Coming soon? Sorry it's already here. Authoritarian Government? No, try every single one. Controlling the people has become harder with information being spread so fast, but there are ways to single out people and beat them into submission with information.
OR you could... manufacture parts on the moon, launch them into HEO without any fuel, assemble them and presto, new space station.
You're really not thinking this through. You could send a automated mission to mars, the moon, an asteroid and build a suitable habitat or a return vehicle with fuel all there. The mission could be launched a year before and have the destination all ready for inhabitants.
Ohh and btw, raw materials are never heavier than the finished products. Do you suggest that we somehow create more matter because of 3d printing?
Leaving sharks with laser beams on their heads inside or around the car. If that doesn't work, agitated mutated sea-bass will work, but they're not as effective.
1) Better if people on a single row are on the same etam, they can peek to their sides and see things that they're not really supposed to. 2) Maybe perhaps behind them? 3) Use in game communication or set up your own personal mumbles/vent server. Easier to use headphones for sound accuracy (positioning) and instead of having to scream over speakers to talk to someone across the room. 4) who cares? 5) who cares?
Isn't it also like, 1/4th the typical size of an airplane and thus the radar signature wouldn't be determinable or would look like a bird? It doesn't have to use the latest stealth techniques if people would ignore it anyways.
I know. Drugs should always be for profit. And as for profit they should never fix the symptom because that would reduce profit. Also drugs for silly things like penile erection dysfunction get the lime-lite as they never really cure the real issue which is physical, not chemical. Research into life saving drugs such as more effective anti-biotics doesn't make fiscal sense since they more than happy to sell less effective anti-biotics that aren't being rendered ineffective because they're not overused yet.
For profit drugs will never cure the problem. They will only insure that a person has to take the pills for the rest of their life to maximize profit. Any mistake miracle drugs will be touted as the reason why for profit drug companies work.
this will be the big push we need to get back into human space exploration.... when porn companies fight to get to the virgin "hot" gas and make it all dirty.
Everyone has ADHD and everyone has Asperger. Sounds like a whole lot of pharmaceuticals for everyone! Imagine the profit. Ohh right, i guess i figured out why it's over diagnosed. It's because of the money involved. Can't parent your children? There must be something wrong with the children, can be you. Make them take some pills to make them behave, what could go wrong?
Like you will ever see a poor person win an election? Lol what a joke. Time has shown again and again that the voting public are sheep, and with enough money you can buy an election.
a) cash is still legal tender and used all over. I think you're really minimizing the amount of transactions that would have to be recorded. c) shell corporations are set up to hide this financial information and a lot of times specifically for buying goods. This won't fix anything.
Also you're advocating criminalizing a huge amount of people who will never give up their cash. Plus you're also putting full trust into financial institutions which have (always but specifically recently) been found to not have been operating in even their own best interests. I don't want health insurance knowing what i eat for example. They sure as shit won't give me a discount if it's healthy but will try and cancel my insurance if they see a mcrib on the list. d) the point is if you get screwed over by someone making fraudulent charges to your credit, it's not hard to get that fixed and in the mean time use cash. If you outlaw cash you are totally screwed if/when that happens. e) lol, ship stolen goods overseas. Ever heard of stolen cars being shipped overseas and being sold? It's pretty much transparent to finding out who it really belonged to. f) the problem is that everyone can't do it, it takes some effort. Making it all available to everyone makes it so everyone can stalk everyone.
I have a right to privacy. What i do in my own home is my own business. What i purchase is my own business as well, who i donate to is my own business unless i claim it for tax reasons. People don't live in glass houses and claiming to solve all crime by doing so doesn't many any sense logically.
Would it really be so bad if the government could trace all of your transactions, as long as this information would also be made public. Taxes could actually be collected from everyone, even people rich enough to afford an army of lawyers.
Sure you loose some privacy, but it's not like the government can't find out anything they want about you right now, it just takes some focus. And if you're worried about what your neighbors might think about your Playboy subscription, just remember that you'll also be able to check how much they spent on furry porn in the last year with just a few clicks of the mouse. Society might get a lot more tolerant once everyone's vices are exposed.
But just think what it would mean for political honesty, if EVERY contribution could be traced back to it's source. And if you could just go online and check who paid for your representatives last 'working lunch'.
Most crime would fade away - what is all of that stuff you stole, if you can't sell it or even let people know you have it.
You're fucking ridiculous. a) it would be information overload. No one would want to go through that. You'll create huge bureaucracies which will be tasked to oversee this (think IRS but bigger) b) you'll make privacy a thing of the past. I have no right to know what my neighbor's vices are. And they don't have a right to peep inside my windows whenever they want. Fishing expeditions done by "crack" detectives will link your battery purchase at radio shack to possible terrorist activities. Most of the evasion crime will suddenly come to haunt anyone who pisses anyone in power. c) Anyone with power will suddenly invest in shell corporation which will do the purchasing for them. You will never know if politician A got lap dances from investor B. Other rich people will just do business overseas like they do now for tax reasons/loopholes without regulations like you're suggesting. d) crime will still happen. So they don't rob you at gunpoint, they'll just steal your identity and credit thousands of dollars onto your account like they do now. Reporting on crimes will be covered by stating the credit transaction was for something else of value (pot=botanical supplies, etc) to hide it. e) theft of property will become extremely easy. "Ohh hey, look family A is going on vacation during this time, i see they're purchasing stuff down in Orlando, time to rob their house." and it will just be that much easier to do that. Ever wanted to know what good your added to your house/apartment? now everyone will know. Great idea. f) stalking made easy thanks to your idea
How did you come up with this idea? Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want as long as it's not hurting anyone. If someone is gay and wants to maintain his privacy about it that's perfectly fine. Your idea gets rid of all privacy and only the Rich will be able to stay anonymous.
The pyramids were built in ancient times, yet the modern scientific method was not developed back then. Don't group achievements as something only science could achieve. While I agree that getting to the moon was enabled by advanced rocketry and metallurgy as well as countless other advances, nothing can be attributed to advances in religion. Comparing the two is simply a straw-man argument.
Ok, let me try and change exactly what you said and put it in the context of science: The problem with the scientific method and other outdated theories is that they get replaced on a continuous basis. Sure, we don't believe in aether, that electricity travels at the speed of light, that seasons are not the same length, that Saturn is the only planet with rings, meteors are hot when the hit the earth etc (x infinity) but they were still thought to be true at one point in time and there was evidence to think that way. And every generation believes these falsities to be true until they are proven false (only until someone proves again that what they currently thought is wrong in a continuous manner).
I still maintain science is our best explanation that we can currently give while religion is merely a belief that we cannot prove. Science is constantly explaining things that we question, but it is constantly getting things wrong. There are very few absolute truths in science, but it's very flexible. Beliefs and religions are easily flexible as well by changing your beliefs. In fact your belief in the scientific method is flawed because it's based on making theories and proving it wrong.
Lets break down your argument. You state that genesis could never have happened in that order because you can't possibly conceive water being created before light? Lets examine this in a scientific manner. Can water exist outside of planets? Yes, we see that there are ice asteroids (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10090128) , water detected in comic nebula (http://www.gigagalaxyzoom.org/G11.html), we think the oort cloud which surrounds this solar system is filled with ice and water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud), it's only a logical step to believe that in the solar nursery that created our sun that water was a component of this protoplanetary disk (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/10/26/tw-hydrae-solar-system-water_n_1032419.html). It's very easy to fall into the trap of not thinking outside the box when it comes to reading events in the bible metaphorically because there is no way for man of that age who created the bible to get scientific theories correct back in that age.
For the record, i really don't care what the bible says, i merely believe there are things that we can't and will never be able to fully explained and religion/beliefs fill that role. I would never ever take any religious text at face value, but merely understand that it was how people thought thousands of years ago and at least from that aspect it's important to understand your past to be able to understand the future.
the universe cannot be completely explained by science in cases where rules break down, like in a black hole or a few peta seconds after the big bang. Science is constantly evolving as well, coming up with new theories and evidence to support our best explanations as to how the universe works. Do you honestly believe there will be a point where humanity learns all the secrets and has an understanding of everything? I think there will be a lot of good guesses, but no one will really know everything, and that's the role religion/beliefs come into play.
