I did hear that AI is taking our jobs. I would assume that would include lightly trained humans with cameras and chemistry sets. They can already drive. I didn't think astronauts were going to be saved from the AI revolution.:)
*Astronaut on side of the road with sign* Out of job because robot AI. Will science for food!
Sabotage aside, I would think any off world colony would want to do more with less. In any event, it sounds really dumb to sabotage NASA as that tends to be universally liked by the electorate for the most part. Then again, politicians aren't known for not being dumb.
I don't get it. How is that different than Obama's motivation for his legacy then? Was there a point of bringing up his "legacy" for the asteroid redirect mission as opposed to now with Trump and a sooner mission to mars?
Seems to me that it is an easy jab to get quick mod points because it is trendy to hate Trump instead of measuring the claim/wants by their merits (or lack thereof). And again, if he is motivated by his own ego and we get a mission to mars within 8 years... So what? How is that not a good thing?
There are lots of problems. One I am curious about would be resupply/docking of any floater (heh) in the atmosphere. But if you were to conceive of any off world human presence starting with the most earth-like conditions in the solar system seems like the best bet. Using Rei's graphic he linked below. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/...
Already have those in the form of Blimps and hot air balloons. Also, air for humans is much less denser than Venetian air making breathable air for humans a lifting gas on Venus. No need for hydrogen or helium as a lifting gas just use a Nitrogen/Oxygen mixture that we breathe.
What you are really saying is that we should colonize Venus first. I agree. Floating colonies on (above) Venus sounds so much better than living in tin cans on a cold dead rusty world.
This is my island in the Stratosphere. I got a place for sunshine and my freeze dried beer. No need to freeze as it's warm and clear. Don't look down now, there is nothing to fear. Just a Venetian sunset such a lovely view. I can't believe we thought it was something new!
There is only justice. Justice is blind. We are all equal before the law and any marker to predispose judgment of the law is not justice. Anything that is not just is an injustice. Social Justice is not blind by definition. Social Justice is an injustice veiled by prejudice and expected societal roles and outcomes.
The individual is the ultimate minority to be protected by society. When the individual is protected we all are protected and society is more free, fair, and just. "Social Justice" in the west is a farce. "social justice" when there is societal induced injustices on a minority (gays/Christians being killed in ISIS) is the ever challenging struggle to achieve justice in that society. You don't need the word "social" to describe justice unless you wish to have biased predisposed judgment.
Are you confusing shutting down speech and not allowing speech in a certain venue?
No. I am not confusing the two and I understand the difference/argument. If you value free speech as a right that we as a nation should cherish, then any public accommodation has a responsibility to protect that freedom. Yes, the 1st amendment protects against the government but that is not the end of the debate in a free society that cherishes and protects those freedoms.
Few people really want to ban free speech.
I used to think that but now not so much. They may not say "ban free speech" but they will hide it with "ban hate speech". No one wants to ban free speech but we should ban hate speech *wink wink nod nod*.
You can make your own website and say what you like, but I don't have to post anything you write.
Sure and I would say that you do not value free speech if you did that but then I would also argue that any public accommodation should protect our freedoms as much as the government should. Especially any public accommodation that has a dramatic influence on our elections, dialogue, and freedoms. I am not asking you to change your beliefs or to like what I say but I am asking you to be impartial in your public service and value the freedoms this nation was built on. Just like a baker does not change their belief by being impartial to their customers. Can we call ourselves a free society if we let corporations, universities, and media censor our lives and discussions even if not prescribed by law? I don't think we can.
Over my lifetime, partisanship has gotten worse.
That is the nature of democracy. Every vote comes down to a yes or a no. A with us or against us. It is inevitable that division and partisanship will happen even if partisanship is limited. That is why "Democracies... have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths". Unless there is an outside enemy we all can call the bad guy, the bad guy is the guy that voted against you. There is a reason that public opinion was represented by a relatively small portion of the government (House of Reps or 1/6th the government until the ratification of the 17th amendment).
