And does that explain the warming noticed on Jupiter, Titan, Pluto and various asteroids to name a few?
Not saying there is no anthropogenic impact on climate -- I'm just saying it's total impact may be over stated and contributing to an already occurring phenomenon.
I certainly HOPE we have the ability to effect climate as much as claim. Living in a hot, jungle world or a cold ice world have little appeal to me. And since those climates have occurred in our past, we can assume they will most likely recur at some time in the future. Be nice to warm up the earth before an ice age or cool it down when it gets too hot.
Do I really think a someone can break a hammer so I can't drive nails anymore? Yes. Does it prevent me from buying/using a hammer of the off chance it might be broken?
Like you said, it's an arms race. But you are dead wrong if you think you can educate a 7 or 10 year old how to fight off a would-be kidnapper. The best you can do is give them metaphorical hammers (tools) they can use to give them a better chance of not becoming a victim -- "hammers" which a kidnapper may know how to neutralize.
This watch is just another "tool". To dismiss it's utility because a tech-savvy pedophile might have read up on how to defeat the GPS watch Firmware Version 2.929 is just silly and short sighted to me.
So what's to lose? Say you have a 6 year old kid: is it really going to harm them to wear one of these? Sure, chances are very very high that this'll never be needed, but so what? It's kind of like Pascal's wager, isn't it?
As someone who has lost a family member to kidnapping, I see very little wrong with such technology. Spot on with Pascal's wager, too.
I know that if I had to choose one of the two skills to retain while I permanently forgot the other
An interesting side-bar:
I have a friend who suffered brain trauma. He lost his ability to speak and write (aphasia). He could understand everything spoken to him. The unusual aspect of this injury is that his ability to communicate via typing was unharmed (this came out during a PT session using computers). He couldn't remember how to join words with a pen -- he couldn't remember how to say words to form a sentance -- but he could read and type. He could also read out loud. He keeps canned phrases on his phone which he'll read off.
Well, I and many others disagree. I'm sure a smart guy like you can type the words "US electoral system flawed" into google and educate yourself a bit.
Ok. I'll bite. I typed it in and the top google hit was about Italy's flawed electoral system. The 2nd hit calls "US 'democracy'" flawed and a call for instant runoff (which flies in the face of the concept of 'one person, one vote').
Are you talking specifically about the presidential election? Or elections in general? Exactly HOW is it flawed?
Who said anything about Christianity? He himself claims not to believe in a PERSONAL God -- and that defines Christianity. You may also want to check up on the definition of agnostic -- I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps a deist, but I wouldn't say agnostic.
Einstein wasn't religious, at least not in a form most people would label as such
To make a claim that he wasn't religious -- then follow up in the same sentence to imply that he was is confusing. he WAS religious. He just didn't believe in a personal god.
Perhaps his use of "religious" wasn't the best choice of words when he claimed:
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms--it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
That's from your same citation. Sounds like he has a belief of something that cannot be measured or tested to me... That he doesn't believe in the "old white-bearded man touching the finger of Adam" type God doesn't mean he doesn't perceive a god at all.
No, the difference is that this camera would ALWAYS be up, and the guy is quoted that "you'll never know if you are being watched" by the government. If that's not a sentimate in line with "pre-cursor to police state," I don't know what is.
Come on. Seriously? We've been using "always up" cameras in the US for decades -- they've just been stationary and mostly privately owned (security cameras at 7-11 captures an image of a murder taking place outside the store, ATM cam captures image of a man walking away with a now missing child). We've also had "sky cams" for decades -- they just, as you point out, were not "ALWAYS... up".
If this "sentimate" (sic) isn't in line with "tin-foil hat over-reactions," I don't know what is.
* Automated Speed Cameras How is this any violation?
* Red Light Cameras How is this any violation?
* Neighborhood Cameras (ala UK) How is this any violation? It's not really implemented en mass in the US... but I don't think there is any reason why it couldn't be.
* Cameras in the classrooms of elementary schools I've not heard of this and I'd need to see details before I form an opinion.