This is utter nonsense. If you want to take a fairy tale book written i don't know, 1600 years ago during Constantinople's rule and make it as face value fact of everything Christianity believes in, then lets also take into account that every single generation since the scientific method has come into place has been incorrect about theories on how the universe works. Do me a favor, pick up a scientific study done in the 50s or 60s or 70s, each one will propose theories and show evidence that what they think is correct and there's a huge chance that it's all outdated and made incorrect by today's modern theories.
You're comparing religious nut jobs who can't think for themselves and take what the bible says at face value to people who don't understand what science really is, but believes that science explains everything. Both are wrong. Science is the art of explaining how the universe works as best they can. Religion is faith of a higher power that created the universe and it's set of rules. The two never ever meet. Anyone that claims otherwise is a complete and utter fool. Science can never disprove religion. Religion can never disprove science.
wow... anything is addictive. You can be addicted to video games, eating, getting sick, exercising, sex, alcohol, sleeping, etc. Anything that involves mental thought can becoming addictive. You can be chemically, psycologically, mentally, etc addicted to just about anything. I think the main difference is that chemically dependent drugs cause you to go through withdrawal, which in some cases like heroine and the like, can kill you.
I've never heard of anyone dying from pot withdrawal. Cans of coke withdrawal (caffeine really) will give you headaches and a bad attitude.
I'm all for education, but i don't think a solid education goes hand in hand with over a trillion dollar industry that's been created to teach at the college level. Education should be free for those who want it (and work hard to get it). Running an education scam for profit should be illegal.
when regulations are created by the same industry they're trying to regulate it doesn't work. Might as well can the whole system. All it's doing is generating billions of dollars for those who are supposed to be regulating the industry. Your tax dollars at work. Did we have regulation during enron? The housing crisis? Regulation in deepwater? The answer to all of this is yes, how much did it help? Ha.
It's called price and demand. If no one is willing to pay the for the products you are trying to sell, you won't make a profit. Schools that charge 60k for an education are selling a overblown product.
The ONLY way students can afford this is through loans, which makes them economics slaves for a good portion of their lives afterwards.
Take away the loans and schools will have to compete with what students can afford. The ones that don't will go bankrupt or will start offering educations at prices that people can afford.
a) space is so huge there's no need to run into anyone. b) how many people are still crossing the world in boats colonizing continents? Maybe they have better things to do than to personally land on every planet. c) Our recorded history is about 4000 years old? compared to the age of the earth (4.5 billion years) or the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) it's quite possible they visited before or will in the future if they exist. Saying that they haven't gotten here yet so they don't exist is really jumping to a conclusion really fast. If they have probes, there's a possibility they exist now but we're just unable to detect them. d) the only thing that's hard about space travel is getting off the earth. Traveling to another planet when you're already in space is just a matter of time. We already have highly efficient ion engines to do the thrusting. e) it's inevitable. as our resources dwindle and living space becomes hard to come by there has to be an evolution. That of course being space. Watch as 3d fabricators become more and more evolved over time. Watch as autonomous fabricators are sent to the moon and asteroids, watch them transform those raw materials into usable goods and create livable areas for humankind. f) Actually traveling to another star is hard. Especially if there's no way to go faster than light. Even if we're limited, it would only take 50-100 years at a fraction of the speed of light to reach the few nearest star systems. It's even possible today, just at a tremendous cost. If you're able to build your spaceship in space first, the cost goes drastically down.
the fact that the editors green lighted this with no checking whatsoever is disturbing to say the least. Oh wait a second, this is slashdot! no editors and no journalistic integrity whatsoever! carry on.
Slashdot Mirror
Coming soon? Sorry it's already here.
Authoritarian Government? No, try every single one.
Controlling the people has become harder with information being spread so fast, but there are ways to single out people and beat them into submission with information.
OR
you could...
manufacture parts on the moon, launch them into HEO without any fuel, assemble them and presto, new space station.
You're really not thinking this through. You could send a automated mission to mars, the moon, an asteroid and build a suitable habitat or a return vehicle with fuel all there. The mission could be launched a year before and have the destination all ready for inhabitants.
Ohh and btw, raw materials are never heavier than the finished products. Do you suggest that we somehow create more matter because of 3d printing?
Leaving sharks with laser beams on their heads inside or around the car. If that doesn't work, agitated mutated sea-bass will work, but they're not as effective.
1) Better if people on a single row are on the same etam, they can peek to their sides and see things that they're not really supposed to.
2) Maybe perhaps behind them?
3) Use in game communication or set up your own personal mumbles/vent server. Easier to use headphones for sound accuracy (positioning) and instead of having to scream over speakers to talk to someone across the room.
4) who cares?
5) who cares?
hmm... i could of sworn that you can't sign away constitutional rights via contract. If you can, anyone want to sign up for my slavery contract?
Isn't it also like, 1/4th the typical size of an airplane and thus the radar signature wouldn't be determinable or would look like a bird? It doesn't have to use the latest stealth techniques if people would ignore it anyways.
Cars are not actively trying to kill their occupants.
Have you ever driven a pinto?
I scored a hot android device. Maybe you heard of it, the hp touchpad for only 99$. Beat that.
I know. Drugs should always be for profit. And as for profit they should never fix the symptom because that would reduce profit. Also drugs for silly things like penile erection dysfunction get the lime-lite as they never really cure the real issue which is physical, not chemical. Research into life saving drugs such as more effective anti-biotics doesn't make fiscal sense since they more than happy to sell less effective anti-biotics that aren't being rendered ineffective because they're not overused yet.
For profit drugs will never cure the problem. They will only insure that a person has to take the pills for the rest of their life to maximize profit. Any mistake miracle drugs will be touted as the reason why for profit drug companies work.
Then make your own you lazy fuck.
this will be the big push we need to get back into human space exploration.... when porn companies fight to get to the virgin "hot" gas and make it all dirty.
Everyone has ADHD and everyone has Asperger. Sounds like a whole lot of pharmaceuticals for everyone! Imagine the profit. Ohh right, i guess i figured out why it's over diagnosed. It's because of the money involved. Can't parent your children? There must be something wrong with the children, can be you. Make them take some pills to make them behave, what could go wrong?
Like you will ever see a poor person win an election? Lol what a joke. Time has shown again and again that the voting public are sheep, and with enough money you can buy an election.
a) cash is still legal tender and used all over. I think you're really minimizing the amount of transactions that would have to be recorded.
c) shell corporations are set up to hide this financial information and a lot of times specifically for buying goods. This won't fix anything.
Also you're advocating criminalizing a huge amount of people who will never give up their cash. Plus you're also putting full trust into financial institutions which have (always but specifically recently) been found to not have been operating in even their own best interests.
I don't want health insurance knowing what i eat for example. They sure as shit won't give me a discount if it's healthy but will try and cancel my insurance if they see a mcrib on the list.
d) the point is if you get screwed over by someone making fraudulent charges to your credit, it's not hard to get that fixed and in the mean time use cash. If you outlaw cash you are totally screwed if/when that happens.
e) lol, ship stolen goods overseas. Ever heard of stolen cars being shipped overseas and being sold? It's pretty much transparent to finding out who it really belonged to.
f) the problem is that everyone can't do it, it takes some effort. Making it all available to everyone makes it so everyone can stalk everyone.
I have a right to privacy. What i do in my own home is my own business. What i purchase is my own business as well, who i donate to is my own business unless i claim it for tax reasons. People don't live in glass houses and claiming to solve all crime by doing so doesn't many any sense logically.
Would it really be so bad if the government could trace all of your transactions, as long as this information would also be made public. Taxes could actually be collected from everyone, even people rich enough to afford an army of lawyers.
Sure you loose some privacy, but it's not like the government can't find out anything they want about you right now, it just takes some focus. And if you're worried about what your neighbors might think about your Playboy subscription, just remember that you'll also be able to check how much they spent on furry porn in the last year with just a few clicks of the mouse. Society might get a lot more tolerant once everyone's vices are exposed.
But just think what it would mean for political honesty, if EVERY contribution could be traced back to it's source. And if you could just go online and check who paid for your representatives last 'working lunch'.
Most crime would fade away - what is all of that stuff you stole, if you can't sell it or even let people know you have it.
You're fucking ridiculous.
a) it would be information overload. No one would want to go through that. You'll create huge bureaucracies which will be tasked to oversee this (think IRS but bigger)
b) you'll make privacy a thing of the past. I have no right to know what my neighbor's vices are. And they don't have a right to peep inside my windows whenever they want. Fishing expeditions done by "crack" detectives will link your battery purchase at radio shack to possible terrorist activities. Most of the evasion crime will suddenly come to haunt anyone who pisses anyone in power.
c) Anyone with power will suddenly invest in shell corporation which will do the purchasing for them. You will never know if politician A got lap dances from investor B. Other rich people will just do business overseas like they do now for tax reasons/loopholes without regulations like you're suggesting.
d) crime will still happen. So they don't rob you at gunpoint, they'll just steal your identity and credit thousands of dollars onto your account like they do now. Reporting on crimes will be covered by stating the credit transaction was for something else of value (pot=botanical supplies, etc) to hide it.
e) theft of property will become extremely easy. "Ohh hey, look family A is going on vacation during this time, i see they're purchasing stuff down in Orlando, time to rob their house." and it will just be that much easier to do that. Ever wanted to know what good your added to your house/apartment? now everyone will know. Great idea.
f) stalking made easy thanks to your idea
How did you come up with this idea? Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want as long as it's not hurting anyone. If someone is gay and wants to maintain his privacy about it that's perfectly fine. Your idea gets rid of all privacy and only the Rich will be able to stay anonymous.
The pyramids were built in ancient times, yet the modern scientific method was not developed back then. Don't group achievements as something only science could achieve. While I agree that getting to the moon was enabled by advanced rocketry and metallurgy as well as countless other advances, nothing can be attributed to advances in religion. Comparing the two is simply a straw-man argument.
Ok, let me try and change exactly what you said and put it in the context of science:
The problem with the scientific method and other outdated theories is that they get replaced on a continuous basis. Sure, we don't believe in aether, that electricity travels at the speed of light, that seasons are not the same length, that Saturn is the only planet with rings, meteors are hot when the hit the earth etc (x infinity) but they were still thought to be true at one point in time and there was evidence to think that way. And every generation believes these falsities to be true until they are proven false (only until someone proves again that what they currently thought is wrong in a continuous manner).
I still maintain science is our best explanation that we can currently give while religion is merely a belief that we cannot prove. Science is constantly explaining things that we question, but it is constantly getting things wrong. There are very few absolute truths in science, but it's very flexible. Beliefs and religions are easily flexible as well by changing your beliefs. In fact your belief in the scientific method is flawed because it's based on making theories and proving it wrong.
Lets break down your argument. You state that genesis could never have happened in that order because you can't possibly conceive water being created before light?
Lets examine this in a scientific manner. Can water exist outside of planets? Yes, we see that there are ice asteroids (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10090128) , water detected in comic nebula (http://www.gigagalaxyzoom.org/G11.html), we think the oort cloud which surrounds this solar system is filled with ice and water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud), it's only a logical step to believe that in the solar nursery that created our sun that water was a component of this protoplanetary disk (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/10/26/tw-hydrae-solar-system-water_n_1032419.html). It's very easy to fall into the trap of not thinking outside the box when it comes to reading events in the bible metaphorically because there is no way for man of that age who created the bible to get scientific theories correct back in that age.
