Mostly because no one cares what sports people think. They just want to watch them play.
I suspect there are a few such people in every profession that have anti vaccine views.
It is true that they're not known to preach against them but then they don't preach anything besides "go team".
I'm not defending the anti vaccine stuff. Its dumb. But the view is not restricted to the religious. Please specify your ire towards anti vaccine people and don't label all religious people the same. That is bigoted and unfair.
This is just bigoted. Why do you have to be derogatory?
There was an outbreak of disease at a social venue. Little else of relevance happened. Why go out of your way to be antagonistic? Its these sorts of comments that make it harder for us to come together as a society and solve common problems. It demonstrates a lack of respect and regard for other members of the society. People being what they are will reciprocate that behavior thus you'll reap a harvest of suspicion, distrust, contempt, and possibly even hate.
I'm afraid it isn't an exaggeration. It is the cost of Kyoto. And its a non-starter.
That said, you say you only want billions?
How many billion? Because if you're willing to end this at the cost of a few billion... done.
But then its over. No more. Funds paid and situation concluded.
Deal? Or will you come back like the rapacious blackmailer to extort more and more? And every time we say yes, that merely serves as license to increase the payments again.
If you're not going to offer up a proper justified argument then we're going to treat it as a shake down for money.
And that's fine. We pay various nuisances all the time to leave us alone. Its frequently cheaper. But you need to limit your request to an agreed upon amount and then hold to it.
If you pull a north korea on us and try to have it both ways... we're going to pull funding.
Doubtless you think this is an unfair position and we should just close our eyes and hand you our check books without any consideration or auditing.
You can make an argument about anti vaccine propaganda leading to outbreaks. That is valid. But that isn't a religious issue.
There is nothing inherently theistic about that opinion. It doesn't say anything about vaccines in most religions and most religions have no problem with the medical practice.
There are a few that believe in faith healing and so oppose such things but they're a tiny minority of the whole.
Really, put down your mill stone. You embarrass yourself by trying to turn this into something it is not.
1. I have seen demonstrations of these brain disrupting magnets before. A guy puts it against specific parts of a person's skull and he gets a response. Typically disrupting or even enhancing certain brain function.
2. I have seen the sensors before. I think I saw someone control a wheel chair with nothing but one of those devices. Vastly more impressive then the above demonstration.
All they did was connect point 1 to point 2. The magnet was fixed in the portion of the skull that would get the desired result and then all they had to do was get the computer to trigger the subroutine to activate it.
The most impressive bit is the sensor reading that signal from the guy triggering the command. The effect translating into motor function in the second man is not that impressive. You could have as easily wired the guy up to a generic electrical shock and gotten a very similar reaction.
Bill Maher has said some anti vaccination stuff as well so that's not actually true.
Furthermore, most people indifferent to religion get vaccinated about as much as anyone else. You have to appreciate that the anti vaccination people are always a fringe group and rarely represent any significant portion of the population.
Beyond that, these things spread through human contact. Its just a biological fact. Someone at work coughs and everyone gets a cold. Hospitals sadly are often the source of most minor seasonal illnesses. Why? They're full of sick people. Sitting in a hospital waiting room is one of the better ways to get the seasonal flu or cold going around. Some guy is won't be feeling well in that room... and he'll cough... and you'll breath that in... and enjoy sniffling for three days.
Its not a religion issue. The people trying to make it one just have giant hate boners for the faith cults. Its sad that most of them don't get the punch line to the joke... which is that the hard core anti religion crowd are also a faith cult. Not a theistic one... but psychological nature of the relationships and the circular self justifying logic loops are mostly the same.
Its a "lots of humans gathering in one place" issue. It could be tied to just about any place that happens. I'm sure your local sporting stadium contributes to the spread of disease on an ongoing basis.
Three ways ways deal with this issue:
1. Everyone becomes shut-ins that don't go anywhere, meet anyone, or do anything outside their little domiciles.
2. We wear hazmat suits when we walk around. Gloves and breathing masks at a minimum. And eating anything you don't bring with you from an inspected source is forbidden.
You know those magnets that can shut down a portion of your brain if you put the plate right against your skull?
And you know how they can detect certain types of brain activity if they put sensors all of your skull?
Okay... what they did was set that plate up against one guy's head so that when it was triggered it would cause a specific motor response. Then they linked that up to the other guy. So if the brain activity was detected in guy 2 it would activate the plate on guy 1. Then guy 2 just had to time the brain activity... and bam "interface".