The last free speech flap I saw was because the university in question didn't get enough advance notice of the speaker to find an adequate venue.
Not sure what instance you are talking about but if it is Berkeley with Coulter, it was planned for a long time she would speak by a non-partisan group that wanted two sides of an issue (immigration) before Coulter's planned visit they had the pro-immigration side presented without a hitch. Which brings up another interesting point about that quote I gave, "democracies... have ever been found incompatible with personal security".
Here's what happened under "liberal" government policies:
Declared our independence from Great Britain in the first place. You have the right to be on Slashdot and argue about which ideology is better because of liberal policies.
All true and I think the part of the problem is when "non-liberals" take on the liberal title which misrepresent the "true" liberal ideals. No true Scotsman aside, it happens to both sides. RINO and DINO labels came about because of this. I don't think anyone can claim to be liberal while at the same time shutting down someones right to speech. EVEN IF their speech is offensive. Yet, we have many that do and a similar situation is on the right. Horse shoe theory fits.
Progressive != socialist != liberal.
Yet, we have one party to represent them all. Democrats. Just as Republicans represent many different facets of conservatism. We see the riffs in both parties and normally the moderates on both sides would come together to pass legislation. Yet, the rhetoric has become so over-the-top they have painted themselves in a corner. How can you give Trump any credit for any thing he might have done right if you called him 'literally Hitler'? How could you compromise on anything with that kind of rhetoric?
I put humans first. I define humans as someone that is open minded, compassionate, stands up for justice, helps those in need and speaks up against injustice.
Interesting. I am not so open minded that my brain falls out. My compassion has a limit. I despise social justice. My help is limited because I have to help myself and my family first. Define injustices because a lot of "injustice" in the west is a perceived entitlement. (government funding of abortion construed as a right as an example)
Does that make me not human? Does that mean I do not get the rights and responsibilities of a human in your idea of a society?
individuals that chase greed and fore sake others aren't human in my definition
Sounds like you are very close to rationalizing violence toward those people. After all, the Jews weren't human. Infidels aren't human. It isn't murder if what you kill isn't human. You are treading on very dangerous ground.
structured securities like mortgage-backed securities using mortgages
Thank you captain hindsight. I am sure your moral relativism is great at convicting those with 20/20 hindsight on what policy is the right policy in such technical terms.
It's individuals that sold those securities, while buying insurance form AIG to make sure they don't loose any money when it all falls apart.
Since you already said those individuals are not human, per your definition, what is acceptable retaliation to those sub-humans? Can I beat 'em up? Punch 'em in the face? Kill 'em? Round 'em all up and gas them? They are not human after all so I why should I care about their suffering if I only care about human suffering?
You are dangerous as are the cylons that modded you insightful. You are like a lynch mob itching for the sheriff to turn a blind eye.
"That's why they're cucks. Instead of supporting social programs upon which they depend, like say social security, they've been shitting on the whole idea of socialism as if it were stupid. Well, it ain't. It's what makes a society."
don't beat me daddy. if those cucks oppose what makes society and you want society... what do you do with those barbarians that ruin your paradise society daddy? not literally said but implied daddy. What else is a simple minded fool like me to do when you say there are people that oppose 'what makes society' and I want society?
sure thing. what ever makes you feel better. go ahead a preach the benefits of socialism and how you are going to force that on people that don't want it.
top kek, There's that authoritarian slant I was waiting for. Gas all those who disagree and the world will be a better place! Vote the way I want if you know whats good for you!
They are still here and still voting for things which will actually hurt them too.
So, gas them and then we can fix the problems? Or name a specific problem and propose a specific solution that people can agree on. You know, democracy in action instead of stomping on the face of those you don't like. #punchanazi works amirite
hurting now too.
lol, yes but it's still their fault because no one can agree on the problem or solution.
Lots of them don't actually have a retirement outlook.
you mean to tell met hat one reason why millennials have poorer job prospects is because a lot of retirements were lost during the recession and forced them to stay in the work force? Damn, what is your economic solution to boons and busts? I guess if we bitch some more and put a boot on their face it will solve our problems. Vote for socialism that I want or else!