Well, let's see, so far citizens are unanimously in favor of:
In my country (the US) it shouldn't matter WHAT the citizens are in favor of or not -- it's what is allowed under the constitution and state/local laws. If the people do NOT like/want something, they vote for a representative who can work to change things. That's the advantage of living in a republic vs. a democracy (no fear of mob-rule or decisions made in the heat of the moment). Too bad our system has been warped over the past 100-150 years bypass it's built-in safe-guards (the amendment process via the judiciary, direct voting for senators -- and there's serious talk about direct voting for executive).
I disagree however. Once government's start using military surveillance techniques on it's citizenry they are no longer a civilian government's but precursors to a police state. And the guys excited about it . . . I'm not sure whether thats scary or disgusting!
I disagree. Just because the military does something doesn't necessarily mean it's a precursor to a police state. We've had sky cams for years -- the only thing different is the quality of the camera.
If something takes place in public, I don't think there's any violation of here. If they put a camera in the sky that can "see" through walls, or bounce lasers off our home windows to "hear" what's going on inside WITHOUT a warrant and trust me, I'll grab the pitchfork, you grab the torch.
What if our government told us they were infected by Ebola, or anthrax, or some other bioterrist agent and shouldn't be touched? (Whether or not they are)
Wouldn't work with a free press. However, no such press exists in north korea.
The hacking of mobile phones was a simple trick known to many a tabloid reporter. (Call the mobile number, when it went to voicemail tap in the network default pin code. If the phone owner hadn't set a pin code you were in and could listen to voicemails.)
I disagree with this. More often than not, it's an excuse or rationalization for war, not a cause. Generally, the cause are limited resources or desire for more land or expansion.
Religion is not evil any more than a rock is evil.
*A* horse may run about as much annually as *A* car (I doubt it in an urban environment), but horses don't travel at 60 mph. Maybe short bursts at 30 or 35... and there better be food and water available on the way.
Also, assuming society swaps horse for car, exactly WHO will pay for the street cleanup? Will this be like walking your dog? That's going to add a huge expense.
Moving to horses just isn't practical with society today. You'd need some pretty radical changes (and about a 5 billion person drop in the population) to be workable.
wtf? Where did I claim plame WASN'T an undercover agent?
My claim is that the entire "scandal" was blown way out of proportion and was essentially a non-story politics-wise.
The following exchange was between Woodward and Armitage over a month before Novak published his article:
Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn't it? Armitage: His wife works for the agency. Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret? Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it. Woodward: Everyone knows? Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off. Woodward: But why would they send him? Armitage: Because his wife's an analyst at the agency. Woodward: It's still weird. Armitage: He -- he's perfect. She -- she, this is what she does. She's a WMD analyst out there. Woodward: Oh, she is. Armitage: (over) Yeah. Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn't think... Armitage: (over) "I know who'll look at it." Yeah, see? Woodward: Oh. She's the chief WMD...? Armitage: No. She's not the... Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go." Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled]. Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was...? Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don't know if she was out there. But his wife's in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?
According to Woodward, Plame's own husband was saying this... And this was known by for quite some time.
Actually, I think Adams would have his hands full going after most members of the DMC and about 3/4s of the RNC to have time to bother with someone as mundane as Novak.
That you invoke Adams as you have strongly suggests you know nothing about him or the Sons of Liberty.
(Incidentally, every time a Republican defends Scooter Libby, a Democratic Congressman somewhere wins a special election:)
Who defends Libby? What he did was wrong. However, it's not unreasonable to point out that there was nothing to suggest he knew who really leaked Plame's name and was trying to protect them. He was convicted, justly so, for other crimes.
This was essentially put to rest in 2006 with Armitage came forward and Novak confirmed he was the source.
Judging from your statement, I'd assume the question "Do you bother reading ANYTHING" is better directed at you.
Do a search of the news circa 2006 re armitage and novak. See who the leaker really was and then look deep inside yourself and ask why you help perpetuation is false meme.
What part of "Libbie was convicted of perjury," as in convicted of lying to conceal the truth, makes you think the truth got out?
