOMB times to go off in 24:00:00 and it starts counting down!
The adventure forks at this point - either into an 'action adventure' or a 'low key suspenseful thriller':
1) Mrs Johnson, sitting beside you, happens to see it and starts screaming. You've just aggro'd the whole airport full of security and police.
2) Mr Parker, on the other side, happens to see it and quietly mentions you to the gate agent, who has a halfdozen massive dudes in dark suits and glasses appear out of nowhere to quietly 'suggest' you come along with them.
Either way, AT BEST you end up strapped down spread-eagle on an examining table while the FBI crams a camera up your butt looking for proof you're a terrorist. FUN!
"Sent to Gitmo" : +5 xp!
"Hi, I'm a famous researcher, can I see that ancient, impossibly valuable gem for a second?"
"Thanks, let me put it into my closed 'examination device'."
(Waits a moment)
"Ok, it's done." Hands chunk of yellow glass back to curator, "Yeah, it was just glass all along. Funny, huh?"
Walks quickly away with 'examination device', whistling happily.
My expectation is that this fellow will probably also find that the Hope Diamond, the British Crown Jewels, and pretty much any other gem he examines to have been glass all along. AMAZING!