. Instead of supporting social programs upon which they depend, like say social security, they've been shitting on the whole idea of socialism as if it were stupid. Well, it ain't. It's what makes a society.
Oh, I see. If only those fuckers just thought socialism was as good as I think it is the world would be a better place! Why don't those people vote the way I want. Don't they know what is good for 'em? Quite the authoritarian aren't you? Gas those who disagree amirite. I mean, there are no wrong tactics only wrong targets.
lol, it's the internet bro, i am entitled to be a nutty shit. at least not spiteful and full of hate that demonizes a demographic. you know, that thing that we found out was bad in the last century because it tends to get out of hand when people act on that demonetization and emotion.
Then why do we have a government? Why do you like wasting money?
We could have a king then disagreement isn't an issue but if you strive for a higher ideal, like democracy, then you have to compromise. Don't like wasting money but it is easier to compromise on things we agree on (like defense) than things we don't agree on (like college education funding). It's easier to spend money than to make money. If you have solution to government spending that is a compromise I would love to hear it.
They profited from the situation
So what?
now they are telling lies about how it's not their fault.
#notall. Even if true, how does that help anyone younger fix those issues? How does getting caught up in spite and hate get you a job or retirement?
fuck those stupid fucking cucks who fellated the government right up to where we are today.
LOL, yes, they are cucks for profiting from the times they were in as opposed to the person that hates the country and prior generations because their retirement outlook isn't as good. Holy first world problems batman. I think you need perspective in life.
Slashdot Mirror
If we judge the results of his campaign... successful?
I think too early to tell with administration. Still have a few years and maybe more!
I did hear that AI is taking our jobs. I would assume that would include lightly trained humans with cameras and chemistry sets. They can already drive. I didn't think astronauts were going to be saved from the AI revolution. :)
*Astronaut on side of the road with sign*
Out of job because robot AI.
Will science for food!
It doesn't follow that given a few more years I could somehow throw a football twenty kilometers.
Unless in that time you developed a catapult to throw it for you. :)
Trump is an idiot because he wants it done in 4 years given the state of the project now.
4-8 years. Does that make Kennedy an idiot because "before this decade is out"?
Thanks for the comment. Very interesting.
O.o Did you have that kind of pessimism 8 months ago?
Sabotage aside, I would think any off world colony would want to do more with less. In any event, it sounds really dumb to sabotage NASA as that tends to be universally liked by the electorate for the most part. Then again, politicians aren't known for not being dumb.
I don't get it. How is that different than Obama's motivation for his legacy then? Was there a point of bringing up his "legacy" for the asteroid redirect mission as opposed to now with Trump and a sooner mission to mars?
Seems to me that it is an easy jab to get quick mod points because it is trendy to hate Trump instead of measuring the claim/wants by their merits (or lack thereof). And again, if he is motivated by his own ego and we get a mission to mars within 8 years... So what? How is that not a good thing?
There are lots of problems. One I am curious about would be resupply/docking of any floater (heh) in the atmosphere. But if you were to conceive of any off world human presence starting with the most earth-like conditions in the solar system seems like the best bet. Using Rei's graphic he linked below. https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/...
We are going to make interplanetary travel great again. Trust me it's gonna be yuge!
Oh, I was interpreting your comment differently. Then yea, I agree electoral victory without popular vote is a statistical happenstance.
Already have those in the form of Blimps and hot air balloons. Also, air for humans is much less denser than Venetian air making breathable air for humans a lifting gas on Venus. No need for hydrogen or helium as a lifting gas just use a Nitrogen/Oxygen mixture that we breathe.
Not really. The POTUS swings between the parties a lot.
If that gets us a mission to Mars sooner, so what?
Grow your penis with this one simple trip that Democrats just hate!
I walked outside once. There was some weird looks coming my way. I decided it best to stay indoors in case it was contagious.
What you are really saying is that we should colonize Venus first. I agree. Floating colonies on (above) Venus sounds so much better than living in tin cans on a cold dead rusty world.
