the US vetoes things that harm its agenda. That's the only reason. As opposed to whom? I'm sure the Russians, the French, even the Brits are just pictures of benign altruism, and never venture to wield their veto in the own interest - GASP!
*I* have a feeble grasp? Right, where do you live? The Happy Tree Friend world of diplomacy?
"What about the US vetoing the law to allow US servicemen and women to be tried as war criminals? Surely the only possible reason you'd not agree to such a law is if you think your soldiers will commit war crimes."
Or, perhaps it's because we're a LITTLE bit distrustful of any organization that has LIBYA as the chairman of it's Human Rights commission? Please. So yeah, you're right that we don't want some jackass like you who is simply beating his "I HATE AMERICA" drum to be able to exercise his personal demons against some 19 year old kid from Indiana. Besides, we at least have the guts to KILL our heinous criminals, so arguably we're reserving the right for more severe punishment than the international community could inflict anyway.
Maybe the US would look a little less evil if you'd actually THINK about the ramifications of the proposals that the US is vetoing, rather than just knee-jerking identically to all your political fellow-travelers.
Ironic that you talk about hypocrisy, but only seem to see it in others. How many nations have signed the Kyoto accords...and how many have ACTUALLY implemented them? (Oh yeah, China and India were given a pass - I guess it's ok for them to pollute freely?)
The US's insatiable thirst for power? Don't make me laugh. So, to aggrandize ourselves, we're sending our kids to die in some Mideastern shithole? Right.
You're saying American foreign policy is the closest thing to a great satan?? You probably think that Pakistan selling nuke tech to terrorist states is what, foreign assistance? North Korea threatening nuclear blackmail on the Korean peninsula (as I recall, it was NKorea that invaded SKorea first, no?) is what, cheerful socializing?
Yes, the US acts in self interest. But this self-interest has arguably improved the lot of more people in the world over time than all the bleeding-heart social programs combined.
I'm willing to say very clearly that the US is not perfect. Are you willing to say that the US is sometimes right?
Re:Related Star Wars Article
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Amazing. They must have been particularly brilliant scientists to be able to deploy a strawman argument in only 5 words!
"A nearly impermeable strategic defense..."
Besides, a point by point analysis of their reasons: --Underflying: Valid criticism; however, does that mean that if you have a gun and a knife, and I have the opportunity to reasearch a defense against the gun, I shouldn't? All of the alternatives are defendable by OTHER MEANS, procedural, technical, etc. Not 100% of course, but Ballistic Missiles - there's pretty much not squat you can do about it when it's launched...yet.:)
-- Overwhelming: As usual, scientific brilliance doesn't equate to understanding Realpolitik. Inducing a % chance of failure in the other's vulnerability calculus can quickly make the idea of first-strike as prevention of a 2nd strike impossible. The fact that they could overwhelm the defenses is irrelevant, if there is a significant number of surviving retaliatory warheads. Besides, now that the nuclear arsenals are much, much smaller would these scientists concede that an SDI program is now more effective in probability? I would guess not.
-- Outfoxing: True, but again, every decoy built into a MIRV is effectively a kill, as it replaces a warhead. Besides, most SDI plans talk about multilayer defenses, including boost-phase kills before spoofs and decoys would deploy.
-- Cost: Irony, table of one. Irony, table of one. Are these the same scientists that are willing to throw BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars at the most esoteric pure-research programs detecting primal particles (SSSC) or gravity waves?
-- Soviet preemption: Ridiculous circular logic. Because I'm safer from them, they are more likely to attack me? That's like in the article: Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have more interests in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefit if no one [including the United States itself] has weapons in space." R-i-i-g-h-t. We have more undefended satellites in space than anyone, and are more dependent on satellite tech than anyone, but we're SAFER if we don't try to protect them? Sure, and you must live in Bizarro World? Because (heavens!) nobody would EVER consider attacking American satellites until those nasty, stinky, warmongering AMERICANS came up with the idea of weapons in space. All of the other peace-loving peoples of the world, like the woodland bunnies and squirrels, would have lived in peace & hearmoy without the greedy capitalist Uncle SAM! (insert hallucinogenic here)
-- Institutional momentum: this is a description, begging the question that it's "bad". I don't hear them arguing that institutional momentum is such a bad thing for other multi-trillion dollar boondoggles like REA, TVA, Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc. ?
