Just because they are a Sweedish Government doesn't negate the "government" part of what they are. Just because they say that they need these assurances before they subpoena data doesn't mean that this is how the system will work.
The trademark and seeming compulsion of all governments is ability to completely ignore what they commit to, may times without real recourse. Sure public outcry can be harsh, but no one responsible goes to jail. Selective enforcement, coercion by litigation or force, and antithetical movements within the government itself could result in this "darknet" becoming the largest honeypot in history.
So, by your standards, guidance should only be applied to the children who are victimized? Those who attack others without provocation should, as in the GP poster's case, be allowed to continue their actions regardless of the damage and torture they inflict? But those who are attacked need to be told to resort to violent action to defend themselves, without regard for the regularity of the attacks, and without any concern for those who are attacking them and their motivations?
I can't honestly think you mean what your post says. In one part you say that this guy should fight back, and at the same time implying that the actions of the instigators are innocent, even proper...condoning them as something you would do yourself. By this logic it would be better for the GP poster to actually be a bully! Maybe he should cruise the middle schools punching 6th graders in the face so they can learn to "Suck it up"and to "fight back". However, you then say, as if you had a psychotic schism or an attack of "pussy" (your word) conscience, children should be taught not to fight with eachother. Which is it?
Another problem I have: conflict is the result of two people actively disagreeing. Escalation from misunderstanding or animosity can be logically extrapolated from a verbal conflict to a physical fight, though this is seldom justified. What the GP poster discribes is not a "fight" or the result of a "conflict" either. It is an unprovoked attack. In my estimation there is a huge difference in the motivations and thoughts behind a fight arising from some kind of conflict and onging unilaterally initiated unprovoked attacks. That you cannot see the difference is puzzling to me. That you equate the two is mind boggling.
Think of a child that sees another child and then, for no reason other than their own internal motives, decided that the other person is deserving of a physical beating. Realize that for a child to do this they have to feel justified in initiating violence against someone else and also feel reasonably safe from punishment, all the while their conscience must be silent. The sickness of mind inherent in a child who does this is unfathomable to me. Maybe I am one of those "pussies" you talk about and that is why I could never understand this desire to randomly hurt people around me for no other reason then my own self gratification.
Sure, teach them not to fight, I agree. But realize that lashing out at someone, especially when you specifically target those that are not your physical equal or when you attack from the cowardly safety of a group of peers, is a sign of a much deeper and more sinister problem than just being a kid and having bad judgement that needs "guidance."
A binary component explosive is not likely to work if mixed with 10 parts Evian, 3 parts "grape drank", 1 part red bull, and 25 parts diet coke.
In other words, chemical reactions that burn faster than the speed of sound need relatively pure reagents. If you go tossing some high fructose corn syrup and carbonated water in there, that previously explosive compound becomes inert junk.
Don't believe me? Try pouring equal parts coca-cola and gasoline into your Maserati and see how well your engine runs.
I find it strange that many people in the US loudly proclaim the vast gulf between Iraq and bin Laden on grounds of religious, political, and ideological differences; even going so far as stating there is was dreadful animosity between the two.
He's a politician for fark's sake. This should read:
Bush gives government funding to churches because it gets him votes from his base. Bush denies government funding for stem cell research because it gets him votes from his base.
Now that he's a lame duck just insert...because it gets his supporters in the houses votes.
If his base decided that embryonic stem cell research was the way and the truth according to Jesus, Joseph, and Mary he'd probably change his tune. All politicians fall prey to this.
A stock broker is not going to leave if his employer says he can go.
A commission sales person may not leave either depending on the circumstances.
People who watch other people's children for a living will have problems getting to the polls too.
Personally, if I can stay at work till 9:00 and make $500 TODAY, I won't go to vote. Self preservation (short term) sometimes trumps the desire to go and make a civic difference(long term). Having voting day be a holliday eliminates that connundrum.