In court? The truth that Libbie lied "got out". Since there was no proof that he knew who leaked Plame's name, it obviously didn't come out. It's not unreasonable that this "truth" didn't exist in the Libbie case.
However, in 2006, THAT truth DID come out. It was Armitage. He came forward. Novak confirmed.
Per Novak:
[They] cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.
And this:
Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source
Why not jump on Armitage for wasting vast government resources by not coming forward?
The crime wasn't established because Libby screwed with the investigation. That was the entire point of the matter. Did you not pay any attention to Patrick Fitzgerald's findings? Or are you really trying to spout off talking points that were discredited hours after they came out?
To use YOUR words, "Did you not pay attention to" Novak, and Armitage? Novak who published the article which "leaked" this information... and Armitage who did the leaking? Do some research. You'll find this little tidbit:
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.
Slashdot Mirror
And does that explain the warming noticed on Jupiter, Titan, Pluto and various asteroids to name a few?
Not saying there is no anthropogenic impact on climate -- I'm just saying it's total impact may be over stated and contributing to an already occurring phenomenon.
I certainly HOPE we have the ability to effect climate as much as claim. Living in a hot, jungle world or a cold ice world have little appeal to me. And since those climates have occurred in our past, we can assume they will most likely recur at some time in the future. Be nice to warm up the earth before an ice age or cool it down when it gets too hot.
Do I really think a someone can break a hammer so I can't drive nails anymore? Yes. Does it prevent me from buying/using a hammer of the off chance it might be broken?
Like you said, it's an arms race. But you are dead wrong if you think you can educate a 7 or 10 year old how to fight off a would-be kidnapper. The best you can do is give them metaphorical hammers (tools) they can use to give them a better chance of not becoming a victim -- "hammers" which a kidnapper may know how to neutralize.
This watch is just another "tool". To dismiss it's utility because a tech-savvy pedophile might have read up on how to defeat the GPS watch Firmware Version 2.929 is just silly and short sighted to me.
As someone who has lost a family member to kidnapping, I see very little wrong with such technology. Spot on with Pascal's wager, too.
He does do that. Comes in handy. He sits in front of his computer when on the phone.
An interesting side-bar:
I have a friend who suffered brain trauma. He lost his ability to speak and write (aphasia). He could understand everything spoken to him. The unusual aspect of this injury is that his ability to communicate via typing was unharmed (this came out during a PT session using computers). He couldn't remember how to join words with a pen -- he couldn't remember how to say words to form a sentance -- but he could read and type. He could also read out loud. He keeps canned phrases on his phone which he'll read off.
Tammy Faye Baker. Yum!
Big problem with how those sources get their data. I'd suggest reading up on their methodology.
You may want to review these locations:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/book_grad_rates/
http://www.nber.org/reporter/2008number1/heckman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/education/20graduation.html
Ug... wish there was an edit function.
[OUR ability to write]
Why not study the "prose" of high-school students? Particularly the "prose" of the ever increasing number of high-school drop outs?
"Reviving [out ability to write]"? Yeah. And if I did a study that only looked at NASA engineers, I'd think we were all rocket scientists.
Ok. I'll bite. I typed it in and the top google hit was about Italy's flawed electoral system. The 2nd hit calls "US 'democracy'" flawed and a call for instant runoff (which flies in the face of the concept of 'one person, one vote').
Are you talking specifically about the presidential election? Or elections in general? Exactly HOW is it flawed?
Who said anything about Christianity? He himself claims not to believe in a PERSONAL God -- and that defines Christianity. You may also want to check up on the definition of agnostic -- I do not think it means what you think it means. Perhaps a deist, but I wouldn't say agnostic.
To make a claim that he wasn't religious -- then follow up in the same sentence to imply that he was is confusing. he WAS religious. He just didn't believe in a personal god.
Perhaps his use of "religious" wasn't the best choice of words when he claimed:
That's from your same citation. Sounds like he has a belief of something that cannot be measured or tested to me... That he doesn't believe in the "old white-bearded man touching the finger of Adam" type God doesn't mean he doesn't perceive a god at all.