Conclusion: even idealist scientists are not beyond a little chicanery to advance their politics. (Not that that should surprise anyone.)
Did you ever think that *perhaps* the reson the US is the most likely to veto resolutions by the UN is precisely because most of them are aimed at the US - either harming the US and/or it's allies, or at the very least limiting the options available to the US? (cf. Gulliver's Travels).
Spending even a moment's thought, it's fairly logical to see that weaker powers (i.e. all of them) are going to resort to attempted collective action to try to restrain a superpower, ESPECIALLY one not constrained by a counterweight superpower.
Nice comment about the treaties, too. Actually, we refuse to sign them, or ratify them, rather than simply sign them for the stupid public to approve, and then break them secretly. (see also: the ABM treaty - Soviets were working on it secretly all through the '70s and '80s; Kyoto - AFAIK Germany had to propose stringent performance plans as of April 1, how's that coming, Germany?)
Or is that "US IS THE GREAT SATAN" thing just too hard for you to get around? I suppose that's just a lot simpler to believe. Sheesh. Surprise surprise, another empty-headed, America-hating particularist/.er.:shock:
"Industry organisations.. have asked the Department of Homeland Security to regulate what they call 'Cyber Security' Representatives from Microsoft, Computer Associates, and the BSA."
ATMs Pay-at-the-pump gas stations Self-service checkout at Walmart and grocery stores.
Now McDonald's is experimenting with order-at-the-table.
If you thought that a career in the low-end service industry was your life, well, you aren't looking very far ahead.
The commandant put it best: "The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
The whole "outsourcing is destroying our job market" is a political red herring ANYWAY, tossed out by a Democratic Party that cannot seem to find an issue where they can get any traction against the Republicans, notably George Bush.
Since NAFTA was enacted, something like 600,000 jobs have gone overseas where NAFTA was a factor, while the US economy created 18 MILLION jobs over the same timeframe. I recall recently hearing on NPR that the economy has continuously created roughly double the number of jobs outsourced, even in the last 2-3 years.
Besides that, the shrill keening by IT professionals who are remarkably OVERPAID* (typical contract computer service work is at LEAST $90/hour, more frequently $120), losing their jobs to people who can do the work just as well for cheaper, well, it rings about as hollow as Longshoreman whining that they can't manage to afford to kick in for their medical insurance on 'only' $90,000 per year.
Personally, it sounds very much like people started thinking they were 'entitled' to dot.com fat bonuses, big paychecks, and the high life.
From 1992-2000 we went through a period of ridiculously inflated job and concomitant salary growth, fuelled by a soap-bubble economy. I watched a lot of tech friends of mine parlay their salaries into multiples of my own. I was pretty darn jealous, I'll tell you, being in the relatively static paper industry. But now- they're scrambling to make their house payments and I'm helping them as much as I can. But even they say: when a bubble bursts, the economy corrects. They lived through the high times, now they have to suffer the lows.
* I realize this is really going to ignite/.'ers:)
I think original AC poster probably meant this as an ironic comment, but I'd wager that capitalism and self-interest have propelled more development and improved the lives of more people in total than all the government programs in history put together.
I'm all for deregulating spaceflight and allowing private ownership of property and property rights in space. Its a far quicker ticket for humanity ad astra than to wait for some congress to appropriate $$ for it over the incessant public whining for "more bread" and "bigger circuses".
Armenianism vs. Calvinism produces flamewars beyond the comprehension of/.ers as does the debates over eschatology and church polity issues.
You've never really read/. have you?
(see also: Mac vs PC, AMD vs NVidia, SCO vs Everything, Red Hat vs (whatever)nux, etc.)
