You can't exactly "share" your fingerprint with someone on the phone.
At the moment that may be so, but what do you do when after years of using biometric based authentication, someone finds out how to gain entry by providing your biometric identification?
If the system were "changable key" based and somebody found out your key, the simple retort would be to change the key.
Whatcha going to do if your right thumb or right eye-ball has been "compromised"...?
Yes, yes, some will say "just use the other eye or thumb". That's ridiculous. The person that went through the trouble to get your ID the first time, will simply do it again for the other ID (if he didn't already do it the first time).
Additionally, biometric data being just that: biometric, makes stealing the data from a person against his will laughably easy. Get the guy, hold him down, scan, cut or copy. If the system was "changable key" based he would at least have the options of
not divulging it, if it's something he has to remember,
destroying, disposing or deactivating it, if it's an object.
Surprisingly the key advantages of "changable key" id are also the source of it's disadvantage.
To me something, most likely a "necessary something", that poses a advantage and disadvantage at the same time sounds like a responsiblity.
Prediction may be right in the short term *but*
in the long term I predict that blocking spam calls on voip lines will be *much* easier then blocking telemarketers on conventional landline systems.
Why?
Because the user has many software tools availible here that simply aren't doable on landline systems. Hell, the easiest first method of screening is using a simple whitelist. Can you do that with normal landlines???
Since voip is run by software on your computer you *have* the possiblity of applying code to the screening process, in other words CAPCHA of one sort or the other, can you do this with landlines?? the captchas don't even have to be complicated. It could be a verbal command requesting the user do do a simple task (type a number, say a word, look up something on website, send an email). What ever it is, this is to time-comsuming for spammers. All of this is simply not possible on landlines.
I can't help but think that this "prediction" is simply the drawing of a parallel from email spam to voip spam. The reason why email spam is hard to block, is that you don't want to throw away legitimate email. Why is throwing away legit email bad? Because the legit sender already sent it and assumes you got it and will read it! That doesn't apply with voip. If you block a legit caller he immediately knows you didn't get his call! For this reason applying spam filters to voip is much easier than email.
The financing of the TV industry comes from commercials and subscription.
Why do they think this can't also be done online? With a much wider range and a much better
way of determining ratings.
This can be achieved by providing the shows online
but not offering them as downloads.
This would achieve the same goals and even more then broadcast tv:
the viewer sees the show in the browser, he can play, pause, and stop but will still be forced to watch the ads. When watching tv, it's pretty easy to channel surf and avoid the commercials, it's all a push of the button. That's a bit different with a browser. It's still easy but it's not as easy as with the tv remote.
the provider knows exactly how many people have watched the show, and knows exactly when they watched. They also can much more easily guess when people tune out.
since this is all in the browser, tie-ins to the commercials could appear in sideframes without interrupting the show itself. While watching the show the viewers eyes wander. These are the perfect conditions to get a persons interest and attention.
People would not only watch a show once, it's possible that they would watch it again later.
A network can only broadcast 24 hours of TV a day (per channel). But it can provide multitudes more of hours of shows online each day. The network could finally sell adspace not only show-and-time-based based but independently sell adspace based on a show and/or based on the time of viewing, and even possibly based on the viewers profile. Result: many more viewers leading to more revenue from advertisement.
The fear of the shows being copied and distributed is justified but that problem has always existed.
If they provide this service many people, will simply stop viewing the distributed shows for simple reasons:
why go to that effort, if a viewer can simply get the same result (plus some commercials) from the network
only a minority of people actually view the distributed shows since this always demands a certain level of technical experience. Directing the browser to a network's webpage is much easier and much more accessible to a wider audience.
there are probably more good reasons for the viability (and likely good reasons against it...).
If what he meant was not being submissive and fighting for what one subjectively percieves as right, that's fine. That's really ok. I'm cool with that.
It's how you carry out the fight that has changed.
The difference was before there was no social/political framework for 'fixing' these kinds of problems. Now there is.
Problems and rules in the system can be challenged and changed by individuals now from within the system.
Where would we end up if today self appointed not-to-be-held-responsible (unless captured) groups of people stormed buildings or capitals because effectively they simply felt like doing it? This is the kind of behavoir that was almost endlessly going on and on and on before stable democracies were developed.