For the record, i really don't care what the bible says, i merely believe there are things that we can't and will never be able to fully explained and religion/beliefs fill that role. I would never ever take any religious text at face value, but merely understand that it was how people thought thousands of years ago and at least from that aspect it's important to understand your past to be able to understand the future.
the universe cannot be completely explained by science in cases where rules break down, like in a black hole or a few peta seconds after the big bang. Science is constantly evolving as well, coming up with new theories and evidence to support our best explanations as to how the universe works. Do you honestly believe there will be a point where humanity learns all the secrets and has an understanding of everything? I think there will be a lot of good guesses, but no one will really know everything, and that's the role religion/beliefs come into play.
This is utter nonsense. If you want to take a fairy tale book written i don't know, 1600 years ago during Constantinople's rule and make it as face value fact of everything Christianity believes in, then lets also take into account that every single generation since the scientific method has come into place has been incorrect about theories on how the universe works. Do me a favor, pick up a scientific study done in the 50s or 60s or 70s, each one will propose theories and show evidence that what they think is correct and there's a huge chance that it's all outdated and made incorrect by today's modern theories.
You're comparing religious nut jobs who can't think for themselves and take what the bible says at face value to people who don't understand what science really is, but believes that science explains everything. Both are wrong. Science is the art of explaining how the universe works as best they can. Religion is faith of a higher power that created the universe and it's set of rules. The two never ever meet. Anyone that claims otherwise is a complete and utter fool. Science can never disprove religion. Religion can never disprove science.
wow... anything is addictive. You can be addicted to video games, eating, getting sick, exercising, sex, alcohol, sleeping, etc. Anything that involves mental thought can becoming addictive. You can be chemically, psycologically, mentally, etc addicted to just about anything. I think the main difference is that chemically dependent drugs cause you to go through withdrawal, which in some cases like heroine and the like, can kill you.
I've never heard of anyone dying from pot withdrawal. Cans of coke withdrawal (caffeine really) will give you headaches and a bad attitude.
I'm all for education, but i don't think a solid education goes hand in hand with over a trillion dollar industry that's been created to teach at the college level. Education should be free for those who want it (and work hard to get it). Running an education scam for profit should be illegal.
when regulations are created by the same industry they're trying to regulate it doesn't work. Might as well can the whole system. All it's doing is generating billions of dollars for those who are supposed to be regulating the industry. Your tax dollars at work.
Did we have regulation during enron? The housing crisis? Regulation in deepwater? The answer to all of this is yes, how much did it help? Ha.
It's called price and demand.
If no one is willing to pay the for the products you are trying to sell, you won't make a profit.
Schools that charge 60k for an education are selling a overblown product.
The ONLY way students can afford this is through loans, which makes them economics slaves for a good portion of their lives afterwards.
Take away the loans and schools will have to compete with what students can afford. The ones that don't will go bankrupt or will start offering educations at prices that people can afford.
a) space is so huge there's no need to run into anyone.
b) how many people are still crossing the world in boats colonizing continents? Maybe they have better things to do than to personally land on every planet.
c) Our recorded history is about 4000 years old? compared to the age of the earth (4.5 billion years) or the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) it's quite possible they visited before or will in the future if they exist. Saying that they haven't gotten here yet so they don't exist is really jumping to a conclusion really fast. If they have probes, there's a possibility they exist now but we're just unable to detect them.
d) the only thing that's hard about space travel is getting off the earth. Traveling to another planet when you're already in space is just a matter of time. We already have highly efficient ion engines to do the thrusting.
e) it's inevitable. as our resources dwindle and living space becomes hard to come by there has to be an evolution. That of course being space. Watch as 3d fabricators become more and more evolved over time. Watch as autonomous fabricators are sent to the moon and asteroids, watch them transform those raw materials into usable goods and create livable areas for humankind.
f) Actually traveling to another star is hard. Especially if there's no way to go faster than light. Even if we're limited, it would only take 50-100 years at a fraction of the speed of light to reach the few nearest star systems. It's even possible today, just at a tremendous cost. If you're able to build your spaceship in space first, the cost goes drastically down.
the fact that the editors green lighted this with no checking whatsoever is disturbing to say the least. Oh wait a second, this is slashdot! no editors and no journalistic integrity whatsoever! carry on.
so what if he's trying to sell it? Some how it lessens the fact that it's his?