I'm not sure economics is the applicable standard.
on
The Wrong Stuff
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you wait to have children until you have "enough" money, you're going to die childless.
How different is this, on a "humanity" scale?
Aren't MOST of you sick at the short-sightedness of the institutions you deal with?:
Government (in the US, anyway) hardly every thinks beyond the next election, unless they are postulating huge costs or huge revenues for political purposes, then they'll make meaningless extrapolations like hell until the number is impressive enough.
Business hardly ever even looks beyond the next YEAR. Most business will happily cannibalize their future for some immediate revenues NOW, much less invest dollars that won't return during the tenure of the current CEO.
I may be a total Pollyanna, but Space Exploration has a (truly) mathematically INFINITE potential.
Granted, the return on investment may be on a term of decades or even centuries, but fer chrissake if even the technophiles are crying about running a balance sheet into the red for spaceflight, well then that bodes a pretty damn dismal future.:(
1) Bush does not really care if it is funded or not. The speech and goals are just political mumbo-jumbo, like his AIDS research promises... 2) NASA is more than adept at killing projects themselves. Money is tight here now (I work at NASA and am embroiled in the CEV start-up operations) and NASA is terrible at managing a tight-budget program like this would have to be.
^^^ Precisely the point of the article. It seems that people of a certain political bent are willing to condemn and set aside ANY goal, no matter how admirable, or how much they would have supported said goal if it wasn't THIS PRESIDENT promoting it.
Look at point number one, above. Stated as unassailable fact, this person clearly has such a terrific AXE to grind, they aren't interested in even considering that it might be simply true. They just slap on their tinfoil hats and rant because it is George W. Bush.
Just like his AIDS initiative you say? He committed $15 Billion - 3x the US gov't's previous funding. You say it's smoke & mirrors, but the money's already flowing.
Error 404--Not Found From RFC 2068 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1: 10.4.5 404 Not Found The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent, but naturally we hope it's not.
If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, or if the client is a prude, the status code 403 (Forbidden) can be used instead. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address. This may mean the resource really just wants you to STOP CALLING. Get the hint and try another different resource, or resolve your issue using any number of 'offline' methods.
So why must the fact that some character in this video game is gay be the main facet of the game, or the character? Why not just have the fact come out (pun intended) during the normal course of the game, and make it just another part of the character? Great points, and it's probably this excessive hammering of the point by the left so desperately intent on making a political statement regardless of consequences (y'know, I think I heard that Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degeneres *might* be gay...) and unwilling to condemn overtly destructive behavior for ANY reason (nightly orgies and anonymous sex rooms in gay bathhouses?) that has made this so true.
I think flagrant queens are ludicrous, and it makes me a homophobe. Or maybe I just think guys in dresses look stupid?
I think two guys practically going down on each other on a dance floor is disgusting (never mind that seeing a HETERO couple doing it ALSO would disgust me..>), I'm a homophobe.
Some people are so intent on finding validation in their enemy lists, that they have to invent some.
So, to say it frankly, it is true that most French people think of you Americans not only as warmongers but also as prude maniacs.
France: age ~2000 years (depends where you start counting the Gauls, I guess). Starting population probably somewhere about 1-2 million. Current population: 60 million. Starting size: roughly 550,000 sq km, current size, about 550,000 sq km. Current GDP $1.558 trillion, $26,000 per capita Role: wheezing former Great Power, desperately passing 'culture laws' forcing people to speak the language and clawing at any opportunity to squeak "we're still important! really! we are! quit laughing!"
USA: age: ~230 years, Starting population basically null (since we pretty much exterminated those that were already here). Current population 292 million. Starting size (I'm not going to take the time to add them, but pretty small), current size 9.6 million sq km. Current GDP $10.45 trillion, $36,000 per capita. Current Role: World Superpower, world's largest consumer marketplace, and engine of economic and technological development.
We may be warmongers and 'prude maniacs' (and frankly, now we're about the LEAST warmongerish and LEAST prudish as we've ever BEEN historically), but in just about any given measure, we're kicking YOUR ass. So either it's a benefit or simply not a negative thing, in terms of national success. Thanks for playing, heh heh heh.:)))
I suspect that the first industrialised nation that develops autonomous fighting machines will take over the world (or at least have a damn good go).
One might phrase that more carefully "I suspect that the machines of first industrialised nation that develops autonomous fighting machines will take over the world (or at least have a damn good go)."
I for one welcome our heavily-armed robot masters. However, I'm going to go out and practice my 8 mile run now.
we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. .."
So you're in favor of 14 year olds in CA getting the vote then?
And, by your quote, then I guess you don't think women should get the vote either? I mean if you're being a literalist, it'd be hypocritical to say that you can translate "men" to mean something more general, but I can't translate "all men" to mean something more specific?
Most of the Dell/Gateway/Compaq systems I've seen typically come with their drives partitioned so that 2-3 gigs are used exclusively for restore information.
Which totally fscks you when you have a drive error, repartition and format, and then try to run their 'restore' cd.:(
I'll probably get flamed for this, but why? Part of the impetus for digital voting is to continually try to make the process as simple as possible for the idiots who can't figure anything out. What was the problem with the Florida elections? Very little was wrong with the ELECTION process and law, except it presumed that the people voting actually had a brain. Stop dumbing everything down. Why should someone with a 6th grade education GET a vote? Or a non-english speaker? If the person isn't minimally competent in english, how informed a voter ARE they? I think the common sense needed to fill out even a butterfly ballot is pretty much de rigeur for crossing the street, much less making a choice of political leaders.
If they can't figure out voting, it's pretty good proof that they're not competent to cast a vote. Sorry if that's not politically correct enough but is it so terrible to require a minimum level of sensibility to participate in a democracy?
I think the other problem comes from trying to apply technology to solve every problem, actually. Paper ballots, marked in ink, are the simplest tech around and should be used for the actual voting (because ultimately there is a paper trail). Let the technology be applied at the ballot desk, where the voter can feed their sheet in and are IMMEDIATELY told if it was read OK. If it's ok, the person presses the 'confirm' button and the computer increments the various candidates' vote counts. Let technology be applied to accelerate the tabulation process, not to replace Voting 1.0 - a piece of paper.
On Scrapping Hubble: We're not pissed because it's getting old and expensive; we're pissed off because those in power would rather break things and hurt people than do something constructive like explore space or feed children. There's more profit in making things that blow things up that you then have to rebuild than making something that will last for years.
Not sure I follow your example. Feed a child in subsaharan Africa, you've undoubtedly done an intrinsically good thing, but what will you get? If you feed him enough, you'll get an aid-dependent poor subsaharan Woman or Man, who, if they don't die of AIDS, will have at least 5 children (average birth rate per woman in the CAR 1999 as example). Not to sound callous, but how is that constructive?
Oh, and it's not just the people in power that have this problem...that "other" political party also has it's share of numbskulls: "So what if there is water up there?" said George Washington University sociologist Amitai Etzioni, who served as a domestic affairs adviser in the Carter White House. "What difference does it make to anyone's life?" he said. "Will it grow any more food? Cure a disease? This doesn't even broaden our horizons."
One might conclude (before one gets violently flamed by environmentalists) that really, no matter how seriously these stupid hairless apes fudge up the planet, ultimately, they are only messing with themselves.
If they kill themselves off eventually, 500 years later (an eyeblink in planetary lifespans) pretty much nothing will notice they were ever here.
Slashdot Mirror
the US vetoes things that harm its agenda. That's the only reason.
As opposed to whom? I'm sure the Russians, the French, even the Brits are just pictures of benign altruism, and never venture to wield their veto in the own interest - GASP!
*I* have a feeble grasp? Right, where do you live? The Happy Tree Friend world of diplomacy?
"What about the US vetoing the law to allow US servicemen and women to be tried as war criminals? Surely the only possible reason you'd not agree to such a law is if you think your soldiers will commit war crimes."
