I understand their confusion though. Evolution tells us that "survival of the fittest" happens, and all they see are Texans, which make that hard to believe.
The local teenagers setup a mobile rave outside your house and start pumping out One Direction and Ke$ha at 120db. Unable to do anything to get them to move you decide to pack your family in your car and get out of the area for a while. While driving you get lost in the rain and trying to find out where you are you lose control of the car and crash into a pole killing your kids and putting your wife in hospital.
Obviously the teenagers driving you out of your home are in no way to blame.
With a wife who is allergic to strawberries, she has learned that she can't trust anything at work. People put strawberries on plates of everything, and some people think it is enough to just take them off. But the juice from them will get into the plate, then seep into the other food, and she ends up being violently ill to the point where she needs to go to hospital. It would be better if people left them on the plate because then she would know what was most likely safe; but people know she is allergic and therefore take them off. It doesn't matter how much she tells them, they always think they are doing the right thing.
She has no defense against this, and she has been told that people are "just trying to help".
The SMS / phone thing is similar. I know I can SMS my wife when she is driving because her phone is in her bag, on the back seat, on silent. Why? Because it removes any temptation to answer the phone. If she had a history of responding to SMSs while driving and I constantly SMS'ed her, then I would consider my behavior to be empowerment, and that is something I shouldn't do.
I don't disagree with your main point, but as someone who put on 50kg over 5 years while dealing with a chronic illness that was misdiagnosed and mistreated, options could be lifesavers. Put on drugs that caused weight retention, and not being able to exercise without having a seizure, was not a good time in my life. Something like this might have meant the 4 year recovery may have been doable in 1 or less.
There are always reasons that people can't "just do" something that is good for them - not excuses, reasons. I hope that you never have to deal with a serious illness or injury - because it not only knocks you off your lifestyle, it knocks you off your high horse.
The problem will be when he manages to make the technology feasible to use world-wide, but no one can afford it because while the cost of the reactor might only be $150m, the licencing fees will be $50m a year.
I for one am looking forward to seeing a lot less imagery of a mostly naked man spreadeagled on a cross and bleeding from wounds on his back, head, hands, feet and torso. That image is everywhere.
I read an article once that was a backlash against media owners making a grand issues of cases where they wanted 'reasonable doubt' because they had already made up their minds about the way they wanted the case to go. (Not saying that happened here).
Basically it was stating that if you can make a huge deal of a case, then the chances of conviction go down due to the fact that the massive publicity would cause the about of disinformation to increase and therefore the doubt as well. Meaning reasonable doubt was more like, due to events that happened after the actual crime.
The conclusion the article made (it was in something paper based, and I can't find a copy online - sorry) was a little extreme in my opinion. It stated that crimes such as murder and rape should be immediately media blocked and only reported after the trial is complete; except to announce that the crime happened with no details or names of suspects. Any breach would cause fines, and in extreme cases charges of perverting the course of justice. While I feel this is extreme, I think there is something to be said for it.
So as someone who isn't a US citizen... let me get this straight...
In the US people will go absolutely mad if there is any sign of gun control legislation. However if you use a gun, even not shooting it at someone but as a warning shot, that's illegal.
Everyone should be able to carry a gun, no one should be able to use it...
It must be good to be in an industry making things that society tells people they should have, but should never use. Never need to provide a warranty because if the item fails, the person who finds that out is the one in trouble.
Thanks for clearing up for me how the data is stored, I never knew that.
I have seen superglue put on door handles, I have seen broken glass on stairs, I have seen wire strung low through doorways. It's disgusting what people do for fun.
Having seen people put razor blades on water slides (well the after effects), and stuff like that, it's the control of needing to put your eye close to a scanner in such a way that some moron will think it's funny to place a needle sticking out of the lens.
My issues with stuff like this is more about safety; with one exception.
You stop working for a company and you hand your security pass back and you are out of their system. If it's a bio-metric scan then they have that forever and you can't make them get rid of it. [I leave ACompany and go work for BCompany. ACompany uses the data they have on file to access BCompany and I am in trouble.]