What both of us are doing now: talking, explaining ourselves, maybe one convincing the other, maybe coming to some concensus is a process that can also be done in a court or house of law or legislation.
What he (maybe) implied not, (assuming he was being literal).
Our system is set up to be free to make decisions,
obviously wrong decisions will also be made.
But it was also set up to be self correcting.
If what somebody represents or fights for can not prevail in a court
or house of law then what makes it right to assert it by force?
(yes yes, there are always exceptions to this point of view, but they are exactly that mere exceptions...)
It's the same reason why people don't storm the White House...
It's the same reason why people don't storm the RIAA headquarters...
I may not have voted for Bush and I may not like the RIAA but that doesn't in any way justify what you imply.
If you're serious with that kind of attitude, what you're implying is mob rule, majority or not.
there's nothing "nice" or "grand" about that...
in way free market economies are mob ruled, there the consumer "votes with his feet", I'm fine with that, but thinking that this approach is transferable to politics by appling force and violence is silly, what you in the end get is chaos, anarchy, might-makes-right...
The idea of a Klingon-centric series seems fairly popular.
An idea that I've always though curious would be that they come up with an intelligent explanation of how the Borg came to being.
Without a Queen Borg. Somehow I have always thought her to be somewhat of a rogue in the machine. One doesn't have the impression that they have always had a queen. It didn't quite fit into the original hive mind scifi idea.
Maybe tie in Guynan and her people.
Unfortunately this won't be possible since the Borg are not very much about positive humanistic ideals.
How well would the idea of a marauding high-tech hivemind sell, that each week annihilated some novell highly developed civilization...
The Borg I guess could be called the non plus ultra ultimate uncompromising fascist entity of the Galaxy.
They are so uncompromising that not even "friend of foe" is in their mindset, everything eventually is a friend...
Your detailed answer is apologism and appeasement.
1. A few of your rebukes cite past historical sins in christian
societies ("our" societies) as analogies to the the acts of
radical moslems coming from the respective societies ("their"
societies).
A common argument made by many apologists is that "they" as a
society are still evolving and going through the same problems
we went through. To back up this argument "our" past errors are
cited. Of which certainly we know quite a few. (BTW how much do
we (or even they) know of their past? Is is openly dealt with?)
While it may be interesting discussing the merits of this theory,
it begs the question: does that mean "they" are less capable then
us, inferiour even? That we give them some leniency, kindly treat
them the way we treat confused and troublesome children?
To the point: does that mean we don't criticize them the same
way we critizes our own religions, our own politicians and
our own clergy? We don't hold them up to higher standards?
I certainly hope not. I would hope that they don't either.
For this reason we as individuals should not refrain from criticizing failings of
others and hold our standards to everyone equally high.
2. You cite a few examples of extremists in our
societies, show that we have our own bad apples.
Again a good point, maybe it would be good to just run a
tally to see if we have the same density of extremists as
they do...
But it shows a fault in their societies themselves:
these kinds of opinions and actions do not come out of nowhere.
People in their vincity know and tolerate this interpretation of Islam
and maybe even their actions.
Of the violent examples (IRA, ETA) you stated, I would assume that "our" offenders had to
conceal their identies. They had to be carefull not to be discovered or betrayed.
One just doesn't have the impression that radical islamic terrorists worry much
about being betrayed by people that know of their opinion and deeds.
3. All comparisons you make are only qualititave comparisons not quantitative.
To "sexual mutilation of millions of little girls and the savage oppression of women"
you counter "sexual mutilation of infant boys" (you certainly mean sexual abuse by
very sick clergy men in the US, you certainly aren't speaking of circumcision are you?)
It would be laughable to assume the numbers could be compared. Also in the US the church is
being held responsible (morally as well as legally) for the sick deeds these men have made and the almost equally sick
decisions the church has made to hush-hush it over the decades. This owning up to mistakes does
not take place in their societies.
5. Concerning Oklahoma City, the Pope and the Archbishop. They sent their
condolences (search it with google, I did). I can imagine the Pope sends his condolences each
time a catastrophy happens.