Come on. Seriously? We've been using "always up" cameras in the US for decades -- they've just been stationary and mostly privately owned (security cameras at 7-11 captures an image of a murder taking place outside the store, ATM cam captures image of a man walking away with a now missing child). We've also had "sky cams" for decades -- they just, as you point out, were not "ALWAYS ... up".
If this "sentimate" (sic) isn't in line with "tin-foil hat over-reactions," I don't know what is.
Let's look at this:
* Automated Speed Cameras
How is this any violation?
* Red Light Cameras
How is this any violation?
* Neighborhood Cameras (ala UK)
How is this any violation? It's not really implemented en mass in the US... but I don't think there is any reason why it couldn't be.
* Cameras in the classrooms of elementary schools
I've not heard of this and I'd need to see details before I form an opinion.
In my country (the US) it shouldn't matter WHAT the citizens are in favor of or not -- it's what is allowed under the constitution and state/local laws. If the people do NOT like/want something, they vote for a representative who can work to change things. That's the advantage of living in a republic vs. a democracy (no fear of mob-rule or decisions made in the heat of the moment). Too bad our system has been warped over the past 100-150 years bypass it's built-in safe-guards (the amendment process via the judiciary, direct voting for senators -- and there's serious talk about direct voting for executive).
I disagree. Just because the military does something doesn't necessarily mean it's a precursor to a police state. We've had sky cams for years -- the only thing different is the quality of the camera.
If something takes place in public, I don't think there's any violation of here. If they put a camera in the sky that can "see" through walls, or bounce lasers off our home windows to "hear" what's going on inside WITHOUT a warrant and trust me, I'll grab the pitchfork, you grab the torch.
Wouldn't work with a free press. However, no such press exists in north korea.
Hacking? Really?
Sigh.
I disagree with this. More often than not, it's an excuse or rationalization for war, not a cause. Generally, the cause are limited resources or desire for more land or expansion.
Religion is not evil any more than a rock is evil.
*A* horse may run about as much annually as *A* car (I doubt it in an urban environment), but horses don't travel at 60 mph. Maybe short bursts at 30 or 35... and there better be food and water available on the way.
Also, assuming society swaps horse for car, exactly WHO will pay for the street cleanup? Will this be like walking your dog? That's going to add a huge expense.
Moving to horses just isn't practical with society today. You'd need some pretty radical changes (and about a 5 billion person drop in the population) to be workable.
wtf? Where did I claim plame WASN'T an undercover agent?
My claim is that the entire "scandal" was blown way out of proportion and was essentially a non-story politics-wise.
The following exchange was between Woodward and Armitage over a month before Novak published his article:
According to Woodward, Plame's own husband was saying this... And this was known by for quite some time.
Actually, I think Adams would have his hands full going after most members of the DMC and about 3/4s of the RNC to have time to bother with someone as mundane as Novak.
That you invoke Adams as you have strongly suggests you know nothing about him or the Sons of Liberty.
Who defends Libby? What he did was wrong. However, it's not unreasonable to point out that there was nothing to suggest he knew who really leaked Plame's name and was trying to protect them. He was convicted, justly so, for other crimes.
This was essentially put to rest in 2006 with Armitage came forward and Novak confirmed he was the source.
Judging from your statement, I'd assume the question "Do you bother reading ANYTHING" is better directed at you.
Do a search of the news circa 2006 re armitage and novak. See who the leaker really was and then look deep inside yourself and ask why you help perpetuation is false meme.
In court? The truth that Libbie lied "got out". Since there was no proof that he knew who leaked Plame's name, it obviously didn't come out. It's not unreasonable that this "truth" didn't exist in the Libbie case.
However, in 2006, THAT truth DID come out. It was Armitage. He came forward. Novak confirmed.
Per Novak:
And this:
Why not jump on Armitage for wasting vast government resources by not coming forward?
To use YOUR words, "Did you not pay attention to" Novak, and Armitage? Novak who published the article which "leaked" this information... and Armitage who did the leaking? Do some research. You'll find this little tidbit: