Second: If all of the vehicles in your immediate vicinity are traveling at the same speed in the same direction their velocity relative to eachother is 0. You dont have to swerve to avoid a chair across the desk from you, do you? The same will apply to groups of vehicles traveling the highways under computer control.
Third: Last time I drove down the freeway the only obstacles were other cars.
If all the cars are computer controlled there will be little to avoid. Lanes will be occupied by distance to destination and switching lanes will only happen at certain times. The "corridor" is like the highway and the obstacles simulate other vehicles.
Surface streets are another matter entirely. However, once the kinks are ironed out on the highway systems they can move to the surface streets.
In other words the first wave of computer controlled cars will be much more like the situations discribed in the test than current driving is.
A movement with a good idea behind it will outlive its creators without worrying about who will carry the torch.
Sure planning for the future is important, but if what you are advocating is powerful enough and important enough it will thrive on its own. Opposition will galvanize the supporters. Any infringement on the original tenents will be seen as an overture to outright heresy.
You see it all the time with religions and political movements. The heads are interchangable, it's the message that matters and, ultimately, endures.
Why should such a fantastic idea as the freedom of software and the right of self determination with regard to your media be any different?
"dictatorial state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."
Your logic fails you and proves you false.
You state that Bush is a fascist, however, if the last condition were true things would progress differently.
Take gay-rights of all kinds, or the whims of the democratidc party. Bush feels that these things are detrimental to the nation. Yet he is powerless in many ways to prevent the advance of either agenda. A dictatorial state would not knuckle under to ideas from groups or individuals that it felt were contradictory to the health of the nation. The nation, being superior, could just order the incarceration or death of those who oppose it.
"Fascism and corporatism are closely linked"
This may be true, but corporatism and business are two different things. Since you are fond of quoting "authoratative sources" lets try Meriam Webster on "corporatism."
"the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
While corporate interests are influential with the government, it is but one of many suitors. However corporatism is not present in the USA. When all the companies in the US are annexed by the US government then you can start complainig in this category. That is what corporatism means, BTW. It dosen't mean that corporations have influence with government. Nor does it talk about affinity between government and business, nor the presence of powerful corporations. It is the government control of corporations and the integration of society into a dual corporate structure. See the definition above. This is a far cry from your refutation of the previous poster. he invoked the word business...you amplified that innocent word into the concept of corporatism which is entirely different. Either you are being intillectually dishonest in your equation of these two things or you just dont know what the hell you are talking about. Either way you lose credibility.
As for strong nationalism...I think with the high degree of anti-American sentiment from the Americans on this very website you can see that it is not present.
If you think that all these characteristics are represented by the government, or even by Bush (flawed as he may be) you are severley deluded.
Or maybe you should look at some different sources for you definition of fascism. Meriam webster for instance...
political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
That seems to jibe with history and sensible peoples definition of what fascism is. It may not, however, provide support for your vitriolic and somewhat melodramatic political sentiments.
Starting with the New Teastament for the nature of Christ is a faulty and intellectually ill-fated idea.
It is akin to reading the dictionary before you know the language.
The nature of Christ is fully explained and established earlier on in the Old Testament. In direct words and more importantly the basic ideas, mechanics, and characteristics of who the Lamb of God is supposed to be, Christ is explaind as God and Man. Even the attacks of Satan in an attempt to prevent the sacrifice of Christ on the cross have attacked the humanity and the Divinity of Christ.
"...because the churches were based on households and the priest was the head of household""
This ia a non-sequitur because the Bible constantly declares the male to be the head of household. This is established from the beginning of the Bible and obvious in its prevalence. Maybe contemporary Christians of the early scriptures had social conventions that made women the head of household, but the scriptures hold a different position. It was not "taken away" per-se, as males have had the sole responsibility of the priesthood from the Old Testament to the New.
If you had read the New Testament you would have also learned that many early churches were filled with people that were comitting sinful acts like incest, bestiality, thievery, etc. Does the presence of these activitivities make them right according to the Bible? When these prectices were condemned in a letter to the Church was Paul "taking away" the ability of these people to practice procreation with animals, children, and same sex partners? Of course not; however they were practiced. Just because some people in the early centuries misunderstood things dosen't mean that in retrospect we cannot make things clear. Just because some people in the early centuries believed certian things (the Gnostics for example) doesn't mean that they are consistent with the Bible.
I think what you have is a secular viewpoint that is infused with historical happenings, and very little understanding of the doctrinal side of the Bible. There is no other way to explain your obvious, and seemingly contradictory, depth of knowldege about the historical happenings with regard to the early church combined with your absolute lack of knowledge of the doctrinal tenents of the Bible itself.
Unfortunately their position is as untenable as those of the ID crowd.
Most of them rely upon innacurate or easily misunderstood English translations of the Bible. Then they look at the geneaolgy records in the Old Testament to extrapolate unrecoreded history up to a known historical date. This gives them the age of the Earth.
Everything else falls by the wayside in their monomaniacal and myopic approach to the scriptures.
Unfortunately they don't even study their source material closely. For being such experts on the Bible, going so far as to attribute to God himself a devious nature capable of the silly things you mention in justification of thir supposed scholarly studies of the age of the Earth, the leave out completely the passages of the Bible that discuss how Satan was on Earth BEFORE the creation of the Garden. They don't get that the Earth was literally (according to the Bible) put on ice for a period of time before the creation of mankind, and that it was subsequently "cleaned up" in preparation for the garden. Not only that, but they seem to think that the state of perfection in the garden lasted for maybe a year or ten at most, though there is no literal reference to the time that Adam and Eve spent there. Being immortal at that time (before they sinned) it could have been quite a long time...
I always view anyone who is willing to attribute to God characteristics that the Bible specifically says that he does not posess (lying, deciet, etc.) with a jaundiced and circumspect eye. What do they believe in more? The Bible's characterization of God or their own mathematical calculations based on geneaolgy that may be intentionally incomplete?
Nice troll. Great how you link to an article that you cannot read the details of without soul sucking registration.
If he is communicating with someone overseas that happens to be on a watch list as a person of interest, suspected terrorist, or confirmed enemy of the US then, yes, he probably is being eavesdropped on.
IF he is sending email to his grandmother in Moscow he is probably not getting any action from the NSA, CIA, or any other government agency.
No one wants to hear about justification for this or any action on the part of the sitting president. At least not here.
There will be no discussion. Only ranting, raving, spin, and outright distortion will be accepted.
You have been warned. If you attempt to interrupt our apocalyptic flamefest of the president again with you references to fact, reason, and (GOD FORBID!) the linked article itself, we will have to mod you into oblivion.
Have a nice day, and dont forget to wear your groupthink beanie when you login to/.!
"Why didn't the free market solve the MS problem -- you know, the one where Windows is crap."
"Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."
You posted this on a website where, when new survelience or information gathering technologies are presented that help in fighting terrorism or laws regarding such, people routinely present a myriad of ideas to help the would be murders avoid detection, detention, and have palusible deniability.
And you're complaining about barcodes?
Re:constructive and nonconstructive
on
Hooked On The Web
·
· Score: 1
"i do not think a nonstop blogger is in the same league as a nonstop gambler"
Reminds me of a comic I read once...
Mom: Did you know our son is gambling on college football games?
Dad: Really? Well is he winning?
Mom: Well...He is up by $3,000...BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!
It's only an addiction when you loose. As long as you're up everyone thinks you're a genius.
I have an anecdote that may yellow that rosy picture of the Canadian medical system you are trying to paint.
Someone I know was living in Canada when they injured their back. The injury was declared to be "not life threatening." Because of this the wait time for the MRI was quite long. More than four months (16 weeks in your time.) During the time between the MRI and the injury this woman was in extreme pain and unable to move from a laying position.
She eventually found a way to get into a private MRI (at considerable cost). Once that was done her case proceeded quickly and with treatment she was back on her feet in less than 3 weeks.
So, in Canada "extreme pain and immobility" is not "life threatening" and therefore not worthy of a MRI in what I would call a "reasonable" time. Reasonable in the US is something like 3 hours. We are talking almost 3 orders of magnitude different. That's all, just a thousand times longer, no biggie.
Hey, I'm not saying that America is perfect, just that your picture of Canada has been discredited by Canadians that I know. It's kind of hard to take what you say as veritas when I have seen differnt first hand.
And as for the bankrupcy, maybe you haven't been close to someone who has experienced bankrupcy from medical expenses, but it can be liberating for them. Having those medical bills off of your credit profile and out of your economic portfolio of obligations allows many people who survive severe illness to purchase new cars and homes within less than a year of the bankrupcy. Individual bankrupcy in the US is very different from what you probably think it is.
"...pray they don't live in the US when they get ill"
I live in Houston. I meet people all the time from all over the world. Many of them are here in Houston to visit (or stay at) the Houston Medical Center. The reason? They want to live and we just happen to have one of the world's best cancer treatment centers here, Md. Anderson. As for me, (and many others from all ove the world apparently) I would rather go where I can get the best medical service available, regardless of price, when I have a serious illness. If I live through it I will happily file bankrupcy. You can't spend all that money you saved on medical expenses from the grave, you know.
This is simiar to speaking "salesman" but you have to appeal to large groups of people instead of just 1 or 2.
Here's the deal: Contrary to popular opinion "family values" are still important to a large group of the voting population. In fact, the Democrats are so convinced of this that they are doing focus groups with their elected representatives on how to present their party opinions in a way that will appeal to the "moral majority." They think that the voting group that elected the current president was motivated by this desire for moral responsibility in Washington. The Republicans have been playing this card for so long that they have sewn up the "religious" vote with it to boot.
So, the result is that to get something done you have to attach it to a political football like "family values." In addition, the party and politicians that can attach themselves to an effort like this gain status as someone who supports these values and will "fight for the voters!" In other words the reason that they talk about this in terms of "think of the children" is that money is not as large a motivating factor for this group of voters as protecting children and being "moral." It benefits them as well because of the perceived status and reputation enchancement for them and their party to be involved in this as well.
Last thing: always watch where they don't want you to watch. Just like a magic trick they will use your natural tendencies to pull the wool over your eyes. Every time a government body gets involved in something they will seek to expand their realm of influence and the scope of their power. Sure, on the surface it looks like they are "helping" us (or some of us, I dont have cable, nor will I) but watch for the power grab. Somehow they will add the ability to mandate something new to the FCC. It never fails.
"So on top of all the typical moral concerns this subject raises"
I don't have any moral concerns about this technology or others like it. All I feel when I see research like this is hope.
Growing up I watched my father struggle with activities that most of us take for granted. I am not just referring to walking and picking things up, but breathing and being able to get out of bed to see his children growing up. You see, he was in the last wave of people who had Polio before the vaccine was developed and released. He had a pretty bad case (iron lung, coma for about a year) and had to live with permanent physical deformities and constant pain.
So, whether it is a hand for someone who has lost theirs, sensory enchancement for someone with nerve damage, or a neural implant for someone with a head injury, I am all for it. People should not have to suffer if applied science and medicine can overcome it. If I have a moral concern it is that we need to develop this technology (and others in the same ilk) as fast as possible and we are not doing it.
In my opinion this is where medicine needs to go. This kind of research should take it's place with cancer and pathogen research when it comes to funding and effort invested. What good is all this cancer research if you are so tired of living that you are begging to die when you finally do get it?
"I believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old"
The only question I would pose to you at this point is this: Tell me exactly where in the Bible it states how long Adam and Eve lived before the fall. Sure geneologies after the fall may calculate to 6000 rough years, but what about inside the Garden?
And as for the rest of the post I completely agree. If you take the presence of space aliens as a given that would necessitate development of weapons to defend ourselves.
Americans won't change until we have the same geography, population density, and decentralized economic opportinity of "insert name of country you are trying to compare us to here."
America is an anomoly in many ways. Trying to take a microcosm that is drastically unrelated and apply it to the US is just plain silly.
...wouldn't you just love to spend Bill's seemingly ulimited resources to fund your pet project?
The guy is in the business of developing the biggest/fastest/floppiest computers he can. Having the deep-as-the-Pacific pockets of Microsoft to dig into can't hurt his chances of implementing all his pie-in-the-sky ideas.
You actually want some crusty old physics professor to come in and help in the show?
Damn, most physics professors that I had in college would instantly cause narcolepsy in more than 45% of the viewing audience. Not good for ratings if you ask me.
Maybe a guest appearance by Bill Nye? That might have a little more camera appeal.
I have seen evidence to the contrary from the likes of "Psychology Today" and other publications. Nicotine has been rated before (in one article I read in the 90's) as the most addictive substance, coming in even higher than injected methamphetamines.
Of course these were the opinions of a panel of 200 of the most well known and reputable psychiatrists and psychologists in the US. Whether this strengthens the argument for this supposition or totally invalidates is left up to the indiviual.
All I personally know is this. I know some ex-meth addicts. Hard users that would stay high for sometimes weeks at a time. They at times snorted, smoked, and shot meth.
The one thing that they all have in common after kicking that incredibly huge albino monkey off their back? They all smoke like chimneys.
"but they are actually some of the cutest mammals in existance and they make excellent pets."
He is exactly right on this point, however let me relate and anecdote.
My wife and I bought a rat as a pet. We named it Fuzzmeister. We adored our little rat, but we did not know whether or not is was a boy or a girl ratling.
UNTIL ONE DAY... Fuzzmeister grew testicles the size of large grapes overnight! I kid you not.
You have no idea how embarrasing it is to have your pet rat come bounding out of the bedroom, his gigantic nutsack bouncing off the hardwood floors with a muffled thwacking noise, right in front of friends, family, and guests. There is really no way to put it into words.
The moral of this story is, if you are going to buy one of these exceedingly cute and adorable furry woodland creatures for a pet, GET A GIRL!
Yes there is some sarcasm there and I was being intentionally obtuse as well.
As for WMD's and nukes I think its just a matter of scale as to when something becomes a WMD, reagardless of what components it is made of.
For instance, if you developed a nuclear hand-grenade that had similar power and scope to a conventional grenade does that make it a WMD? I, personally, think not.
Slashdot Mirror
First: You have to start somewhere.
Second: If all of the vehicles in your immediate vicinity are traveling at the same speed in the same direction their velocity relative to eachother is 0. You dont have to swerve to avoid a chair across the desk from you, do you? The same will apply to groups of vehicles traveling the highways under computer control.
Third: Last time I drove down the freeway the only obstacles were other cars.
If all the cars are computer controlled there will be little to avoid. Lanes will be occupied by distance to destination and switching lanes will only happen at certain times. The "corridor" is like the highway and the obstacles simulate other vehicles.
Surface streets are another matter entirely. However, once the kinks are ironed out on the highway systems they can move to the surface streets.
In other words the first wave of computer controlled cars will be much more like the situations discribed in the test than current driving is.
A movement with a good idea behind it will outlive its creators without worrying about who will carry the torch.
Sure planning for the future is important, but if what you are advocating is powerful enough and important enough it will thrive on its own. Opposition will galvanize the supporters. Any infringement on the original tenents will be seen as an overture to outright heresy.
You see it all the time with religions and political movements. The heads are interchangable, it's the message that matters and, ultimately, endures.
Why should such a fantastic idea as the freedom of software and the right of self determination with regard to your media be any different?
"dictatorial state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."
Your logic fails you and proves you false.
You state that Bush is a fascist, however, if the last condition were true things would progress differently.
Take gay-rights of all kinds, or the whims of the democratidc party. Bush feels that these things are detrimental to the nation. Yet he is powerless in many ways to prevent the advance of either agenda. A dictatorial state would not knuckle under to ideas from groups or individuals that it felt were contradictory to the health of the nation. The nation, being superior, could just order the incarceration or death of those who oppose it.
"Fascism and corporatism are closely linked"
This may be true, but corporatism and business are two different things. Since you are fond of quoting "authoratative sources" lets try Meriam Webster on "corporatism."
"the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction
While corporate interests are influential with the government, it is but one of many suitors. However corporatism is not present in the USA. When all the companies in the US are annexed by the US government then you can start complainig in this category. That is what corporatism means, BTW. It dosen't mean that corporations have influence with government. Nor does it talk about affinity between government and business, nor the presence of powerful corporations. It is the government control of corporations and the integration of society into a dual corporate structure. See the definition above. This is a far cry from your refutation of the previous poster. he invoked the word business...you amplified that innocent word into the concept of corporatism which is entirely different. Either you are being intillectually dishonest in your equation of these two things or you just dont know what the hell you are talking about. Either way you lose credibility.
As for strong nationalism...I think with the high degree of anti-American sentiment from the Americans on this very website you can see that it is not present.
If you think that all these characteristics are represented by the government, or even by Bush (flawed as he may be) you are severley deluded.
Or maybe you should look at some different sources for you definition of fascism. Meriam webster for instance...
political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
That seems to jibe with history and sensible peoples definition of what fascism is. It may not, however, provide support for your vitriolic and somewhat melodramatic political sentiments.
Starting with the New Teastament for the nature of Christ is a faulty and intellectually ill-fated idea.
It is akin to reading the dictionary before you know the language.
The nature of Christ is fully explained and established earlier on in the Old Testament. In direct words and more importantly the basic ideas, mechanics, and characteristics of who the Lamb of God is supposed to be, Christ is explaind as God and Man. Even the attacks of Satan in an attempt to prevent the sacrifice of Christ on the cross have attacked the humanity and the Divinity of Christ.
"...because the churches were based on households and the priest was the head of household""
This ia a non-sequitur because the Bible constantly declares the male to be the head of household. This is established from the beginning of the Bible and obvious in its prevalence. Maybe contemporary Christians of the early scriptures had social conventions that made women the head of household, but the scriptures hold a different position. It was not "taken away" per-se, as males have had the sole responsibility of the priesthood from the Old Testament to the New.
If you had read the New Testament you would have also learned that many early churches were filled with people that were comitting sinful acts like incest, bestiality, thievery, etc. Does the presence of these activitivities make them right according to the Bible? When these prectices were condemned in a letter to the Church was Paul "taking away" the ability of these people to practice procreation with animals, children, and same sex partners? Of course not; however they were practiced. Just because some people in the early centuries misunderstood things dosen't mean that in retrospect we cannot make things clear. Just because some people in the early centuries believed certian things (the Gnostics for example) doesn't mean that they are consistent with the Bible.
I think what you have is a secular viewpoint that is infused with historical happenings, and very little understanding of the doctrinal side of the Bible. There is no other way to explain your obvious, and seemingly contradictory, depth of knowldege about the historical happenings with regard to the early church combined with your absolute lack of knowledge of the doctrinal tenents of the Bible itself.
"Young Earth Christians?"
That is what I am assuming you are talking about.
Unfortunately their position is as untenable as those of the ID crowd.
Most of them rely upon innacurate or easily misunderstood English translations of the Bible. Then they look at the geneaolgy records in the Old Testament to extrapolate unrecoreded history up to a known historical date. This gives them the age of the Earth.
Everything else falls by the wayside in their monomaniacal and myopic approach to the scriptures.
Unfortunately they don't even study their source material closely. For being such experts on the Bible, going so far as to attribute to God himself a devious nature capable of the silly things you mention in justification of thir supposed scholarly studies of the age of the Earth, the leave out completely the passages of the Bible that discuss how Satan was on Earth BEFORE the creation of the Garden. They don't get that the Earth was literally (according to the Bible) put on ice for a period of time before the creation of mankind, and that it was subsequently "cleaned up" in preparation for the garden. Not only that, but they seem to think that the state of perfection in the garden lasted for maybe a year or ten at most, though there is no literal reference to the time that Adam and Eve spent there. Being immortal at that time (before they sinned) it could have been quite a long time...
I always view anyone who is willing to attribute to God characteristics that the Bible specifically says that he does not posess (lying, deciet, etc.) with a jaundiced and circumspect eye. What do they believe in more? The Bible's characterization of God or their own mathematical calculations based
on geneaolgy that may be intentionally incomplete?
The reason that "Usama bin Laden" was not chosen as person of the year?
One word...interview.
Not only would it be difficult to secure one, but who would volunteer to administer it?
Nice troll. Great how you link to an article that you cannot read the details of without soul sucking registration.
If he is communicating with someone overseas that happens to be on a watch list as a person of interest, suspected terrorist, or confirmed enemy of the US then, yes, he probably is being eavesdropped on.
IF he is sending email to his grandmother in Moscow he is probably not getting any action from the NSA, CIA, or any other government agency.
No one cares about your silly FACTS, sir.
/.!
No one wants to hear about justification for this or any action on the part of the sitting president. At least not here.
There will be no discussion. Only ranting, raving, spin, and outright distortion will be accepted.
You have been warned. If you attempt to interrupt our apocalyptic flamefest of the president again with you references to fact, reason, and (GOD FORBID!) the linked article itself, we will have to mod you into oblivion.
Have a nice day, and dont forget to wear your groupthink beanie when you login to
"Why didn't the free market solve the MS problem -- you know, the one where Windows is crap."
"Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed."
Damn, those guys were smart...
You're worried about kids and parents, but I'm worried about ME...
If they put full motion lesbian porn on the box of coco-pebbles I'm as good as dead from obesity!
You know, there are only a few of these things left.
It's kinda like the McRib.
We better hurry to Borneo to make sure we get one to eat before they are all gone.
You posted this on a website where, when new survelience or information gathering technologies are presented that help in fighting terrorism or laws regarding such, people routinely present a myriad of ideas to help the would be murders avoid detection, detention, and have palusible deniability.
And you're complaining about barcodes?
"i do not think a nonstop blogger is in the same league as a nonstop gambler"
Reminds me of a comic I read once...
Mom: Did you know our son is gambling on college football games?
Dad: Really? Well is he winning?
Mom: Well...He is up by $3,000...BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT!
It's only an addiction when you loose. As long as you're up everyone thinks you're a genius.
I have an anecdote that may yellow that rosy picture of the Canadian medical system you are trying to paint.
Someone I know was living in Canada when they injured their back. The injury was declared to be "not life threatening." Because of this the wait time for the MRI was quite long. More than four months (16 weeks in your time.) During the time between the MRI and the injury this woman was in extreme pain and unable to move from a laying position.
She eventually found a way to get into a private MRI (at considerable cost). Once that was done her case proceeded quickly and with treatment she was back on her feet in less than 3 weeks.
So, in Canada "extreme pain and immobility" is not "life threatening" and therefore not worthy of a MRI in what I would call a "reasonable" time. Reasonable in the US is something like 3 hours. We are talking almost 3 orders of magnitude different. That's all, just a thousand times longer, no biggie.
Hey, I'm not saying that America is perfect, just that your picture of Canada has been discredited by Canadians that I know. It's kind of hard to take what you say as veritas when I have seen differnt first hand.
And as for the bankrupcy, maybe you haven't been close to someone who has experienced bankrupcy from medical expenses, but it can be liberating for them. Having those medical bills off of your credit profile and out of your economic portfolio of obligations allows many people who survive severe illness to purchase new cars and homes within less than a year of the bankrupcy. Individual bankrupcy in the US is very different from what you probably think it is.
"...pray they don't live in the US when they get ill"
I live in Houston. I meet people all the time from all over the world. Many of them are here in Houston to visit (or stay at) the Houston Medical Center. The reason? They want to live and we just happen to have one of the world's best cancer treatment centers here, Md. Anderson. As for me, (and many others from all ove the world apparently) I would rather go where I can get the best medical service available, regardless of price, when I have a serious illness. If I live through it I will happily file bankrupcy. You can't spend all that money you saved on medical expenses from the grave, you know.
Apparently you don't speak "Washington."
This is simiar to speaking "salesman" but you have to appeal to large groups of people instead of just 1 or 2.
Here's the deal: Contrary to popular opinion "family values" are still important to a large group of the voting population. In fact, the Democrats are so convinced of this that they are doing focus groups with their elected representatives on how to present their party opinions in a way that will appeal to the "moral majority." They think that the voting group that elected the current president was motivated by this desire for moral responsibility in Washington. The Republicans have been playing this card for so long that they have sewn up the "religious" vote with it to boot.
So, the result is that to get something done you have to attach it to a political football like "family values." In addition, the party and politicians that can attach themselves to an effort like this gain status as someone who supports these values and will "fight for the voters!" In other words the reason that they talk about this in terms of "think of the children" is that money is not as large a motivating factor for this group of voters as protecting children and being "moral." It benefits them as well because of the perceived status and reputation enchancement for them and their party to be involved in this as well.
Last thing: always watch where they don't want you to watch. Just like a magic trick they will use your natural tendencies to pull the wool over your eyes. Every time a government body gets involved in something they will seek to expand their realm of influence and the scope of their power. Sure, on the surface it looks like they are "helping" us (or some of us, I dont have cable, nor will I) but watch for the power grab. Somehow they will add the ability to mandate something new to the FCC. It never fails.
Just watch.
"So on top of all the typical moral concerns this subject raises"
I don't have any moral concerns about this technology or others like it. All I feel when I see research like this is hope.