Dito the Archbishop. But I am also certain that had the bomber cited "The Christian-Catholic God" as being
his moral compass that the Pope would have publicly condemned this man. As would have all christian
priests in their churches. Openly, they would have gone to great efforts to avoid any possible
misunderstanding and to make clear
that they have absolutley no sympathies for this kind of act. Unfortunately to often
moslem-arab imams are the moral compasses and inspiration for terrorists.
Why is it so hard to hear all other imams publicly condemning this?
If these people have hijacked their religion why are they not publicly shunned and denounced?
How is it that these people
can use their churches for their agitational-inspirational meetings? Where is the public opposition?
Why do they not insist that it not be called 'jidah' anymore? 'Jidah' means 'struggle' for the
faith in oneself and with
hmm, when you think about it, the axioms deal directly with that question.
What is the mind exactly doing when it abstracts this picture:
'apple'
what makes this picture different?
'apple' 'apple'
or even more
'apple'
'apple'
'apple'
'apple'
Let's say you remember the 'apples' in a later picture visually well.
Later you decide to reconstruct the picture by putting 'apples' one by one on the table.
You stop putting 'apples' on the table once you have reached the same picture or configuration. You will always stop once you have reached that configuration. So in that sense you can give the process of reaching that configuration a name. Since the process and result will always be the same.
Since this is valid for any configuration, you can actually give each configuration a name.
Starting with the first configuration 'one' you can construct all other configurations.
Based on this you now don't have to visually show
'apple' 'apple' 'apple'
when you mean to convey this to someone (or yourself). It is sufficient to know the name of the process: 'three' 'apples'!
Essentially Peano's Axioms do what the example above does in a more formal framework.
is neither true nor false, it is part of a definition, based on Piano's 5 Axioms. "2" is simply defined as "1+1".
If I define $a = "red apple". Then later asking if the expression '$a="red apple"' is true or false is silly. It is a definition just as the following: $b="pink pokka dot apple" is a valid definition.
But the second definition you may say doesn't make sense. Wrong! The definition is still valid. The content of the definition is what you may contest.
But what is to contest of the operation "1+1"?
This is a part of Pianos Axioms. What is "1+1"?
They don't say, they simply say: 'let's call it 2'.
MOD PARENT FUNNY, NOT OFFTOPIC
on
Subatomic Darwinism
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
i don't see how the parent is offtopic,
it's funny, laught
it's a fitting example of darwinism taking place in the religious memesphere, each time the study of nature and reality shows that some silly religiously based idea can't be backed up, well then the idea gets appropriately modified to fit reality.
Religions claiming to have special knowledge eventually get challenged and many get shown out the door. It's a sad testimony for some religions.
And upsetting for the stringent by-the-letter followers.
A fit religion will be one that sticks to the basics: faith, how to live with oneself, how to live with the world and other men. It will not made silly unnecessary assumptions about a reality that cares nothing for how we on the thin surface of a small planet see it.
you answered to a previous poster that you wouldn't mind corrections, so here goes
1. I'd guess you're either german or french since in these languages it's not uncommon to say
"c'est génial" or "das ist genial" which literally would be translated to "that's ingenius".
A fitting translation would be "that's cool".
2. "I readed" should simply be "I read" pronounced "red".
3. "in the 70's decade" , no "decade", just "the 70s"
enough of being the local grammer nazi! (especially since I always make mistakes myself...)
Your point concerning Asimov is interesting. I have only read the Foundation Trilogy, so I don't know what the sequels are like. Too bad Asimov didn't take Pohls offer.
I suppose the sequels were written by other authors (than Asimov). Did he decide on them or the publishers?
But what was factually incorrect about the quote? Bush DID say it. It was taken out of context. News at 11. Most quotes are, because the context takes time to set up, gets in the way of the "story", or is irrelevent.
The context of a quote is *extremely* relevant if the message or intent can't otherwise be properly inferred. Which is in this case exactly the point.
The impression one gets from the quote in itself is diametrically opposed to what one thinks when the context becomes known.
Once you have concluded that a source is willfully misleading, all that it tells you becomes less relevant.
-
It is pretty obvious that the movie/documentary had large amount of opinion and that the parts and pieces were skillfully edited together to get a certain reaction or paint a certain picture.
exactly.
and thus all bush-leaning voters that aren't easily duped simply conclude that all criticism of the Bush et al policies is merely skillfully edited data that can be written off.