Or, perhaps it's because we're a LITTLE bit distrustful of any organization that has LIBYA as the chairman of it's Human Rights commission? Please. So yeah, you're right that we don't want some jackass like you who is simply beating his "I HATE AMERICA" drum to be able to exercise his personal demons against some 19 year old kid from Indiana. Besides, we at least have the guts to KILL our heinous criminals, so arguably we're reserving the right for more severe punishment than the international community could inflict anyway.
Maybe the US would look a little less evil if you'd actually THINK about the ramifications of the proposals that the US is vetoing, rather than just knee-jerking identically to all your political fellow-travelers.
Ironic that you talk about hypocrisy, but only seem to see it in others. How many nations have signed the Kyoto accords...and how many have ACTUALLY implemented them? (Oh yeah, China and India were given a pass - I guess it's ok for them to pollute freely?)
The US's insatiable thirst for power? Don't make me laugh. So, to aggrandize ourselves, we're sending our kids to die in some Mideastern shithole? Right.
You're saying American foreign policy is the closest thing to a great satan?? You probably think that Pakistan selling nuke tech to terrorist states is what, foreign assistance? North Korea threatening nuclear blackmail on the Korean peninsula (as I recall, it was NKorea that invaded SKorea first, no?) is what, cheerful socializing?
Yes, the US acts in self interest. But this self-interest has arguably improved the lot of more people in the world over time than all the bleeding-heart social programs combined.
I'm willing to say very clearly that the US is not perfect. Are you willing to say that the US is sometimes right?
Amazing. They must have been particularly brilliant scientists to be able to deploy a strawman argument in only 5 words!
..."
:)
"A nearly impermeable strategic defense
Besides, a point by point analysis of their reasons:
--Underflying: Valid criticism; however, does that mean that if you have a gun and a knife, and I have the opportunity to reasearch a defense against the gun, I shouldn't? All of the alternatives are defendable by OTHER MEANS, procedural, technical, etc. Not 100% of course, but Ballistic Missiles - there's pretty much not squat you can do about it when it's launched...yet.
-- Overwhelming: As usual, scientific brilliance doesn't equate to understanding Realpolitik. Inducing a % chance of failure in the other's vulnerability calculus can quickly make the idea of first-strike as prevention of a 2nd strike impossible. The fact that they could overwhelm the defenses is irrelevant, if there is a significant number of surviving retaliatory warheads. Besides, now that the nuclear arsenals are much, much smaller would these scientists concede that an SDI program is now more effective in probability? I would guess not.
-- Outfoxing: True, but again, every decoy built into a MIRV is effectively a kill, as it replaces a warhead. Besides, most SDI plans talk about multilayer defenses, including boost-phase kills before spoofs and decoys would deploy.
-- Cost: Irony, table of one. Irony, table of one. Are these the same scientists that are willing to throw BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of dollars at the most esoteric pure-research programs detecting primal particles (SSSC) or gravity waves?
-- Soviet preemption: Ridiculous circular logic. Because I'm safer from them, they are more likely to attack me? That's like in the article: Concluded the report: "The United States has and will continue to have more interests in space assets both civil and military than most countries, and it will retain a net benefit if no one [including the United States itself] has weapons in space." R-i-i-g-h-t. We have more undefended satellites in space than anyone, and are more dependent on satellite tech than anyone, but we're SAFER if we don't try to protect them? Sure, and you must live in Bizarro World? Because (heavens!) nobody would EVER consider attacking American satellites until those nasty, stinky, warmongering AMERICANS came up with the idea of weapons in space. All of the other peace-loving peoples of the world, like the woodland bunnies and squirrels, would have lived in peace & hearmoy without the greedy capitalist Uncle SAM! (insert hallucinogenic here)
-- Institutional momentum: this is a description, begging the question that it's "bad". I don't hear them arguing that institutional momentum is such a bad thing for other multi-trillion dollar boondoggles like REA, TVA, Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, etc. ?
