"What it points to" is that we know slightly more than "fuck all" about the climate, so the cowboys who think we should get started on megaengineering projects because we think that they'll stave off or reverse global warming...should be thrown right into straitjackets.
If Disney wants to throw $$ at a meaningful, beneficial event and in return they get to plaster their product placement all over it in ways that don't actually detract from the facts/lesson being delivered - who cares? Hell, I hope it starts a bidding war in which the tutorial characters are eventually covered in ads like an Indy race-driver suit.* The sad consequence would be, of course, the fund swimming in cash. Tragedy!
*I personally believe that someday someone will actually cost-benefit out media advertising and realize it's a 75-year long scam. But that's a post for another day.
I think the "world police" argument is self-defeating.
First, nobody - even the most ardent interventionist - has ever asserted that the US should send its military to (some godforsaken shithole (GSFH)) because "we're the World Police!". Suggesting such is prima facie untrue. The only people that even use the term are ironically usually the political left who, if they had their druthers, WOULD enable just such a thing likely under UN auspices. So it's not even the "world police" thing that bothers them, it's that we're pursuing our own interests, because they're presumably too stupid to recognize that every other state on the planet is doing the same thing to the best of their ability. So their real argument isn't that we're acting like "world police" so much as a basic argument against our own success....and that devolves, folks, to simple self-loathing.
US involvement in GFSHs is based on US interests, full stop. Setting aside the public pap of WMDs, it's clear that we went to war in Iraq to protect OIL, because after air, and water, and food, oil's pretty much the most fucking important substance on the planet.
Now, we can argue priorities, cost/benefit, direct self-interests vs enlightened longterm self interest, etc all day long. I might even agree with you on some points, despite our likely opposite political dogma.
But the crux of geopolitics is that EITHER: - you pursue naked Realpolitik, and act ONLY in your self-interest, or - you pursue a humanitarian policy of trying to "do good" where you can.
What the naive don't seem to understand is that you don't get to "not play". It's not a choice. If millions are being slaughtered in Rwanda, action OR INACTION is making a statement about US interests, values, and cost/benefit calculations, upon which then other states will plan their expectations about our behavior.
And FWIW, the second policy pole listed above? It's far, far more blood and treasure, intervention, and judgemental side-picking, 'warmongering scumbaggery' than the former.
Basically: grow the fuck up. The world's more complicated than you apparently understand.
The US public spent $7.4 billion on HALLOWEEN in 2013, including $350 million for PET COSTUMES. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/wait-americans-spend-how-much-on-halloween/381631/)
Next Friday, on "Black Friday" US consumers will spend ~$40 billion on stuff that they & others don't need, but (mostly) want.
First, it's astonishingly pedantic to lecture someone on being "obtuse", and then go into the 'there is no such thing as race' bullshit. We all know what we are talking about, and if you don't, then you're the one being obtuse.
Secondly, isn't it fairly racist to imply that mono ethnic cities aren't "interesting, creative and vigorous"? That's pretty superficial.
Finally, you may have a delightful postmodern hipster view of ports, but most of them across history have been dangerous places that decent people avoided, for good reason.
This is Slashdot, so new we are rewarded with a litany of "look how stupid congress is" stories.
The fact is, the conversation is clearly brainstorming, more of a signal that lateral thinking was welcome, as the secret service clearly hasn't thought if anything effective.
So your logic is that if we can't stop all murders, why bother to try to stop some of them? If you cannot prevent poverty everywhere, there's no point in helping some people out of poverty, even if that subset is arbitrary?
I understand that such a point is usually made from political tendentiousness, but I've never really understood the position logically. Need is infinite, resources aren't; even the most altruistic person in the world prioritizes their targets.
I felt writing "hos" was just confusing, I submit that 'ho's' (with the needless apostrophe inserted) is just idiomatic and perhaps the tiniest bit metaphorical.
1) I don't even argue with their choice as far as content/connectivity. My personal skepticism about Star Citizen is that they're asserting that they can & will do/be everything for everyone under the sun. Ceaseless mission-creep is Chris Robert's nemesis (from his historical projects) and it seems to be the issue there. The Elite team has always been more focused; for them to say "no, we're going to do X, not Y or Z" I don't have a beef with that. Of course, the issue becomes when they take money based on promises of features that are then not delivered. At the very least, one would hope people would have the sense to stop donating, as well as at least an investigation of fraud (although that's going to be nearly impossible to prove: it's fine to try and fail, it's illegal to take the money and not 'reasonably' try).
2) for the people complaining about having given money in Kickstarter: sorry, but you're an idiot - nobody can save you from that. Kickstarter has been, from the very beginning, a no strings attached deal. It's a wish-fulfillment site, connecting people who donate freely to people who (one would hope) try to accomplish goals with that money. It's not an investment, it's not a pre-purchase, it's not even a donation (I don't think you can write off KS $?). You gave the money freely, and if it evaporates, well, that's that. I've been trying to tell people for YEARS that there's nothing there but the word of the people to whom you're donating, and that the system is extremely vulnerable to scammers. All the trust in the world doesn't make more honest people.
Wait, are women independent self-aware creatures fully capable of being anything and doing anything they want, or are they hothouse flowers who need rigorous and pervasive government protections (and of course ample funding) to ensure that their delicate sensibilities aren't offended by coarse language?
Maybe their message of "don't treat me as a sexual object all the time" would be more persuasive if the internet wasn't full of 8 million new pictures EVERY DAY day of ducklipped skanks' selfies of their tits, ass, or other body parts?
Hey, I DO get it: just because millions of women are ho's, doesn't ipso facto mean ALL women are ho's - that's obvious. But to then castigate men for not immediately recognizing which are which seems a wee bit unfair, no?
The boundary line is pretty fucking gray, and constantly shifting, especially when there seem to be many many women who aren't ACTUALLY ho's but want to seem like they are for the attention?
You mean setting aside the astonishing coincidence of a satellite taking a snap of an otherwise entirely innocuous airliner passing along relatively undisputed land at *just* a quarter-second after the Ukrainian jet fired a missile at said airliner?
Even if it WAS a Ukrainian jet (and not a terrible photoshop) one would have to suspect a Russian planted flight officer, just based on that timing alone.
We stop using "tax the fucking citizens" as our go-to everytime something is broken?
My suggestion: stop pouring $billions in subsidies, tax incentives, sweetheart land-use deals etc at the petro companies, and then let them sell their gasoline at market-necessary pricing?
Reading the pre mission discussions, they already knew that the geography of their target was going to be challenging, so I'm curious why they went with solar power (that requires some pretty consistent orientation data) instead of rtg's for Philae? It was further clear that once the comet started outgassing nobody has any clue how that thing is going is going to spin our tumble, an even better reason for rtgs.
Nonsense. You want the things that those certify? Then get a real taxi (and pay for it). - Hack license - all that proves is that they're connected to the giant money-train that are cab licenses in metro areas. Inspection? Certification? It means none of those. - Insurance - yep, important to have it. Using Uber/Lyft, you're risking not having it. - Race discrimination - apparently you don't notice the whole 'review' part of uber. If someone can be an overt racist/sexist/whatever-phobe, and still make money, more power to them. If that sort of behavior means that they can't make it economically work, then they should learn how to be civilized.
Slashdot Mirror
"What it points to" is that we know slightly more than "fuck all" about the climate, so the cowboys who think we should get started on megaengineering projects because we think that they'll stave off or reverse global warming...should be thrown right into straitjackets.
If Disney wants to throw $$ at a meaningful, beneficial event and in return they get to plaster their product placement all over it in ways that don't actually detract from the facts/lesson being delivered - who cares? Hell, I hope it starts a bidding war in which the tutorial characters are eventually covered in ads like an Indy race-driver suit.* The sad consequence would be, of course, the fund swimming in cash. Tragedy!
*I personally believe that someday someone will actually cost-benefit out media advertising and realize it's a 75-year long scam. But that's a post for another day.
The ends DO justify the means, every goddamn day.
I think the "world police" argument is self-defeating.
First, nobody - even the most ardent interventionist - has ever asserted that the US should send its military to (some godforsaken shithole (GSFH)) because "we're the World Police!".
Suggesting such is prima facie untrue. The only people that even use the term are ironically usually the political left who, if they had their druthers, WOULD enable just such a thing likely under UN auspices. So it's not even the "world police" thing that bothers them, it's that we're pursuing our own interests, because they're presumably too stupid to recognize that every other state on the planet is doing the same thing to the best of their ability. So their real argument isn't that we're acting like "world police" so much as a basic argument against our own success....and that devolves, folks, to simple self-loathing.
US involvement in GFSHs is based on US interests, full stop. Setting aside the public pap of WMDs, it's clear that we went to war in Iraq to protect OIL, because after air, and water, and food, oil's pretty much the most fucking important substance on the planet.
Now, we can argue priorities, cost/benefit, direct self-interests vs enlightened longterm self interest, etc all day long. I might even agree with you on some points, despite our likely opposite political dogma.
But the crux of geopolitics is that EITHER:
- you pursue naked Realpolitik, and act ONLY in your self-interest, or
- you pursue a humanitarian policy of trying to "do good" where you can.
What the naive don't seem to understand is that you don't get to "not play". It's not a choice. If millions are being slaughtered in Rwanda, action OR INACTION is making a statement about US interests, values, and cost/benefit calculations, upon which then other states will plan their expectations about our behavior.
And FWIW, the second policy pole listed above? It's far, far more blood and treasure, intervention, and judgemental side-picking, 'warmongering scumbaggery' than the former.
Basically: grow the fuck up. The world's more complicated than you apparently understand.
As a sense of scale:
The US public spent $7.4 billion on HALLOWEEN in 2013, including $350 million for PET COSTUMES. (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/wait-americans-spend-how-much-on-halloween/381631/)
Next Friday, on "Black Friday" US consumers will spend ~$40 billion on stuff that they & others don't need, but (mostly) want.
If they put their flag in space, doesn't that mean they own it?
Since Harvard students apparently need it put simply:
"Is it actually your money?"
"No?"
"Then shut the fuck up."
First, it's astonishingly pedantic to lecture someone on being "obtuse", and then go into the 'there is no such thing as race' bullshit. We all know what we are talking about, and if you don't, then you're the one being obtuse.
Secondly, isn't it fairly racist to imply that mono ethnic cities aren't "interesting, creative and vigorous"? That's pretty superficial.
Finally, you may have a delightful postmodern hipster view of ports, but most of them across history have been dangerous places that decent people avoided, for good reason.
I think you're generally right about the subject, you've however completely confused "libertarians" with "liberals".
This is Slashdot, so new we are rewarded with a litany of "look how stupid congress is" stories.
The fact is, the conversation is clearly brainstorming, more of a signal that lateral thinking was welcome, as the secret service clearly hasn't thought if anything effective.
So your logic is that if we can't stop all murders, why bother to try to stop some of them? If you cannot prevent poverty everywhere, there's no point in helping some people out of poverty, even if that subset is arbitrary?
I understand that such a point is usually made from political tendentiousness, but I've never really understood the position logically. Need is infinite, resources aren't; even the most altruistic person in the world prioritizes their targets.
Maybe it's just polite foreplay?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
Conscious decision, actually.
I felt writing "hos" was just confusing, I submit that 'ho's' (with the needless apostrophe inserted) is just idiomatic and perhaps the tiniest bit metaphorical.
...I'd love it if routine Facebook use invalidated your vote.
1) I don't even argue with their choice as far as content/connectivity. My personal skepticism about Star Citizen is that they're asserting that they can & will do/be everything for everyone under the sun. Ceaseless mission-creep is Chris Robert's nemesis (from his historical projects) and it seems to be the issue there. The Elite team has always been more focused; for them to say "no, we're going to do X, not Y or Z" I don't have a beef with that. Of course, the issue becomes when they take money based on promises of features that are then not delivered. At the very least, one would hope people would have the sense to stop donating, as well as at least an investigation of fraud (although that's going to be nearly impossible to prove: it's fine to try and fail, it's illegal to take the money and not 'reasonably' try).
2) for the people complaining about having given money in Kickstarter: sorry, but you're an idiot - nobody can save you from that. Kickstarter has been, from the very beginning, a no strings attached deal. It's a wish-fulfillment site, connecting people who donate freely to people who (one would hope) try to accomplish goals with that money. It's not an investment, it's not a pre-purchase, it's not even a donation (I don't think you can write off KS $?). You gave the money freely, and if it evaporates, well, that's that. I've been trying to tell people for YEARS that there's nothing there but the word of the people to whom you're donating, and that the system is extremely vulnerable to scammers. All the trust in the world doesn't make more honest people.
The first thing you want to teach an AI is "how to trick humans"?
Is that really smart?
Wait, are women independent self-aware creatures fully capable of being anything and doing anything they want, or are they hothouse flowers who need rigorous and pervasive government protections (and of course ample funding) to ensure that their delicate sensibilities aren't offended by coarse language?
Maybe their message of "don't treat me as a sexual object all the time" would be more persuasive if the internet wasn't full of 8 million new pictures EVERY DAY day of ducklipped skanks' selfies of their tits, ass, or other body parts?
Hey, I DO get it: just because millions of women are ho's, doesn't ipso facto mean ALL women are ho's - that's obvious. But to then castigate men for not immediately recognizing which are which seems a wee bit unfair, no?
The boundary line is pretty fucking gray, and constantly shifting, especially when there seem to be many many women who aren't ACTUALLY ho's but want to seem like they are for the attention?
You mean setting aside the astonishing coincidence of a satellite taking a snap of an otherwise entirely innocuous airliner passing along relatively undisputed land at *just* a quarter-second after the Ukrainian jet fired a missile at said airliner?
Even if it WAS a Ukrainian jet (and not a terrible photoshop) one would have to suspect a Russian planted flight officer, just based on that timing alone.
Dear Mr Putin: http://www.mydamnchannel.com/y...
We stop using "tax the fucking citizens" as our go-to everytime something is broken?
My suggestion: stop pouring $billions in subsidies, tax incentives, sweetheart land-use deals etc at the petro companies, and then let them sell their gasoline at market-necessary pricing?
Reading the pre mission discussions, they already knew that the geography of their target was going to be challenging, so I'm curious why they went with solar power (that requires some pretty consistent orientation data) instead of rtg's for Philae? It was further clear that once the comet started outgassing nobody has any clue how that thing is going is going to spin our tumble, an even better reason for rtgs.
Anyone know?
Nonsense.
You want the things that those certify? Then get a real taxi (and pay for it).
- Hack license - all that proves is that they're connected to the giant money-train that are cab licenses in metro areas. Inspection? Certification? It means none of those.
- Insurance - yep, important to have it. Using Uber/Lyft, you're risking not having it.
- Race discrimination - apparently you don't notice the whole 'review' part of uber. If someone can be an overt racist/sexist/whatever-phobe, and still make money, more power to them. If that sort of behavior means that they can't make it economically work, then they should learn how to be civilized.
....if they don't want you to see reviews before it launches, it's going to suck.
GUARANTEED.
First bounce was 1000m up (from the surface) - that's a helluva hop.
Then again, that was pretty much my result every time I tried to play Lunar Lander too.
I find it astonishing that someone is actually reading Bennett's drivel. And parsing it.
I mean, it's still drivel, but your user# doesn't suggest you're so new that you haven't seen his 6000-word screeds before?
So essentially you're saying "China saying it will address sometime in the future" is enough, but "the US saying it will address it right now" isn't?
Delightful racism you're displaying there.
Credibility, -2.
Yes, when that average American is more than 3x more productive per ton of emissions than that average Chinese.