"liquid petrolium distillate that is highly inflammable "
Actually the liquid is not very flammable at all. The vapors, very flammable, the liquid not so much.
If you have ever seen someone extinguish a cigarette in liquid gasoline you know what I mean. Not for the very bright or faint of heart, but it is a useful demonstration.
So your answer to insane govenmnet policies and laws that circumvent our freedom and eviscerate the constitution is more of the same restrictive interference that you are already upset about?
That is what you are saying, right? Since the government changed the laws and now can do all these bad things then we should make it compulsory for other companies to do bad things as well. Sure, making companies responsible for their advertising space sounds like a good way to cut down on obnoxious ads. However, if that level and type of corporate accountability is mandated then you sould have no problem with constant monitoring of your hotel room by video and audio just to make sure that you don't do anything illegal in there, right?
"The fundamental law of nature that will not allow any communications without a physical channel is the theory of information. If you could store or send information without passing through a physical medium and without spending energy doing it, the second law of thermodynamics would be violated, time would not be unidirectional."
You make the assumption that telepathy is some magical thing and that because it is magical it cannot exist. Circular reasoning at its finest.
Sharks and other creatures have glands that can detect electromagnetic variations in the nervous system and muscles of their prey from a distance. The human body is a complex bio-organic slush that conducts electricity and even works as an antenna. Current science could easily explain short range telepathy with electromagnetic theory.
Of course this leaves out completely the subject of "what is telepathy." Is it a full on mental conversation like Dr. Xavier or just a vague notion about what someone else is feeling or thinking, etc. Sure, I bet we could think up plenty of definitions of telepathy that are completely impossible in this universe, but there are quite a few that are entirely plausible.
Nice post with extra chunky detail. It made my inner geek cry and sing. Thank you.
Since you understand that not respecting the specifications on a Li battery can have some seriously detrimental effects, just imagine what this could do in the hands of Joe sixpack.
I didn't read the GP poster, but I did see your comment. With regard to the article and some other posts, here's an ethicaly problematic situation:
You are in a car accident that severely dammages your internal organs. The doctors think that with current medical knowledge you have a 25% chance of living. They decide that, in your best interests, they should keep you on ice for a year or two to see if treatments get better. Your distraught life (or even worse, estranged but still custodian of your next of kin rights a-la-Schiavo) partner acquiesces to the doctor's request and you get popscicled.
There are now a ton of problems:
1) Are you then financially responsible for years of cold storage that you did not authorize?
2) How certain do doctors need to be about curing/fixing you before they thaw you out?
3) Do insurance companies include cryogenic storage in their coverage? (maybe not ethical, but if they offer it to some and not others you start to get in that territory)
4) How do you, a popscicle, assert your right to be thawed out, or for that matter to remain frozen?
5) Who reviews cases of medical statis and how are the decisions made?
Those are all ethical problems that arise from the thereputical use of medical stasis. There are many more, most of which will not be revealed until (if/when) this actually is implemented.
I think what you are referring to are typical "end of life" questions that can easily be answered with a properly worded will/contract and a large enough check.
Then again, as this becomes more popular and methods of cryogenic preservation become even better (where tissues are not damaged), you may have to consider some things:
1) What happens if you are frozen by said cryogenics company and they (somehow) go bust. What are their obligations to you, the popsicle, when they are bankrupt?
2) Is the government obligated to respect your ethical views about your neurological pathways and provide subsidy to keep you frozen in case of corporate insolvency?
3) What is the recourse of your estate if you get thawed unintentionally?
4) Can a policy change in a private cryogenics company be disputed by the estate of a popsicle?
5) Can the government declare eminent domain on your other organs as long as they preserve your specified soul's repository of the cranium?
6) If they are sold at market value, who gets the revenue, your estate/heirs or the cryogenics company that is storing you?
So you see, there are quite a few ethical problems with this technology. If each individual gets to define what their ehtical beliefs are like you did ("belief that my soul is encoded in my pattern of neural connections") it then becomes even worse.
Government oversight is likely to follow the arrival of this technology. Your, or someone else's, frozen toes are bound to get stepped on when the regulations get developed. Retroactive abortion to help people who are alive through organ donation from the preserved dead could be the nail in the cryogenic coffin that holds your remains sacred. The same logical and valid arguments that people use to justify experiments with embryonic stem cells (greater need, not human life, potential to do good/save lives, etc.) could lead to revocation of your privelege to remain intact after death.
The ethical questions are huge, myriad, and unfathomable to people like us who haven't experienced the shock waves that a technology like this will cause when/if it become prevalent.
Tell that to "Chris and Cosey" and other artists who intentionally use frequencies and volumes of sound below the conscious throshold of human hearing for effect in their music.
An MP3 will discard the frequencies that you body feels but your ear cannot hear. It will also lose many of the subconscious sounds that can still be percieved by the human ear physically but that are below the throshold of immediate perception when layered under other sounds.
Even worse...the artists that do this do so for a specific artistic reason. If you make an MP3 out of their music you are eviscerating it and destroying hte artistic message of the original artist.
Pedantic as it is, the boundaries that are being deliniated by the courts start to resemble a distinction without a difference. Mark my words, this decision will be used as precedent eventually, and when it is the consumer will be the one who pays.
I buy a VCR tape of a Hollywood movie. I then take this tape to a business that is experienced with cutting and splicing the magnetic tape inside VCR type tapes. I instruct them to cut out certain portions of the tape and splice it back together. I, of course, pay them for their services and take my tape home and play if for my Mormon grandmother.
Am I violating copyright law in this process?
If I am not, why the difference between cutting the tape and editing? Because a copy is made? Because the bits are digital? Because...why?
Don't get me wrong, I like my movies raw and unedited, but this just stinks of the big guys stomping on the rights of other people through a cash manipulated instrument (the courts!)
I think the easy answer is to create a DVD player/DVD-software-for-PC player that can accept a software plug in that will automatically skip the parts in question.
Then the "censorship" can be accomplished by the consumer without altering the media itself. Think of it as an auto fastforward button that knows where you want to stop. With the right buffering you could even make it "seamless" for the end user.
The cleaning company could even then allow the consumer to download many different types of rating edits. You could get one for the kids that had lots of "edits" and then later play one for the adults that only has the worst parts out, or none at all.
The beauty of this idea is that you keep the media in its original format to keep the lawyers happy but can "dial-in" the restrictions you want.
"The group can only move forward with consensus when that person does so. So in a group, you're not at the mercy of the top of curve so much as at the mercy of those at the bottom. Here in the US, Bush's appeal is somewhat an indication of this."
Based on this, dosent the possibility exist that you are the slowest person in the crowd and you cannot understand what is going on?
I dont say this to flame, but what I mean is that with political situations you never can tell the results of things until they are over. Sometimes the results take decades to understand.
In retrospect FDR was one of the greatest traitors and failed leaders in American (or maybe even world) history. You have no farther to look than his unpreparedness and lack of effort in the treaty of versailles negotiations. Similarly, Jimmy Carter did more to create problems with communism in South America than he did to solve it, not to mention creating problems in the Middle East. Reagan "ended the cold war" but the full results are not known as yet because of the state of flux in Russia so the jury is still out on his decisions there.
I know it is easy to look at the current situation and dictate that it is now going and will end badly. However the implicit lack of foresight in humanity puts almost all of us in the same bucket when it comes to understanding what will happen.
In addition I would say that, since this is JUST NOW making the news, we should realize that most people with brain injuries do not have the proper circumstances to experience this kind of regeneration.
Whether it was the anatomy of the accident or the anatomy of the patient himself deserves some study. Unfortunately, if it is a quirk of the combination of the location of his injuries and his particular physiology we might not be able to reproduce it in other patients.
With the high cost of litigation it makes you wonder why the record companies don't just BUY allofmp3.com.
That way they get the customer base intact to either market to or to prosecute into oblivion, depending on which shoulder diety they are listening to that day.
And if, while in the process of digging through the innards of the company, their heads spontaneously pop out of their own asses they might even be able to turn it into the greatest coup of the recording industry's murky transition into the digital age.
Or they could just keep on doing stupid shit like suing a Russian company in England. WTF?!?! Is that like suing dead grandmas in the USA or what?
Add in complete drug screens for all illegal and non-prescribed substances and we have a start. Mandatory personality inventories are in order as well. Then add in 100% completely transparent disclosure of any elected official's personal and entire family's financial records and you are getting closer.
With the assinine activities of the elected officials lately I am under the impression that they are all either singly or in combination:
a) on some seriously good drugs
b) totally batshit fucking nuts
c) being paid off by some ultra-discoridan secret society
SHIT! As fucked as they seem they might even be under the control of aliens. Time to bust out the anal probes...
"Since you're saved by faith alone, you don't have to do jack..."
Exactly right! You have detected the fact that salvation is for everyone, not just adults. The price of entry is free and the mentality necessary to understand is unbelievable low. Even children grasp the concept readily. There is no eletist mentality to salvation. All are welcome and the path has been made smooth.
Of course that is just the tip of the iceberg. For some the tip is all they will see. However if you look at the mechanics of salvation in scripture you will realize that even the faith itself that is required for salvation is a gift from God.
Now, a child will accept a gift without understanding what it is, and the immature, who may know the value of the gift, accepts it as their due. However, a true adult looks on the value of a gift and through responsibility, humility, and recognition reciprocates. Therefore, the method and quality of that reciprocation is based on the integrity and capacity of the one who receives the gift. A child does not know the appropriate response. The immature cannot overcome their own ignorance and lack of humility. Only mature adults posess the ability to properly evaluate, understand, and respond to a gift like this.
However, this does not restrict children of all ages from participating in the salvation, which is as it should be. In fact, the smart reversionists realize that they don't even have to go to the mega-church. The salvation is from God, not from a pastor of building.
The really amazing thing I see is the fact that you have to read the whole article to get to the part where they talk about privacy rights and how they are dealt with. The first part of all the articles and news stories I have listened to has to do with FUD, obfuscation, senationalization, and downright misinformation. Some one with intellectual honesty has to ask themselves when does this type of writing cease to be "pulp-pushing" in order to drive sales (still lamentable in a news publication) and start to be yelling "civil rights violation!" at an ACLU convention. Are they really trying to help the US, are they trying to sell papers are the expense of US safety, or are they trying to influence US government policy?
In other words, the self stated reason that the news organizations ran the the story in spite of the government's protests is because they are concerned about the questions regarding privacy of the American public. Logically, the question on most responsible citizens minds is "are they looking at me?" However, the MO of the media seems to be: drag anyone involved through the mud first, sully their appearance, associate them with rights violations, question their motives and integrity, then *maybe* explain what they are actually doing on the back page. The disconnect in their stated motives and their actual practices makes me curious.
I value the institutions of the fouth estate for the light that they posess to illuminate abuses and excesses, however, they have unilaterally made a decision with respect to the disposition of this program and its usefulness to the US. Consider: if this is a legal practice and the way that it is performed is consistent with the US Constitution and law, what can we do to recover from this?
Slashdot Mirror
Just because they are a Sweedish Government doesn't negate the "government" part of what they are. Just because they say that they need these assurances before they subpoena data doesn't mean that this is how the system will work.
The trademark and seeming compulsion of all governments is ability to completely ignore what they commit to, may times without real recourse. Sure public outcry can be harsh, but no one responsible goes to jail. Selective enforcement, coercion by litigation or force, and antithetical movements within the government itself could result in this "darknet" becoming the largest honeypot in history.
"SawStop is to table saws as airbags are to cars. It should be more of a non-destructive safety mechanism"
The unintended consequences of your analogy are ironic.
Airbags are now federally mandated on passenger cars in the USA.
Everyone has an ass.
So, by your standards, guidance should only be applied to the children who are victimized? Those who attack others without provocation should, as in the GP poster's case, be allowed to continue their actions regardless of the damage and torture they inflict? But those who are attacked need to be told to resort to violent action to defend themselves, without regard for the regularity of the attacks, and without any concern for those who are attacking them and their motivations?
I can't honestly think you mean what your post says. In one part you say that this guy should fight back, and at the same time implying that the actions of the instigators are innocent, even proper...condoning them as something you would do yourself. By this logic it would be better for the GP poster to actually be a bully! Maybe he should cruise the middle schools punching 6th graders in the face so they can learn to "Suck it up"and to "fight back". However, you then say, as if you had a psychotic schism or an attack of "pussy" (your word) conscience, children should be taught not to fight with eachother. Which is it?
Another problem I have: conflict is the result of two people actively disagreeing. Escalation from misunderstanding or animosity can be logically extrapolated from a verbal conflict to a physical fight, though this is seldom justified. What the GP poster discribes is not a "fight" or the result of a "conflict" either. It is an unprovoked attack. In my estimation there is a huge difference in the motivations and thoughts behind a fight arising from some kind of conflict and onging unilaterally initiated unprovoked attacks. That you cannot see the difference is puzzling to me. That you equate the two is mind boggling.
Think of a child that sees another child and then, for no reason other than their own internal motives, decided that the other person is deserving of a physical beating. Realize that for a child to do this they have to feel justified in initiating violence against someone else and also feel reasonably safe from punishment, all the while their conscience must be silent. The sickness of mind inherent in a child who does this is unfathomable to me. Maybe I am one of those "pussies" you talk about and that is why I could never understand this desire to randomly hurt people around me for no other reason then my own self gratification.
Sure, teach them not to fight, I agree. But realize that lashing out at someone, especially when you specifically target those that are not your physical equal or when you attack from the cowardly safety of a group of peers, is a sign of a much deeper and more sinister problem than just being a kid and having bad judgement that needs "guidance."
A binary component explosive is not likely to work if mixed with 10 parts Evian, 3 parts "grape drank", 1 part red bull, and 25 parts diet coke.
In other words, chemical reactions that burn faster than the speed of sound need relatively pure reagents. If you go tossing some high fructose corn syrup and carbonated water in there, that previously explosive compound becomes inert junk.
Don't believe me? Try pouring equal parts coca-cola and gasoline into your Maserati and see how well your engine runs.
I find it strange that many people in the US loudly proclaim the vast gulf between Iraq and bin Laden on grounds of religious, political, and ideological differences; even going so far as stating there is was dreadful animosity between the two.
This seems to sing a different song, eh?
He's a politician for fark's sake. This should read:
...because it gets his supporters in the houses votes.
Bush gives government funding to churches because it gets him votes from his base.
Bush denies government funding for stem cell research because it gets him votes from his base.
Now that he's a lame duck just insert
If his base decided that embryonic stem cell research was the way and the truth according to Jesus, Joseph, and Mary he'd probably change his tune. All politicians fall prey to this.
A stock broker is not going to leave if his employer says he can go.
A commission sales person may not leave either depending on the circumstances.
People who watch other people's children for a living will have problems getting to the polls too.
Personally, if I can stay at work till 9:00 and make $500 TODAY, I won't go to vote. Self preservation (short term) sometimes trumps the desire to go and make a civic difference(long term). Having voting day be a holliday eliminates that connundrum.
"So how many human-like robots have you seen on your way to work lately? I'll help -- None!"
DUH!
Unless you watch C-span on the way to work you aren't likely to see the cyborgs.
"liquid petrolium distillate that is highly inflammable "
Actually the liquid is not very flammable at all. The vapors, very flammable, the liquid not so much.
If you have ever seen someone extinguish a cigarette in liquid gasoline you know what I mean. Not for the very bright or faint of heart, but it is a useful demonstration.
So your answer to insane govenmnet policies and laws that circumvent our freedom and eviscerate the constitution is more of the same restrictive interference that you are already upset about?
That is what you are saying, right? Since the government changed the laws and now can do all these bad things then we should make it compulsory for other companies to do bad things as well. Sure, making companies responsible for their advertising space sounds like a good way to cut down on obnoxious ads. However, if that level and type of corporate accountability is mandated then you sould have no problem with constant monitoring of your hotel room by video and audio just to make sure that you don't do anything illegal in there, right?
"The fundamental law of nature that will not allow any communications without a physical channel is the theory of information. If you could store or send information without passing through a physical medium and without spending energy doing it, the second law of thermodynamics would be violated, time would not be unidirectional."
You make the assumption that telepathy is some magical thing and that because it is magical it cannot exist. Circular reasoning at its finest.
Sharks and other creatures have glands that can detect electromagnetic variations in the nervous system and muscles of their prey from a distance. The human body is a complex bio-organic slush that conducts electricity and even works as an antenna. Current science could easily explain short range telepathy with electromagnetic theory.
Of course this leaves out completely the subject of "what is telepathy." Is it a full on mental conversation like Dr. Xavier or just a vague notion about what someone else is feeling or thinking, etc. Sure, I bet we could think up plenty of definitions of telepathy that are completely impossible in this universe, but there are quite a few that are entirely plausible.
Nice post with extra chunky detail. It made my inner geek cry and sing. Thank you.
Since you understand that not respecting the specifications on a Li battery can have some seriously detrimental effects, just imagine what this could do in the hands of Joe sixpack.
How do you spell "BZZZZT!" anyway?
I didn't read the GP poster, but I did see your comment. With regard to the article and some other posts, here's an ethicaly problematic situation:
You are in a car accident that severely dammages your internal organs. The doctors think that with current medical knowledge you have a 25% chance of living. They decide that, in your best interests, they should keep you on ice for a year or two to see if treatments get better. Your distraught life (or even worse, estranged but still custodian of your next of kin rights a-la-Schiavo) partner acquiesces to the doctor's request and you get popscicled.
There are now a ton of problems:
1) Are you then financially responsible for years of cold storage that you did not authorize?
2) How certain do doctors need to be about curing/fixing you before they thaw you out?
3) Do insurance companies include cryogenic storage in their coverage? (maybe not ethical, but if they offer it to some and not others you start to get in that territory)
4) How do you, a popscicle, assert your right to be thawed out, or for that matter to remain frozen?
5) Who reviews cases of medical statis and how are the decisions made?
Those are all ethical problems that arise from the thereputical use of medical stasis. There are many more, most of which will not be revealed until (if/when) this actually is implemented.
I think what you are referring to are typical "end of life" questions that can easily be answered with a properly worded will/contract and a large enough check.
Then again, as this becomes more popular and methods of cryogenic preservation become even better (where tissues are not damaged), you may have to consider some things:
1) What happens if you are frozen by said cryogenics company and they (somehow) go bust. What are their obligations to you, the popsicle, when they are bankrupt?
2) Is the government obligated to respect your ethical views about your neurological pathways and provide subsidy to keep you frozen in case of corporate insolvency?
3) What is the recourse of your estate if you get thawed unintentionally?
4) Can a policy change in a private cryogenics company be disputed by the estate of a popsicle?
5) Can the government declare eminent domain on your other organs as long as they preserve your specified soul's repository of the cranium?
6) If they are sold at market value, who gets the revenue, your estate/heirs or the cryogenics company that is storing you?
So you see, there are quite a few ethical problems with this technology. If each individual gets to define what their ehtical beliefs are like you did ("belief that my soul is encoded in my pattern of neural connections") it then becomes even worse.
Government oversight is likely to follow the arrival of this technology. Your, or someone else's, frozen toes are bound to get stepped on when the regulations get developed. Retroactive abortion to help people who are alive through organ donation from the preserved dead could be the nail in the cryogenic coffin that holds your remains sacred. The same logical and valid arguments that people use to justify experiments with embryonic stem cells (greater need, not human life, potential to do good/save lives, etc.) could lead to revocation of your privelege to remain intact after death.
The ethical questions are huge, myriad, and unfathomable to people like us who haven't experienced the shock waves that a technology like this will cause when/if it become prevalent.
Tell that to "Chris and Cosey" and other artists who intentionally use frequencies and volumes of sound below the conscious throshold of human hearing for effect in their music.
An MP3 will discard the frequencies that you body feels but your ear cannot hear. It will also lose many of the subconscious sounds that can still be percieved by the human ear physically but that are below the throshold of immediate perception when layered under other sounds.
Even worse...the artists that do this do so for a specific artistic reason. If you make an MP3 out of their music you are eviscerating it and destroying hte artistic message of the original artist.
Pedantic as it is, the boundaries that are being deliniated by the courts start to resemble a distinction without a difference. Mark my words, this decision will be used as precedent eventually, and when it is the consumer will be the one who pays.
I knew your comment looked familiar...
Oh yeah, its in Wikipedia under this heading.
Nice textbook example you got there.
Consider this:
I buy a VCR tape of a Hollywood movie. I then take this tape to a business that is experienced with cutting and splicing the magnetic tape inside VCR type tapes. I instruct them to cut out certain portions of the tape and splice it back together. I, of course, pay them for their services and take my tape home and play if for my Mormon grandmother.
Am I violating copyright law in this process?
If I am not, why the difference between cutting the tape and editing? Because a copy is made? Because the bits are digital? Because...why?
Don't get me wrong, I like my movies raw and unedited, but this just stinks of the big guys stomping on the rights of other people through a cash manipulated instrument (the courts!)
I think the easy answer is to create a DVD player/DVD-software-for-PC player that can accept a software plug in that will automatically skip the parts in question.
Then the "censorship" can be accomplished by the consumer without altering the media itself. Think of it as an auto fastforward button that knows where you want to stop. With the right buffering you could even make it "seamless" for the end user.
The cleaning company could even then allow the consumer to download many different types of rating edits. You could get one for the kids that had lots of "edits" and then later play one for the adults that only has the worst parts out, or none at all.
The beauty of this idea is that you keep the media in its original format to keep the lawyers happy but can "dial-in" the restrictions you want.
"The group can only move forward with consensus when that person does so. So in a group, you're not at the mercy of the top of curve so much as at the mercy of those at the bottom. Here in the US, Bush's appeal is somewhat an indication of this."
Based on this, dosent the possibility exist that you are the slowest person in the crowd and you cannot understand what is going on?
I dont say this to flame, but what I mean is that with political situations you never can tell the results of things until they are over. Sometimes the results take decades to understand.
In retrospect FDR was one of the greatest traitors and failed leaders in American (or maybe even world) history. You have no farther to look than his unpreparedness and lack of effort in the treaty of versailles negotiations. Similarly, Jimmy Carter did more to create problems with communism in South America than he did to solve it, not to mention creating problems in the Middle East. Reagan "ended the cold war" but the full results are not known as yet because of the state of flux in Russia so the jury is still out on his decisions there.
I know it is easy to look at the current situation and dictate that it is now going and will end badly. However the implicit lack of foresight in humanity puts almost all of us in the same bucket when it comes to understanding what will happen.
"It's not Karma when someone dies. Everyone dies eventually"
Correct!
Karma, in Ken's case, is being ressurected as a drought loving plant with urea intolerance over his own grave.
Good point.
In addition I would say that, since this is JUST NOW making the news, we should realize that most people with brain injuries do not have the proper circumstances to experience this kind of regeneration.
Whether it was the anatomy of the accident or the anatomy of the patient himself deserves some study. Unfortunately, if it is a quirk of the combination of the location of his injuries and his particular physiology we might not be able to reproduce it in other patients.
With the high cost of litigation it makes you wonder why the record companies don't just BUY allofmp3.com.
That way they get the customer base intact to either market to or to prosecute into oblivion, depending on which shoulder diety they are listening to that day.
And if, while in the process of digging through the innards of the company, their heads spontaneously pop out of their own asses they might even be able to turn it into the greatest coup of the recording industry's murky transition into the digital age.
Or they could just keep on doing stupid shit like suing a Russian company in England. WTF?!?! Is that like suing dead grandmas in the USA or what?
Add in complete drug screens for all illegal and non-prescribed substances and we have a start. Mandatory personality inventories are in order as well. Then add in 100% completely transparent disclosure of any elected official's personal and entire family's financial records and you are getting closer.
With the assinine activities of the elected officials lately I am under the impression that they are all either singly or in combination:
a) on some seriously good drugs
b) totally batshit fucking nuts
c) being paid off by some ultra-discoridan secret society
SHIT! As fucked as they seem they might even be under the control of aliens. Time to bust out the anal probes...
This is not an indictment of Thangodin.
"Since you're saved by faith alone, you don't have to do jack..."
Exactly right! You have detected the fact that salvation is for everyone, not just adults. The price of entry is free and the mentality necessary to understand is unbelievable low. Even children grasp the concept readily. There is no eletist mentality to salvation. All are welcome and the path has been made smooth.
Of course that is just the tip of the iceberg. For some the tip is all they will see. However if you look at the mechanics of salvation in scripture you will realize that even the faith itself that is required for salvation is a gift from God.
Now, a child will accept a gift without understanding what it is, and the immature, who may know the value of the gift, accepts it as their due. However, a true adult looks on the value of a gift and through responsibility, humility, and recognition reciprocates. Therefore, the method and quality of that reciprocation is based on the integrity and capacity of the one who receives the gift. A child does not know the appropriate response. The immature cannot overcome their own ignorance and lack of humility. Only mature adults posess the ability to properly evaluate, understand, and respond to a gift like this.
However, this does not restrict children of all ages from participating in the salvation, which is as it should be. In fact, the smart reversionists realize that they don't even have to go to the mega-church. The salvation is from God, not from a pastor of building.
The really amazing thing...
The really amazing thing I see is the fact that you have to read the whole article to get to the part where they talk about privacy rights and how they are dealt with. The first part of all the articles and news stories I have listened to has to do with FUD, obfuscation, senationalization, and downright misinformation. Some one with intellectual honesty has to ask themselves when does this type of writing cease to be "pulp-pushing" in order to drive sales (still lamentable in a news publication) and start to be yelling "civil rights violation!" at an ACLU convention. Are they really trying to help the US, are they trying to sell papers are the expense of US safety, or are they trying to influence US government policy?
In other words, the self stated reason that the news organizations ran the the story in spite of the government's protests is because they are concerned about the questions regarding privacy of the American public. Logically, the question on most responsible citizens minds is "are they looking at me?" However, the MO of the media seems to be: drag anyone involved through the mud first, sully their appearance, associate them with rights violations, question their motives and integrity, then *maybe* explain what they are actually doing on the back page. The disconnect in their stated motives and their actual practices makes me curious.
I value the institutions of the fouth estate for the light that they posess to illuminate abuses and excesses, however, they have unilaterally made a decision with respect to the disposition of this program and its usefulness to the US. Consider: if this is a legal practice and the way that it is performed is consistent with the US Constitution and law, what can we do to recover from this?