When your SQL server and Sharepoint require all your users to have an X-Box sitting on their desk with a camera pointed at them and recording all your conversations... that's when MS will consider themselves the winners.
If you are an Australian citizen who doesn't appear in the list of 100 most wealthy, or an elected official in the LNP, you are correct. If you are in one of those minorities, you have it backwards.
The LNP is being completely honest when it says it wants to support minorities. These are the minorities it is talking about.
A lot of this confusion is caused by Murdoch's Blog... I mean the mainstream media in Australia... saying the Greens are doing one thing, while the Greens are in fact doing something else.
The thing I feel is that people who consider marriage to be purely something based on The Bible and therefore no part of government should be completely and utterly prohibited from getting divorced - just as their scripture dictates should be the case.
It's the concept that they want to tout marriage as something sacred, then ignore their most sacred text with regards to everything related to marriage that makes me feel they have completely lost the right to be involved in this argument. They don't consider marriage to be sanctified, or else they wouldn't ignore The Bible as often as they do. It's childish behavior, throwing tantrums over something because they don't want to share.
Considering the number of religions that use marriage, the number of societies that use marriage, the number of governments that use marriage and the history of marriage existing before many of the currently popular religions (including Christianity) - would it not make more sense to separate marriage from religion?
When you get married in a civil service you are proclaimed to be married. When you get married in most religious services I have seen, the key phrase seems to be "Joined Under God" - even during the service the word marriage is secondary.
So lets let each religion define their own term, and let marriage be the socially acceptable form that incorporates all races, creeds, colours, and orientations.
Of course this wont happen, because a group of people who follow a man who preached tolerance, generosity and hope all spend their lives practicing discrimination, greed and fear.
Considering marriage was around long before The Bible in it's current form, and that marriage exists within many different religions; I could go for this if people who were married outside the church could call themselves "married" and inside the church had to use the term "joined under God".
The only reason they were able to publicly attack the ABC was because they had almost every other media outlet bending over backwards to help them. The LNP have already stated their plans to privatize the ABC, which will almost certainly bundle it with the existing media. After which, the government not supported by the owners of big media will not be able to get their message out at all. How do you distribute a dissenting attitude when the media is refusing to report truth?
This has led to revolution elsewhere in the world, but Australia is currently to lazy to care. Bread and circuses. (or beer and football)
The current government is doing what it can, but all you need to do is read the speeches and policies posted on the web, and then compare it to the media coverage of the same. The media is lying, sometimes outright, sometimes just through omission; but that is the only exposure to information that 90% of Australians are getting. Unless we want our government to attempt to seize control of the media, then this next election will be purchased by people like Murdoch. It's a shame, it's disgusting, it's happening.
Very well summed up. I wish Australia would see these comments, and even if they didn't take them at face value, at least think about them. At no point in history do I remember being exposed to such a massive fraud being perpetuated on the public by the media elite. I saw Tony Abbott speak once and he was a complete disaster, couldn't string two sentences together clearly, unable to answer questions that weren't phrased to permit a bottled answer, unwilling to look at or even recognize the existence of people who disagreed with him.
Total media coverage of this disaster... ZERO? Never made it to the news at all that I saw or heard. However Gillard was to do something as harmless as a spoonerism, there would be multiple articles talking about her incompetence.
I am also worried that come September, I will for the first time in my life, be ashamed to be an Australian.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand their confusion though. Evolution tells us that "survival of the fittest" happens, and all they see are Texans, which make that hard to believe.
Would make a great single season TV Series. Though you would want Malcolm McDowell to play the crazy writer.
Surely if Bing gives you a link to Bing, then Bing is linking you to malware...
The local teenagers setup a mobile rave outside your house and start pumping out One Direction and Ke$ha at 120db.
Unable to do anything to get them to move you decide to pack your family in your car and get out of the area for a while.
While driving you get lost in the rain and trying to find out where you are you lose control of the car and crash into a pole killing your kids and putting your wife in hospital.
Obviously the teenagers driving you out of your home are in no way to blame.