Growing up I watched my father struggle with activities that most of us take for granted. I am not just referring to walking and picking things up, but breathing and being able to get out of bed to see his children growing up. You see, he was in the last wave of people who had Polio before the vaccine was developed and released. He had a pretty bad case (iron lung, coma for about a year) and had to live with permanent physical deformities and constant pain.
So, whether it is a hand for someone who has lost theirs, sensory enchancement for someone with nerve damage, or a neural implant for someone with a head injury, I am all for it. People should not have to suffer if applied science and medicine can overcome it. If I have a moral concern it is that we need to develop this technology (and others in the same ilk) as fast as possible and we are not doing it.
In my opinion this is where medicine needs to go. This kind of research should take it's place with cancer and pathogen research when it comes to funding and effort invested. What good is all this cancer research if you are so tired of living that you are begging to die when you finally do get it?
"I believe the earth is only about 6,000 years old"
The only question I would pose to you at this point is this: Tell me exactly where in the Bible it states how long Adam and Eve lived before the fall. Sure geneologies after the fall may calculate to 6000 rough years, but what about inside the Garden?
And as for the rest of the post I completely agree. If you take the presence of space aliens as a given that would necessitate development of weapons to defend ourselves.
"American's won't change until this happens
Americans won't change until we have the same geography, population density, and decentralized economic opportinity of "insert name of country you are trying to compare us to here."
America is an anomoly in many ways. Trying to take a microcosm that is drastically unrelated and apply it to the US is just plain silly.
Most toilets have the flow knob stuffed way behind them. Reaching for this (for most people) puts your FACE uncomfortably near the bowl.
I just hope you haven't had any unfortunate colissions with floating debris in your attempt to circumvent an impending overflow.
2. even an 'infected' urnial cannot transmit it's infection unless you come into physical contact with it
Hmmm...didn't know that.
Note to self: Stop eating the complimentary pink cakes from the public urinals.
...wouldn't you just love to spend Bill's seemingly ulimited resources to fund your pet project?
The guy is in the business of developing the biggest/fastest/floppiest computers he can. Having the deep-as-the-Pacific pockets of Microsoft to dig into can't hurt his chances of implementing all his pie-in-the-sky ideas.
Smart move if you ask me.
You actually want some crusty old physics professor to come in and help in the show?
Damn, most physics professors that I had in college would instantly cause narcolepsy in more than 45% of the viewing audience. Not good for ratings if you ask me.
Maybe a guest appearance by Bill Nye? That might have a little more camera appeal.
I have seen evidence to the contrary from the likes of "Psychology Today" and other publications. Nicotine has been rated before (in one article
I read in the 90's) as the most addictive substance, coming in even higher than injected methamphetamines.
Of course these were the opinions of a panel of 200 of the most well known and reputable psychiatrists and psychologists in the US. Whether this strengthens the argument for this supposition or totally invalidates is left up to the indiviual.
All I personally know is this. I know some ex-meth addicts. Hard users that would stay high for sometimes weeks at a time. They at times snorted, smoked, and shot meth.
The one thing that they all have in common after kicking that incredibly huge albino monkey off their back? They all smoke like chimneys.
"but they are actually some of the cutest mammals in existance and they
make excellent pets."
He is exactly right on this point, however let me relate and anecdote.
My wife and I bought a rat as a pet. We named it Fuzzmeister. We adored our little rat, but we did not know whether or not is was a boy or a girl ratling.
UNTIL ONE DAY... Fuzzmeister grew testicles the size of large grapes overnight! I kid you not.
You have no idea how embarrasing it is to have your pet rat come bounding out of the bedroom, his gigantic nutsack bouncing off the hardwood floors with a muffled thwacking noise, right in front of friends, family, and guests. There is really no way to put it into words.
The moral of this story is, if you are going to buy one of these exceedingly cute and adorable furry woodland creatures for a pet, GET A GIRL!
Yes there is some sarcasm there and I was being intentionally obtuse as well.
As for WMD's and nukes I think its just a matter of scale as to when something becomes a WMD, reagardless of what components it is made of.
For instance, if you developed a nuclear hand-grenade that had similar power and scope to a conventional grenade does that make it a WMD? I, personally, think not.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/chemical%20warfare It's there, kinda, but again I was being obtuse.