Are pets wrong? Is it wrong to be nice to an animal? Bears are fairly intelligent so you could form all sorts of relationships with them.
Take the difference between a circus and a zoo.
The animals that perform tricks in zoos are generally held by many to be exploited animals that are abused for the amusement of an audience. While the "residents" of the zoo are considered humanely and well taken care of... but what does any of that really mean?
Again, it can get very complicated depending on context and various variables. My point was that if you forced me to give a yes or no answer to a complicated question... I would answer yes or no. Effectively suppressing the shades of gray doesn't make them vanish... we're just temporarily ignoring them.
Simply using scientific language isn't exactly science. It could rather be going after specificity. If you prime me with a bunch of IF/THEN TRUE/FALSE terms and then ask if something is wrong I'm going to be more inclined to give a more literal and less nuanced opinion.
For example, is it wrong to feed the bears? Of course it is... its against the rules, encourages the bears to see humans as a food source, and makes them less inclined to gather food from the wild. So... its wrong. But at the same time its not especially immoral.
If you prime me with true false information I'll just say its wrong. But if you expand the point there might be more going on there.
I don't think science has anything especially to do with morality. It does have a great deal to do with truth seeking but its truth seeking for its own sake and not some higher calling. That is not to say scientist are not moral people or that they're not helping humanity. Merely that there is no causal link between morality and science.
When you're willing to drop TRILLIONS on a policy you admittedly don't understand very well and haven't done much research on then you're either showing faith or are stupid.
1. The point is not that it is moral or not. The point is that it is not the NSA's place to decide what is and is not moral. It is rather the American people's job to make that judgment.
If you want to argue that spying is morally wrong, that's fine. Make an argument to the American people that the US government shouldn't spy on foreign governments.
And I'm sure the American people will agree to this so long as you can get every other government on earth to agree likewise. You won't... and so it will go on... and you'll just have to live with that.
2. As to justifying "everyone else does it", no. I am saying instead that we must do it BECAUSE everyone else does it. Not that it is okay because others do it. Rather, that others do it means we have no choice and must do it ourselves.
If I pull out a knife and try to stab you are you permitted to use a knife to defend yourself?
Precisely.
Do you know what happens to those that don't pull out their own knives? They get their throats slit like cattle.
You can choose to bow out if you like, however the point remains that you've confused religion with science.
Science is not about belief. You either understand or you don't.
I don't understand quantum mechanics and so have no strong opinions on it.
In regards to the environmental science issue, there are likewise many things NEITHER of us understand. I must understand this if I'm going to sign off on an expenditure of that size. It is not acceptable for me to just trust them.
Were the money asked for a more modest amount then that might be something worth risking. However when you get into trillions of dollars trust is not an option. You have to "know".
Really, that is a huge underlying point with this issue. Its really the scale of the bill that raises the standards of evidence.
Radically lower the amount of money you want and we can accept it on trust and that can be an end to the issue. But have it be trillions and open ended funding... and saying "just trust us" is irresponsible. We have a responsibility and a right to audit and understand expenditures of that scale. We are talking about money in excess of what is spent on major world wars.
Saying we should just take that on faith is idiotic. You can choose to bow out of this discussion but there would be no way for you to justify that sort of expense granted on faith without audit.
Let me define why both arguments are actually valid in this case.
1. They were hired by congress to do this job. The American people approve of some kind of electronic intelligence organziation working. As such, this is not an argument you want to have with the NSA but rather the American people.
The American people do not have a problem with the NSA itself conducting intelligence work on foreign governments or organizations or persons. The issue is domestic spying. They are forbidden to do that and they have done it. That is the issue that is most troubling to Americans.
2. Everyone else does it justifies pretty much all military and defense activities and must justify such actions.
IF I have a knife and train to kill with a knife and stand right next to you... do you feel a need to have some sort of defense against me? Precisely. Everything more or less logically flows from that reality.
In short, your comment was naive. You might not like that these arguments are valid or that they can be expansively used to justify almost anything. But they are inherently reactive systems which are dynamic by nature. The point is to be flexible so you can respond to enemy action. You move, I move to respond. You have the ability to move faster or more secretively thus precluding an effective reaction? Then I must anticipate and react to things you MIGHT not just what you did do. The last point of course limited by the negative repercussions of counter reactions.
Their job is to break into stuff and record it. They are an electronic intelligence organization.
Get over it.
The issue with them is spying on Americans which is illegal. Not spying on diplomatic organizations, other countries, or GASP actually conducting intelligence work.
Think no one else does it to us? Get real. The chinese are doing it like crazy. The Russians are doing it like crazy. And everyone not doing it is relying on briefings from a power that is doing it... such as much of europe does FROM the NSA... or they're so backward as to not matter in the global power struggles.
Look, get upset about all this all you want... hold your breath until you turn blue. Start now. Get it over with.... there will be organizations like this operated by the US and other major powers. End of story.
The issue will be limiting them so their activities are reasonable. Create a new UN convention at the UN. See who signs it. IF you can get Russia and China to sign then the US might sign as well... if all three powers sign then it might actually be followed. Maybe.
When you're considering moving files around like that the transfers won't be random. They'll happen at specific prearranged times. As in "I am talking to you on the phone, send me the file now"... in such an environment, you could turn a home system into a file server for a couple minutes... pull the file down or push it or whatever... and then after the transfer was complete turn the file server software off. When things only blink into existence and are gone when called for it gives the black hats less time to mess with it. Sure, they could compromise your machine in addition to that. However, tracking and hacking will be more complicated.
companies will either find the price acceptable or use a competing product. And yes... competing products exist. And they will multiply in proportion to demand.
There are situations where you only want the software for a couple months. And that might make the software price more reasonable to some buyers. But I suspect the big institutional buyers don't care either way so long as the net cost is about the same.
This has no impact on pirates... Lets be honest here, the pirates will crack the software in about 2 hours and release it.
The only way to really stop the piracy would be to offer the software as a cloud only service. But then the institutional buyers would see that as a deal breaker for various reasons. So they have to release software packages which can and will be cracked.
It would be interesting to see what would come of a race to produce a lighter car rather then a more reasonable hybrid. That is, accept the gasoline engine and just try to improve mileage. I think they'd produce a better car at a cheaper price.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion really doesn't come into it. Its just anti vaccine stances backfiring.
Very few religions have issues with vaccines and even within those they're just a fringe of a fringe.
Please don't paint all religious people with the same brush. It's bigoted, ignorant, and needlessly inflammatory.
Mostly because no one cares what sports people think. They just want to watch them play.
I suspect there are a few such people in every profession that have anti vaccine views.
It is true that they're not known to preach against them but then they don't preach anything besides "go team".
I'm not defending the anti vaccine stuff. Its dumb. But the view is not restricted to the religious. Please specify your ire towards anti vaccine people and don't label all religious people the same. That is bigoted and unfair.
This is just bigoted. Why do you have to be derogatory?
There was an outbreak of disease at a social venue. Little else of relevance happened. Why go out of your way to be antagonistic? Its these sorts of comments that make it harder for us to come together as a society and solve common problems. It demonstrates a lack of respect and regard for other members of the society. People being what they are will reciprocate that behavior thus you'll reap a harvest of suspicion, distrust, contempt, and possibly even hate.
Why do that? Be nice. It costs you nothing.
I'm afraid it isn't an exaggeration. It is the cost of Kyoto. And its a non-starter.
That said, you say you only want billions?
How many billion? Because if you're willing to end this at the cost of a few billion... done.
But then its over. No more. Funds paid and situation concluded.
Deal? Or will you come back like the rapacious blackmailer to extort more and more? And every time we say yes, that merely serves as license to increase the payments again.
If you're not going to offer up a proper justified argument then we're going to treat it as a shake down for money.
And that's fine. We pay various nuisances all the time to leave us alone. Its frequently cheaper. But you need to limit your request to an agreed upon amount and then hold to it.
If you pull a north korea on us and try to have it both ways... we're going to pull funding.
Doubtless you think this is an unfair position and we should just close our eyes and hand you our check books without any consideration or auditing.
Dream on.
You can make an argument about anti vaccine propaganda leading to outbreaks. That is valid. But that isn't a religious issue.
There is nothing inherently theistic about that opinion. It doesn't say anything about vaccines in most religions and most religions have no problem with the medical practice.
There are a few that believe in faith healing and so oppose such things but they're a tiny minority of the whole.
Really, put down your mill stone. You embarrass yourself by trying to turn this into something it is not.
Dude.
1. I have seen demonstrations of these brain disrupting magnets before. A guy puts it against specific parts of a person's skull and he gets a response. Typically disrupting or even enhancing certain brain function.
2. I have seen the sensors before. I think I saw someone control a wheel chair with nothing but one of those devices. Vastly more impressive then the above demonstration.
All they did was connect point 1 to point 2. The magnet was fixed in the portion of the skull that would get the desired result and then all they had to do was get the computer to trigger the subroutine to activate it.
The most impressive bit is the sensor reading that signal from the guy triggering the command. The effect translating into motor function in the second man is not that impressive. You could have as easily wired the guy up to a generic electrical shock and gotten a very similar reaction.
Bill Maher has said some anti vaccination stuff as well so that's not actually true.
Furthermore, most people indifferent to religion get vaccinated about as much as anyone else. You have to appreciate that the anti vaccination people are always a fringe group and rarely represent any significant portion of the population.
Beyond that, these things spread through human contact. Its just a biological fact. Someone at work coughs and everyone gets a cold. Hospitals sadly are often the source of most minor seasonal illnesses. Why? They're full of sick people. Sitting in a hospital waiting room is one of the better ways to get the seasonal flu or cold going around. Some guy is won't be feeling well in that room... and he'll cough... and you'll breath that in... and enjoy sniffling for three days.
Its not a religion issue. The people trying to make it one just have giant hate boners for the faith cults. Its sad that most of them don't get the punch line to the joke... which is that the hard core anti religion crowd are also a faith cult. Not a theistic one... but psychological nature of the relationships and the circular self justifying logic loops are mostly the same.
Its a "lots of humans gathering in one place" issue. It could be tied to just about any place that happens. I'm sure your local sporting stadium contributes to the spread of disease on an ongoing basis.
Three ways ways deal with this issue:
1. Everyone becomes shut-ins that don't go anywhere, meet anyone, or do anything outside their little domiciles.
2. We wear hazmat suits when we walk around. Gloves and breathing masks at a minimum. And eating anything you don't bring with you from an inspected source is forbidden.
3. What we're doing now.
Problem solved.
Ignoring your stupid insult which ironically made you look foolish.
Would you mind pointing out what I got wrong? Do you not have anything?
You know those magnets that can shut down a portion of your brain if you put the plate right against your skull?
And you know how they can detect certain types of brain activity if they put sensors all of your skull?
Okay... what they did was set that plate up against one guy's head so that when it was triggered it would cause a specific motor response. Then they linked that up to the other guy. So if the brain activity was detected in guy 2 it would activate the plate on guy 1. Then guy 2 just had to time the brain activity... and bam "interface".
So yeah... not impressed.
Its a matter of perspective.
Are pets wrong? Is it wrong to be nice to an animal? Bears are fairly intelligent so you could form all sorts of relationships with them.
Take the difference between a circus and a zoo.
The animals that perform tricks in zoos are generally held by many to be exploited animals that are abused for the amusement of an audience. While the "residents" of the zoo are considered humanely and well taken care of... but what does any of that really mean?
Again, it can get very complicated depending on context and various variables. My point was that if you forced me to give a yes or no answer to a complicated question... I would answer yes or no. Effectively suppressing the shades of gray doesn't make them vanish... we're just temporarily ignoring them.
Simply using scientific language isn't exactly science. It could rather be going after specificity. If you prime me with a bunch of IF/THEN TRUE/FALSE terms and then ask if something is wrong I'm going to be more inclined to give a more literal and less nuanced opinion.
For example, is it wrong to feed the bears? Of course it is... its against the rules, encourages the bears to see humans as a food source, and makes them less inclined to gather food from the wild. So... its wrong. But at the same time its not especially immoral.
If you prime me with true false information I'll just say its wrong. But if you expand the point there might be more going on there.
I don't think science has anything especially to do with morality. It does have a great deal to do with truth seeking but its truth seeking for its own sake and not some higher calling. That is not to say scientist are not moral people or that they're not helping humanity. Merely that there is no causal link between morality and science.
When you're willing to drop TRILLIONS on a policy you admittedly don't understand very well and haven't done much research on then you're either showing faith or are stupid.
Either way you void your opinion. in the process.
1. The point is not that it is moral or not. The point is that it is not the NSA's place to decide what is and is not moral. It is rather the American people's job to make that judgment.
If you want to argue that spying is morally wrong, that's fine. Make an argument to the American people that the US government shouldn't spy on foreign governments.
And I'm sure the American people will agree to this so long as you can get every other government on earth to agree likewise. You won't... and so it will go on... and you'll just have to live with that.
2. As to justifying "everyone else does it", no. I am saying instead that we must do it BECAUSE everyone else does it. Not that it is okay because others do it. Rather, that others do it means we have no choice and must do it ourselves.
If I pull out a knife and try to stab you are you permitted to use a knife to defend yourself?
Precisely.
Do you know what happens to those that don't pull out their own knives? They get their throats slit like cattle.
You either respond or get eaten. Deal with it.
You can choose to bow out if you like, however the point remains that you've confused religion with science.
Science is not about belief. You either understand or you don't.
I don't understand quantum mechanics and so have no strong opinions on it.
In regards to the environmental science issue, there are likewise many things NEITHER of us understand. I must understand this if I'm going to sign off on an expenditure of that size. It is not acceptable for me to just trust them.
Were the money asked for a more modest amount then that might be something worth risking. However when you get into trillions of dollars trust is not an option. You have to "know".
Really, that is a huge underlying point with this issue. Its really the scale of the bill that raises the standards of evidence.
Radically lower the amount of money you want and we can accept it on trust and that can be an end to the issue. But have it be trillions and open ended funding... and saying "just trust us" is irresponsible. We have a responsibility and a right to audit and understand expenditures of that scale. We are talking about money in excess of what is spent on major world wars.
Saying we should just take that on faith is idiotic. You can choose to bow out of this discussion but there would be no way for you to justify that sort of expense granted on faith without audit.
is it ? If so, then I don't know that. Do you have some source on that?
Let me define why both arguments are actually valid in this case.
1. They were hired by congress to do this job. The American people approve of some kind of electronic intelligence organziation working. As such, this is not an argument you want to have with the NSA but rather the American people.
The American people do not have a problem with the NSA itself conducting intelligence work on foreign governments or organizations or persons. The issue is domestic spying. They are forbidden to do that and they have done it. That is the issue that is most troubling to Americans.
2. Everyone else does it justifies pretty much all military and defense activities and must justify such actions.
IF I have a knife and train to kill with a knife and stand right next to you... do you feel a need to have some sort of defense against me? Precisely. Everything more or less logically flows from that reality.
In short, your comment was naive. You might not like that these arguments are valid or that they can be expansively used to justify almost anything. But they are inherently reactive systems which are dynamic by nature. The point is to be flexible so you can respond to enemy action. You move, I move to respond. You have the ability to move faster or more secretively thus precluding an effective reaction? Then I must anticipate and react to things you MIGHT not just what you did do. The last point of course limited by the negative repercussions of counter reactions.
Their job is to break into stuff and record it. They are an electronic intelligence organization.
Get over it.
The issue with them is spying on Americans which is illegal. Not spying on diplomatic organizations, other countries, or GASP actually conducting intelligence work.
Think no one else does it to us? Get real. The chinese are doing it like crazy. The Russians are doing it like crazy. And everyone not doing it is relying on briefings from a power that is doing it... such as much of europe does FROM the NSA... or they're so backward as to not matter in the global power struggles.
Look, get upset about all this all you want... hold your breath until you turn blue. Start now. Get it over with.... there will be organizations like this operated by the US and other major powers. End of story.
The issue will be limiting them so their activities are reasonable. Create a new UN convention at the UN. See who signs it. IF you can get Russia and China to sign then the US might sign as well... if all three powers sign then it might actually be followed. Maybe.
There should be more out there then the kindle.
I actually like the nook better for a couple reasons. Its just two bad that B&N is so small compared to the monster Amazon has become.
I can't hear with my dick in your mouth. :)
When you're considering moving files around like that the transfers won't be random. They'll happen at specific prearranged times. As in "I am talking to you on the phone, send me the file now"... in such an environment, you could turn a home system into a file server for a couple minutes... pull the file down or push it or whatever... and then after the transfer was complete turn the file server software off. When things only blink into existence and are gone when called for it gives the black hats less time to mess with it. Sure, they could compromise your machine in addition to that. However, tracking and hacking will be more complicated.
companies will either find the price acceptable or use a competing product. And yes... competing products exist. And they will multiply in proportion to demand.
There are situations where you only want the software for a couple months. And that might make the software price more reasonable to some buyers. But I suspect the big institutional buyers don't care either way so long as the net cost is about the same.
This has no impact on pirates... Lets be honest here, the pirates will crack the software in about 2 hours and release it.
The only way to really stop the piracy would be to offer the software as a cloud only service. But then the institutional buyers would see that as a deal breaker for various reasons. So they have to release software packages which can and will be cracked.
Its all much a do about nothing.
It would be interesting to see what would come of a race to produce a lighter car rather then a more reasonable hybrid. That is, accept the gasoline engine and just try to improve mileage. I think they'd produce a better car at a cheaper price.