Bush speaks to a tuxedoed audience. He says, 'I call you the haves and the
have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.'
As far the movie audience can tell, Bush is speaking to some unknown group of
rich people.
The speech actually comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial
Foundation Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money
for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the
co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.
Gore joked, "The Al Smith Dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which
I actually did invent."
Michael Moore by making a movie full of misrepresentations and "almost falsehoods" has
done a huge disservice to the critical discussion
concerning Bush et al and his policies.
By not sticking to the simple facts he has made it easy to for undecideds and fair minded Bush-supporters to discredit all people and topics critical of Bush et al.
Bush is good example of somebody that adheres to the style of goals justifies means.
And Moore does exactly the same thing: exaggerate, misrepresent, twist, say whatever it takes to get rid of Bush.
The problem with this kind of think is:
If you can make people "hate" the wrong guy with wrong methods,
then later you can make people
"hate" the right guy with the same wrong methods.
What the parent poster says is of utmost importance, it is paramount. All other points in an election:
speed, cost effectivity, ease of processing the data, givng the impression of being up to date, and whatnot, all these points pale when it comes the the single most important point:
transparency and reliability of democratic election
What Pan says is worth being repeated:
We are talking about democracy. The transparency and reliability of democratic election is something infinitely more important than any kind of efficiency could ever be, for without transparent and reliable election there can be no democracy.
Besides, what exactly is inefficient in using pen and paper? Please read my other post before you reply.
These e-systems have no "write-only" visually verifiable audit trails that can be seen and observed by the general population.
For all doubters, apologists and naysayers:
People mess with elections in lesser nations, what makes you think there aren't people in this nation that aren't inclined to do that also?!
Potential perpetrators here will be even more ingenious and skilled in going about doing this.
Many crimes are crimes of opportunity, this opportunity has to be kept at a minimum.
The American system is good, but it's not based on trust, it's based on checks and balances.
When I think of trust systems I think of systems that are not open to criticism and change by those that "trust" the "entrusted". That is not what we want.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't exactly "share" your fingerprint with someone on the phone.
At the moment that may be so, but what do you do when after years of using biometric based authentication, someone finds out how to gain entry by providing your biometric identification?
If the system were "changable key" based and somebody found out your key, the simple retort would be to change the key.
Whatcha going to do if your right thumb or right eye-ball has been "compromised"...? Yes, yes, some will say "just use the other eye or thumb". That's ridiculous. The person that went through the trouble to get your ID the first time, will simply do it again for the other ID (if he didn't already do it the first time).
Additionally, biometric data being just that: biometric, makes stealing the data from a person against his will laughably easy. Get the guy, hold him down, scan, cut or copy. If the system was "changable key" based he would at least have the options of
- not divulging it, if it's something he has to remember,
- destroying, disposing or deactivating it, if it's an object.
Surprisingly the key advantages of "changable key" id are also the source of it's disadvantage. To me something, most likely a "necessary something", that poses a advantage and disadvantage at the same time sounds like a responsiblity.it's not over till the fat browser sinks, eh?
haha, I kill me... *snicker*
Why?
Because the user has many software tools availible here that simply aren't doable on landline systems. Hell, the easiest first method of screening is using a simple whitelist. Can you do that with normal landlines???
Since voip is run by software on your computer you *have* the possiblity of applying code to the screening process, in other words CAPCHA of one sort or the other, can you do this with landlines?? the captchas don't even have to be complicated. It could be a verbal command requesting the user do do a simple task (type a number, say a word, look up something on website, send an email). What ever it is, this is to time-comsuming for spammers. All of this is simply not possible on landlines.
I can't help but think that this "prediction" is simply the drawing of a parallel from email spam to voip spam. The reason why email spam is hard to block, is that you don't want to throw away legitimate email. Why is throwing away legit email bad? Because the legit sender already sent it and assumes you got it and will read it! That doesn't apply with voip. If you block a legit caller he immediately knows you didn't get his call! For this reason applying spam filters to voip is much easier than email.
This can be achieved by providing the shows online but not offering them as downloads.
This would achieve the same goals and even more then broadcast tv:
- the viewer sees the show in the browser, he can play, pause, and stop but will still be forced to watch the ads. When watching tv, it's pretty easy to channel surf and avoid the commercials, it's all a push of the button. That's a bit different with a browser. It's still easy but it's not as easy as with the tv remote.
- the provider knows exactly how many people have watched the show, and knows exactly when they watched. They also can much more easily guess when people tune out.
- since this is all in the browser, tie-ins to the commercials could appear in sideframes without interrupting the show itself. While watching the show the viewers eyes wander. These are the perfect conditions to get a persons interest and attention.
- People would not only watch a show once, it's possible that they would watch it again later.
- A network can only broadcast 24 hours of TV a day (per channel). But it can provide multitudes more of hours of shows online each day. The network could finally sell adspace not only show-and-time-based based but independently sell adspace based on a show and/or based on the time of viewing, and even possibly based on the viewers profile. Result: many more viewers leading to more revenue from advertisement.
The fear of the shows being copied and distributed is justified but that problem has always existed. If they provide this service many people, will simply stop viewing the distributed shows for simple reasons:- why go to that effort, if a viewer can simply get the same result (plus some commercials) from the network
- only a minority of people actually view the distributed shows since this always demands a certain level of technical experience. Directing the browser to a network's webpage is much easier and much more accessible to a wider audience.
there are probably more good reasons for the viability (and likely good reasons against it...).It's how you carry out the fight that has changed. The difference was before there was no social/political framework for 'fixing' these kinds of problems. Now there is. Problems and rules in the system can be challenged and changed by individuals now from within the system.
Where would we end up if today self appointed not-to-be-held-responsible (unless captured) groups of people stormed buildings or capitals because effectively they simply felt like doing it? This is the kind of behavoir that was almost endlessly going on and on and on before stable democracies were developed.
What both of us are doing now: talking, explaining ourselves, maybe one convincing the other, maybe coming to some concensus is a process that can also be done in a court or house of law or legislation.
What he (maybe) implied not, (assuming he was being literal). Our system is set up to be free to make decisions, obviously wrong decisions will also be made. But it was also set up to be self correcting. If what somebody represents or fights for can not prevail in a court or house of law then what makes it right to assert it by force? (yes yes, there are always exceptions to this point of view, but they are exactly that mere exceptions...)
- It's the same reason why people don't storm the White House...
I may not have voted for Bush and I may not like the RIAA but that doesn't in any way justify what you imply.It's the same reason why people don't storm the RIAA headquarters...
If you're serious with that kind of attitude, what you're implying is mob rule, majority or not.
there's nothing "nice" or "grand" about that...
in way free market economies are mob ruled, there the consumer "votes with his feet", I'm fine with that, but thinking that this approach is transferable to politics by appling force and violence is silly, what you in the end get is chaos, anarchy, might-makes-right...
An idea that I've always though curious would be that they come up with an intelligent explanation of how the Borg came to being.
Without a Queen Borg. Somehow I have always thought her to be somewhat of a rogue in the machine. One doesn't have the impression that they have always had a queen. It didn't quite fit into the original hive mind scifi idea.
Maybe tie in Guynan and her people.
Unfortunately this won't be possible since the Borg are not very much about positive humanistic ideals. How well would the idea of a marauding high-tech hivemind sell, that each week annihilated some novell highly developed civilization...
The Borg I guess could be called the non plus ultra ultimate uncompromising fascist entity of the Galaxy. They are so uncompromising that not even "friend of foe" is in their mindset, everything eventually is a friend...
I did not say none have, I took care in saying "Why is it so hard to hear all other imams publicly condemning this?".
Your rebuke did not answer that question. I read arab media often enough -albeit only in english- to feel justified in asking that question.
Your rebuke did not even answer any of the other questions.
To paraphrase you, you simply said: "it ain't so, you suck".
If you can answer my question to the positive please do! If nastygrams are your habit please go ahead, show the world again your special talent.
Violence is the last refuse of the incompetent. (Isaac Asimov)
And profanity is their linguistic crutch.
1. A few of your rebukes cite past historical sins in christian societies ("our" societies) as analogies to the the acts of radical moslems coming from the respective societies ("their" societies).
A common argument made by many apologists is that "they" as a society are still evolving and going through the same problems we went through. To back up this argument "our" past errors are cited. Of which certainly we know quite a few. (BTW how much do we (or even they) know of their past? Is is openly dealt with?)
While it may be interesting discussing the merits of this theory, it begs the question: does that mean "they" are less capable then us, inferiour even? That we give them some leniency, kindly treat them the way we treat confused and troublesome children?
To the point: does that mean we don't criticize them the same way we critizes our own religions, our own politicians and our own clergy? We don't hold them up to higher standards?
I certainly hope not. I would hope that they don't either.
For this reason we as individuals should not refrain from criticizing failings of others and hold our standards to everyone equally high.
2. You cite a few examples of extremists in our societies, show that we have our own bad apples. Again a good point, maybe it would be good to just run a tally to see if we have the same density of extremists as they do...
But it shows a fault in their societies themselves: these kinds of opinions and actions do not come out of nowhere. People in their vincity know and tolerate this interpretation of Islam and maybe even their actions. Of the violent examples (IRA, ETA) you stated, I would assume that "our" offenders had to conceal their identies. They had to be carefull not to be discovered or betrayed. One just doesn't have the impression that radical islamic terrorists worry much about being betrayed by people that know of their opinion and deeds.
3. All comparisons you make are only qualititave comparisons not quantitative. To "sexual mutilation of millions of little girls and the savage oppression of women" you counter "sexual mutilation of infant boys" (you certainly mean sexual abuse by very sick clergy men in the US, you certainly aren't speaking of circumcision are you?)
It would be laughable to assume the numbers could be compared. Also in the US the church is being held responsible (morally as well as legally) for the sick deeds these men have made and the almost equally sick decisions the church has made to hush-hush it over the decades. This owning up to mistakes does not take place in their societies.
4. Your rebuke to the point concerning the videos was shown to be false in the above poster: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm
5. Concerning Oklahoma City, the Pope and the Archbishop. They sent their condolences (search it with google, I did). I can imagine the Pope sends his condolences each time a catastrophy happens. Dito the Archbishop. But I am also certain that had the bomber cited "The Christian-Catholic God" as being his moral compass that the Pope would have publicly condemned this man. As would have all christian priests in their churches. Openly, they would have gone to great efforts to avoid any possible misunderstanding and to make clear that they have absolutley no sympathies for this kind of act. Unfortunately to often moslem-arab imams are the moral compasses and inspiration for terrorists. Why is it so hard to hear all other imams publicly condemning this? If these people have hijacked their religion why are they not publicly shunned and denounced? How is it that these people can use their churches for their agitational-inspirational meetings? Where is the public opposition?
Why do they not insist that it not be called 'jidah' anymore? 'Jidah' means 'struggle' for the faith in oneself and with
- 'apple'
what makes this picture different?- 'apple' 'apple'
or even more- 'apple'
'apple'
'apple'
'apple'
Let's say you remember the 'apples' in a later picture visually well. Later you decide to reconstruct the picture by putting 'apples' one by one on the table.You stop putting 'apples' on the table once you have reached the same picture or configuration. You will always stop once you have reached that configuration. So in that sense you can give the process of reaching that configuration a name. Since the process and result will always be the same.
Since this is valid for any configuration, you can actually give each configuration a name. Starting with the first configuration 'one' you can construct all other configurations. Based on this you now don't have to visually show
- 'apple' 'apple' 'apple'
when you mean to convey this to someone (or yourself). It is sufficient to know the name of the process: 'three' 'apples'!Essentially Peano's Axioms do what the example above does in a more formal framework.
oops, knew something didn't seem right there
here's a Wikipedia explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
- 1+1=2
is neither true nor false, it is part of a definition, based on Piano's 5 Axioms. "2" is simply defined as "1+1".If I define $a = "red apple". Then later asking if the expression '$a="red apple"' is true or false is silly. It is a definition just as the following: $b="pink pokka dot apple" is a valid definition.
But the second definition you may say doesn't make sense. Wrong! The definition is still valid. The content of the definition is what you may contest.
But what is to contest of the operation "1+1"?
This is a part of Pianos Axioms. What is "1+1"?
They don't say, they simply say: 'let's call it 2'.
eschew oxymoronic obfuscation
*g*
Troll??
is there a idiot-test for mods?
it's funny, laught
it's a fitting example of darwinism taking place in the religious memesphere, each time the study of nature and reality shows that some silly religiously based idea can't be backed up, well then the idea gets appropriately modified to fit reality.
Religions claiming to have special knowledge eventually get challenged and many get shown out the door. It's a sad testimony for some religions. And upsetting for the stringent by-the-letter followers.
A fit religion will be one that sticks to the basics: faith, how to live with oneself, how to live with the world and other men. It will not made silly unnecessary assumptions about a reality that cares nothing for how we on the thin surface of a small planet see it.
1. I'd guess you're either german or french since in these languages it's not uncommon to say "c'est génial" or "das ist genial" which literally would be translated to "that's ingenius". A fitting translation would be "that's cool".
2. "I readed" should simply be "I read" pronounced "red".
3. "in the 70's decade" , no "decade", just "the 70s"
enough of being the local grammer nazi! (especially since I always make mistakes myself...)
Your point concerning Asimov is interesting. I have only read the Foundation Trilogy, so I don't know what the sequels are like. Too bad Asimov didn't take Pohls offer. I suppose the sequels were written by other authors (than Asimov). Did he decide on them or the publishers?
-
But what was factually incorrect about the quote? Bush DID say it. It was taken out of context. News at 11. Most quotes are, because the context takes time to set up, gets in the way of the "story", or is irrelevent.
The context of a quote is *extremely* relevant if the message or intent can't otherwise be properly inferred. Which is in this case exactly the point. The impression one gets from the quote in itself is diametrically opposed to what one thinks when the context becomes known.Once you have concluded that a source is willfully misleading, all that it tells you becomes less relevant.
-
-
It is pretty obvious that the movie/documentary had large amount of opinion and that the parts and pieces were skillfully edited together to get a certain reaction or paint a certain picture.
exactly.and thus all bush-leaning voters that aren't easily duped simply conclude that all criticism of the Bush et al policies is merely skillfully edited data that can be written off.
- Speaking to "the haves and the have-mores." George W. smirks: "Some people call you the elite, I call you my base"
are you just a Michael Moore parrot or do you actually now the context of that quote?point 21 on http://www.fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/
CNN article about the Al Smith fundraiser that also included Gore: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1 0/20/al.smith.dinner/
following text quoted from an F911 critic:
Gore joked, "The Al Smith Dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent."
Michael Moore by making a movie full of misrepresentations and "almost falsehoods" has done a huge disservice to the critical discussion concerning Bush et al and his policies.
By not sticking to the simple facts he has made it easy to for undecideds and fair minded Bush-supporters to discredit all people and topics critical of Bush et al.
Bush is good example of somebody that adheres to the style of goals justifies means.
And Moore does exactly the same thing: exaggerate, misrepresent, twist, say whatever it takes to get rid of Bush.
The problem with this kind of think is:
- If you can make people "hate" the wrong guy with wrong methods,
btw, I voted Kerrythen later you can make people "hate" the right guy with the same wrong methods.
What Pan says is worth being repeated:
- We are talking about democracy. The transparency and reliability of democratic election is something infinitely more important than any kind of efficiency could ever be, for without transparent and reliable election there can be no democracy.
Besides, what exactly is inefficient in using pen and paper? Please read my other post before you reply.
These e-systems have no "write-only" visually verifiable audit trails that can be seen and observed by the general population.For all doubters, apologists and naysayers:
People mess with elections in lesser nations, what makes you think there aren't people in this nation that aren't inclined to do that also?! Potential perpetrators here will be even more ingenious and skilled in going about doing this.
Many crimes are crimes of opportunity, this opportunity has to be kept at a minimum.
The American system is good, but it's not based on trust, it's based on checks and balances.
When I think of trust systems I think of systems that are not open to criticism and change by those that "trust" the "entrusted". That is not what we want.
the novel way of reloading on page 3 *g*
(for those that didn't notice, scroll to bottom of page)
has an FM reciever...
- ... My Karma just kicks ass
...
I want that kind of karma alsoit's the moon!
(the planet is hiding behind it)....
yeah, neuthrino is ubiquitous
... but it's a pain in the a** to measure (unit tests) and nobody really notices it
still neuthron has it's points
- sounds new
- no charge, meaning free!
- only slightly heavier then prothon
- contains prothon and electhron => neuthron is backwards compatible
funny. funny. thank you, thank you. i'll be here all night. tip your wait staff.