This is my island in the Stratosphere.
I got a place for sunshine and my freeze dried beer.
No need to freeze as it's warm and clear.
Don't look down now, there is nothing to fear.
Just a Venetian sunset such a lovely view.
I can't believe we thought it was something new!
There is only justice. Justice is blind. We are all equal before the law and any marker to predispose judgment of the law is not justice. Anything that is not just is an injustice. Social Justice is not blind by definition. Social Justice is an injustice veiled by prejudice and expected societal roles and outcomes.
The individual is the ultimate minority to be protected by society. When the individual is protected we all are protected and society is more free, fair, and just. "Social Justice" in the west is a farce. "social justice" when there is societal induced injustices on a minority (gays/Christians being killed in ISIS) is the ever challenging struggle to achieve justice in that society. You don't need the word "social" to describe justice unless you wish to have biased predisposed judgment.
Are you confusing shutting down speech and not allowing speech in a certain venue?
No. I am not confusing the two and I understand the difference/argument. If you value free speech as a right that we as a nation should cherish, then any public accommodation has a responsibility to protect that freedom. Yes, the 1st amendment protects against the government but that is not the end of the debate in a free society that cherishes and protects those freedoms.
Few people really want to ban free speech.
I used to think that but now not so much. They may not say "ban free speech" but they will hide it with "ban hate speech". No one wants to ban free speech but we should ban hate speech *wink wink nod nod*.
You can make your own website and say what you like, but I don't have to post anything you write.
Sure and I would say that you do not value free speech if you did that but then I would also argue that any public accommodation should protect our freedoms as much as the government should. Especially any public accommodation that has a dramatic influence on our elections, dialogue, and freedoms. I am not asking you to change your beliefs or to like what I say but I am asking you to be impartial in your public service and value the freedoms this nation was built on. Just like a baker does not change their belief by being impartial to their customers. Can we call ourselves a free society if we let corporations, universities, and media censor our lives and discussions even if not prescribed by law? I don't think we can.
Over my lifetime, partisanship has gotten worse.
That is the nature of democracy. Every vote comes down to a yes or a no. A with us or against us. It is inevitable that division and partisanship will happen even if partisanship is limited. That is why "Democracies... have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths". Unless there is an outside enemy we all can call the bad guy, the bad guy is the guy that voted against you. There is a reason that public opinion was represented by a relatively small portion of the government (House of Reps or 1/6th the government until the ratification of the 17th amendment).
The last free speech flap I saw was because the university in question didn't get enough advance notice of the speaker to find an adequate venue.
Not sure what instance you are talking about but if it is Berkeley with Coulter, it was planned for a long time she would speak by a non-partisan group that wanted two sides of an issue (immigration) before Coulter's planned visit they had the pro-immigration side presented without a hitch. Which brings up another interesting point about that quote I gave, "democracies... have ever been found incompatible with personal security".
Here's what happened under "liberal" government policies:
Declared our independence from Great Britain in the first place.
You have the right to be on Slashdot and argue about which ideology is better because of liberal policies.
All true and I think the part of the problem is when "non-liberals" take on the liberal title which misrepresent the "true" liberal ideals. No true Scotsman aside, it happens to both sides. RINO and DINO labels came about because of this. I don't think anyone can claim to be liberal while at the same time shutting down someones right to speech. EVEN IF their speech is offensive. Yet, we have many that do and a similar situation is on the right. Horse shoe theory fits.
Progressive != socialist != liberal.
Yet, we have one party to represent them all. Democrats. Just as Republicans represent many different facets of conservatism. We see the riffs in both parties and normally the moderates on both sides would come together to pass legislation. Yet, the rhetoric has become so over-the-top they have painted themselves in a corner. How can you give Trump any credit for any thing he might have done right if you called him 'literally Hitler'? How could you compromise on anything with that kind of rhetoric?
I put humans first. I define humans as someone that is open minded, compassionate, stands up for justice, helps those in need and speaks up against injustice.
Interesting. I am not so open minded that my brain falls out. My compassion has a limit. I despise social justice. My help is limited because I have to help myself and my family first. Define injustices because a lot of "injustice" in the west is a perceived entitlement. (government funding of abortion construed as a right as an example)
Does that make me not human? Does that mean I do not get the rights and responsibilities of a human in your idea of a society?
individuals that chase greed and fore sake others aren't human in my definition
Sounds like you are very close to rationalizing violence toward those people. After all, the Jews weren't human. Infidels aren't human. It isn't murder if what you kill isn't human. You are treading on very dangerous ground.
structured securities like mortgage-backed securities using mortgages
Thank you captain hindsight. I am sure your moral relativism is great at convicting those with 20/20 hindsight on what policy is the right policy in such technical terms.
It's individuals that sold those securities, while buying insurance form AIG to make sure they don't loose any money when it all falls apart.
Since you already said those individuals are not human, per your definition, what is acceptable retaliation to those sub-humans? Can I beat 'em up? Punch 'em in the face? Kill 'em? Round 'em all up and gas them? They are not human after all so I why should I care about their suffering if I only care about human suffering?
You are dangerous as are the cylons that modded you insightful. You are like a lynch mob itching for the sheriff to turn a blind eye.
"That's why they're cucks. Instead of supporting social programs upon which they depend, like say social security, they've been shitting on the whole idea of socialism as if it were stupid. Well, it ain't. It's what makes a society."
don't beat me daddy. if those cucks oppose what makes society and you want society... what do you do with those barbarians that ruin your paradise society daddy? not literally said but implied daddy. What else is a simple minded fool like me to do when you say there are people that oppose 'what makes society' and I want society?
sure thing. what ever makes you feel better. go ahead a preach the benefits of socialism and how you are going to force that on people that don't want it.
top kek, There's that authoritarian slant I was waiting for. Gas all those who disagree and the world will be a better place! Vote the way I want if you know whats good for you!
They are still here and still voting for things which will actually hurt them too.
So, gas them and then we can fix the problems? Or name a specific problem and propose a specific solution that people can agree on. You know, democracy in action instead of stomping on the face of those you don't like. #punchanazi works amirite
hurting now too.
lol, yes but it's still their fault because no one can agree on the problem or solution.
Lots of them don't actually have a retirement outlook.
you mean to tell met hat one reason why millennials have poorer job prospects is because a lot of retirements were lost during the recession and forced them to stay in the work force? Damn, what is your economic solution to boons and busts? I guess if we bitch some more and put a boot on their face it will solve our problems. Vote for socialism that I want or else!
. Instead of supporting social programs upon which they depend, like say social security, they've been shitting on the whole idea of socialism as if it were stupid. Well, it ain't. It's what makes a society.
Oh, I see. If only those fuckers just thought socialism was as good as I think it is the world would be a better place! Why don't those people vote the way I want. Don't they know what is good for 'em? Quite the authoritarian aren't you? Gas those who disagree amirite. I mean, there are no wrong tactics only wrong targets.
lol... just lol.
lol, it's the internet bro, i am entitled to be a nutty shit. at least not spiteful and full of hate that demonizes a demographic. you know, that thing that we found out was bad in the last century because it tends to get out of hand when people act on that demonetization and emotion.
Then why do we have a government? Why do you like wasting money?
We could have a king then disagreement isn't an issue but if you strive for a higher ideal, like democracy, then you have to compromise. Don't like wasting money but it is easier to compromise on things we agree on (like defense) than things we don't agree on (like college education funding). It's easier to spend money than to make money. If you have solution to government spending that is a compromise I would love to hear it.
They profited from the situation
So what?
now they are telling lies about how it's not their fault.
#notall. Even if true, how does that help anyone younger fix those issues? How does getting caught up in spite and hate get you a job or retirement?
fuck those stupid fucking cucks who fellated the government right up to where we are today.
LOL, yes, they are cucks for profiting from the times they were in as opposed to the person that hates the country and prior generations because their retirement outlook isn't as good. Holy first world problems batman. I think you need perspective in life.