Conclusion: even idealist scientists are not beyond a little chicanery to advance their politics. (Not that that should surprise anyone.)
Did you ever think that *perhaps* the reson the US is the most likely to veto resolutions by the UN is precisely because most of them are aimed at the US - either harming the US and/or it's allies, or at the very least limiting the options available to the US? (cf. Gulliver's Travels).
/.er. :shock:
Spending even a moment's thought, it's fairly logical to see that weaker powers (i.e. all of them) are going to resort to attempted collective action to try to restrain a superpower, ESPECIALLY one not constrained by a counterweight superpower.
Nice comment about the treaties, too. Actually, we refuse to sign them, or ratify them, rather than simply sign them for the stupid public to approve, and then break them secretly. (see also: the ABM treaty - Soviets were working on it secretly all through the '70s and '80s; Kyoto - AFAIK Germany had to propose stringent performance plans as of April 1, how's that coming, Germany?)
Or is that "US IS THE GREAT SATAN" thing just too hard for you to get around? I suppose that's just a lot simpler to believe. Sheesh. Surprise surprise, another empty-headed, America-hating particularist
"Industry organisations .. have asked the Department of Homeland Security to regulate what they call 'Cyber Security' Representatives from Microsoft, Computer Associates, and the BSA."
ATMs
Pay-at-the-pump gas stations
Self-service checkout at Walmart and grocery stores.
Now McDonald's is experimenting with order-at-the-table.
If you thought that a career in the low-end service industry was your life, well, you aren't looking very far ahead.
The commandant put it best:
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
The whole "outsourcing is destroying our job market" is a political red herring ANYWAY, tossed out by a Democratic Party that cannot seem to find an issue where they can get any traction against the Republicans, notably George Bush.
/.'ers :)
Since NAFTA was enacted, something like 600,000 jobs have gone overseas where NAFTA was a factor, while the US economy created 18 MILLION jobs over the same timeframe. I recall recently hearing on NPR that the economy has continuously created roughly double the number of jobs outsourced, even in the last 2-3 years.
Besides that, the shrill keening by IT professionals who are remarkably OVERPAID* (typical contract computer service work is at LEAST $90/hour, more frequently $120), losing their jobs to people who can do the work just as well for cheaper, well, it rings about as hollow as Longshoreman whining that they can't manage to afford to kick in for their medical insurance on 'only' $90,000 per year.
Personally, it sounds very much like people started thinking they were 'entitled' to dot.com fat bonuses, big paychecks, and the high life.
From 1992-2000 we went through a period of ridiculously inflated job and concomitant salary growth, fuelled by a soap-bubble economy. I watched a lot of tech friends of mine parlay their salaries into multiples of my own. I was pretty darn jealous, I'll tell you, being in the relatively static paper industry. But now- they're scrambling to make their house payments and I'm helping them as much as I can. But even they say: when a bubble bursts, the economy corrects. They lived through the high times, now they have to suffer the lows.
* I realize this is really going to ignite
(swims up from the deep)
(examines garish bait)
(swims away)
Modded -1, too extreme to be convincing.
I think original AC poster probably meant this as an ironic comment, but I'd wager that capitalism and self-interest have propelled more development and improved the lives of more people in total than all the government programs in history put together.
I'm all for deregulating spaceflight and allowing private ownership of property and property rights in space. Its a far quicker ticket for humanity ad astra than to wait for some congress to appropriate $$ for it over the incessant public whining for "more bread" and "bigger circuses".
Armenianism vs. Calvinism produces flamewars beyond the comprehension of /.ers as does the debates over eschatology and church polity issues.
/. have you?
You've never really read
(see also: Mac vs PC, AMD vs NVidia, SCO vs Everything, Red Hat vs (whatever)nux, etc.)
If you wait to have children until you have "enough" money, you're going to die childless.
:(
How different is this, on a "humanity" scale?
Aren't MOST of you sick at the short-sightedness of the institutions you deal with?:
Government (in the US, anyway) hardly every thinks beyond the next election, unless they are postulating huge costs or huge revenues for political purposes, then they'll make meaningless extrapolations like hell until the number is impressive enough.
Business hardly ever even looks beyond the next YEAR. Most business will happily cannibalize their future for some immediate revenues NOW, much less invest dollars that won't return during the tenure of the current CEO.
I may be a total Pollyanna, but Space Exploration has a (truly) mathematically INFINITE potential.
Granted, the return on investment may be on a term of decades or even centuries, but fer chrissake if even the technophiles are crying about running a balance sheet into the red for spaceflight, well then that bodes a pretty damn dismal future.
...they can't be read in one hand.
You mean, like a paperback?
1) Bush does not really care if it is funded or not. The speech and goals are just political mumbo-jumbo, like his AIDS research promises...
2) NASA is more than adept at killing projects themselves. Money is tight here now (I work at NASA and am embroiled in the CEV start-up operations) and NASA is terrible at managing a tight-budget program like this would have to be.
^^^ Precisely the point of the article. It seems that people of a certain political bent are willing to condemn and set aside ANY goal, no matter how admirable, or how much they would have supported said goal if it wasn't THIS PRESIDENT promoting it.
Look at point number one, above. Stated as unassailable fact, this person clearly has such a terrific AXE to grind, they aren't interested in even considering that it might be simply true. They just slap on their tinfoil hats and rant because it is George W. Bush.
Just like his AIDS initiative you say? He committed $15 Billion - 3x the US gov't's previous funding. You say it's smoke & mirrors, but the money's already flowing.
slashdot.sex
Error 404--Not Found
From RFC 2068 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1:
10.4.5 404 Not Found
The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent, but naturally we hope it's not.
If the server does not wish to make this information available to the client, or if the client is a prude, the status code 403 (Forbidden) can be used instead. The 410 (Gone) status code SHOULD be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address. This may mean the resource really just wants you to STOP CALLING. Get the hint and try another different resource, or resolve your issue using any number of 'offline' methods.
So why must the fact that some character in this video game is gay be the main facet of the game, or the character? Why not just have the fact come out (pun intended) during the normal course of the game, and make it just another part of the character?
Great points, and it's probably this excessive hammering of the point by the left so desperately intent on making a political statement regardless of consequences (y'know, I think I heard that Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degeneres *might* be gay...) and unwilling to condemn overtly destructive behavior for ANY reason (nightly orgies and anonymous sex rooms in gay bathhouses?) that has made this so true.
I think flagrant queens are ludicrous, and it makes me a homophobe. Or maybe I just think guys in dresses look stupid?
I think two guys practically going down on each other on a dance floor is disgusting (never mind that seeing a HETERO couple doing it ALSO would disgust me..>), I'm a homophobe.
Some people are so intent on finding validation in their enemy lists, that they have to invent some.
So, to say it frankly, it is true that most French people think of you Americans not only as warmongers but also as prude maniacs.
:)))
France: age ~2000 years (depends where you start counting the Gauls, I guess). Starting population probably somewhere about 1-2 million.
Current population: 60 million.
Starting size: roughly 550,000 sq km, current size, about 550,000 sq km.
Current GDP $1.558 trillion, $26,000 per capita
Role: wheezing former Great Power, desperately passing 'culture laws' forcing people to speak the language and clawing at any opportunity to squeak "we're still important! really! we are! quit laughing!"
USA: age: ~230 years, Starting population basically null (since we pretty much exterminated those that were already here). Current population 292 million.
Starting size (I'm not going to take the time to add them, but pretty small), current size 9.6 million sq km.
Current GDP $10.45 trillion, $36,000 per capita.
Current Role: World Superpower, world's largest consumer marketplace, and engine of economic and technological development.
We may be warmongers and 'prude maniacs' (and frankly, now we're about the LEAST warmongerish and LEAST prudish as we've ever BEEN historically), but in just about any given measure, we're kicking YOUR ass. So either it's a benefit or simply not a negative thing, in terms of national success. Thanks for playing, heh heh heh.
OK, it's not the panels, but there's software you can use with your computer that simulates the entire functionality of the blinkenlights.
http://www.microsoft.com
Has anybody seen the minimum system req's for Duke Nukem Forever?
I believe at this point it's "Imagination 1.0"?
I suspect that the first industrialised nation that develops autonomous fighting machines will take over the world (or at least have a damn good go).
One might phrase that more carefully "I suspect that the machines of first industrialised nation that develops autonomous fighting machines will take over the world (or at least have a damn good go)."
I for one welcome our heavily-armed robot masters. However, I'm going to go out and practice my 8 mile run now.
...this is /., you forgot to include "...and George Bush and the Republicans are wrecking it all!!!!" (insert Dean manic scream here)
Wait, what was your point again?
Give us details, not generalized Bush bashing./
/., remember. Vagueness and generalized Bush-bashing is pretty much a way of life.
This is
(Otherwise how would all of us Ivory Tower-types expiate our white guilt, if not for some mutual politico-social sef-gratification?)
we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . ."
So you're in favor of 14 year olds in CA getting the vote then?
And, by your quote, then I guess you don't think women should get the vote either? I mean if you're being a literalist, it'd be hypocritical to say that you can translate "men" to mean something more general, but I can't translate "all men" to mean something more specific?
Most of the Dell/Gateway/Compaq systems I've seen typically come with their drives partitioned so that 2-3 gigs are used exclusively for restore information.
:(
Which totally fscks you when you have a drive error, repartition and format, and then try to run their 'restore' cd.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but why?
Part of the impetus for digital voting is to continually try to make the process as simple as possible for the idiots who can't figure anything out. What was the problem with the Florida elections? Very little was wrong with the ELECTION process and law, except it presumed that the people voting actually had a brain.
Stop dumbing everything down. Why should someone with a 6th grade education GET a vote? Or a non-english speaker? If the person isn't minimally competent in english, how informed a voter ARE they?
I think the common sense needed to fill out even a butterfly ballot is pretty much de rigeur for crossing the street, much less making a choice of political leaders.
If they can't figure out voting, it's pretty good proof that they're not competent to cast a vote. Sorry if that's not politically correct enough but is it so terrible to require a minimum level of sensibility to participate in a democracy?
I think the other problem comes from trying to apply technology to solve every problem, actually. Paper ballots, marked in ink, are the simplest tech around and should be used for the actual voting (because ultimately there is a paper trail). Let the technology be applied at the ballot desk, where the voter can feed their sheet in and are IMMEDIATELY told if it was read OK. If it's ok, the person presses the 'confirm' button and the computer increments the various candidates' vote counts.
Let technology be applied to accelerate the tabulation process, not to replace Voting 1.0 - a piece of paper.
On Scrapping Hubble: We're not pissed because it's getting old and expensive; we're pissed off because those in power would rather break things and hurt people than do something constructive like explore space or feed children. There's more profit in making things that blow things up that you then have to rebuild than making something that will last for years.
Not sure I follow your example. Feed a child in subsaharan Africa, you've undoubtedly done an intrinsically good thing, but what will you get?
If you feed him enough, you'll get an aid-dependent poor subsaharan Woman or Man, who, if they don't die of AIDS, will have at least 5 children (average birth rate per woman in the CAR 1999 as example).
Not to sound callous, but how is that constructive?
Oh, and it's not just the people in power that have this problem...that "other" political party also has it's share of numbskulls:
"So what if there is water up there?" said George Washington University sociologist Amitai Etzioni, who served as a domestic affairs adviser in the Carter White House. "What difference does it make to anyone's life?" he said. "Will it grow any more food? Cure a disease? This doesn't even broaden our horizons."
One might conclude (before one gets violently flamed by environmentalists) that really, no matter how seriously these stupid hairless apes fudge up the planet, ultimately, they are only messing with themselves.
If they kill themselves off eventually, 500 years later (an eyeblink in planetary lifespans) pretty much nothing will notice they were ever here.