With a wife who is allergic to strawberries, she has learned that she can't trust anything at work. People put strawberries on plates of everything, and some people think it is enough to just take them off. But the juice from them will get into the plate, then seep into the other food, and she ends up being violently ill to the point where she needs to go to hospital. It would be better if people left them on the plate because then she would know what was most likely safe; but people know she is allergic and therefore take them off. It doesn't matter how much she tells them, they always think they are doing the right thing.
She has no defense against this, and she has been told that people are "just trying to help".
The SMS / phone thing is similar. I know I can SMS my wife when she is driving because her phone is in her bag, on the back seat, on silent. Why? Because it removes any temptation to answer the phone. If she had a history of responding to SMSs while driving and I constantly SMS'ed her, then I would consider my behavior to be empowerment, and that is something I shouldn't do.
I don't disagree with your main point, but as someone who put on 50kg over 5 years while dealing with a chronic illness that was misdiagnosed and mistreated, options could be lifesavers. Put on drugs that caused weight retention, and not being able to exercise without having a seizure, was not a good time in my life. Something like this might have meant the 4 year recovery may have been doable in 1 or less.
There are always reasons that people can't "just do" something that is good for them - not excuses, reasons. I hope that you never have to deal with a serious illness or injury - because it not only knocks you off your lifestyle, it knocks you off your high horse.
You would have been in exactly the same boat, except too poor to know about it.
Destination - Golgafrincham
The problem will be when he manages to make the technology feasible to use world-wide, but no one can afford it because while the cost of the reactor might only be $150m, the licencing fees will be $50m a year.
I for one am looking forward to seeing a lot less imagery of a mostly naked man spreadeagled on a cross and bleeding from wounds on his back, head, hands, feet and torso. That image is everywhere.
I read an article once that was a backlash against media owners making a grand issues of cases where they wanted 'reasonable doubt' because they had already made up their minds about the way they wanted the case to go. (Not saying that happened here).
Basically it was stating that if you can make a huge deal of a case, then the chances of conviction go down due to the fact that the massive publicity would cause the about of disinformation to increase and therefore the doubt as well. Meaning reasonable doubt was more like, due to events that happened after the actual crime.
The conclusion the article made (it was in something paper based, and I can't find a copy online - sorry) was a little extreme in my opinion. It stated that crimes such as murder and rape should be immediately media blocked and only reported after the trial is complete; except to announce that the crime happened with no details or names of suspects. Any breach would cause fines, and in extreme cases charges of perverting the course of justice. While I feel this is extreme, I think there is something to be said for it.
So as someone who isn't a US citizen... let me get this straight...
In the US people will go absolutely mad if there is any sign of gun control legislation.
However if you use a gun, even not shooting it at someone but as a warning shot, that's illegal.
Everyone should be able to carry a gun, no one should be able to use it...
It must be good to be in an industry making things that society tells people they should have, but should never use. Never need to provide a warranty because if the item fails, the person who finds that out is the one in trouble.
Thanks for clearing up for me how the data is stored, I never knew that.
I have seen superglue put on door handles, I have seen broken glass on stairs, I have seen wire strung low through doorways. It's disgusting what people do for fun.
Having seen people put razor blades on water slides (well the after effects), and stuff like that, it's the control of needing to put your eye close to a scanner in such a way that some moron will think it's funny to place a needle sticking out of the lens.
My issues with stuff like this is more about safety; with one exception.
You stop working for a company and you hand your security pass back and you are out of their system. If it's a bio-metric scan then they have that forever and you can't make them get rid of it. [I leave ACompany and go work for BCompany. ACompany uses the data they have on file to access BCompany and I am in trouble.]
When your SQL server and Sharepoint require all your users to have an X-Box sitting on their desk with a camera pointed at them and recording all your conversations... that's when MS will consider themselves the winners.
Does Apple have permission from Sun to do this?
What happens when there are too many iClouds making the sky dark?
You would have to be an Oracle to sort all this out.
It all depends on your perspective.
If you are an Australian citizen who doesn't appear in the list of 100 most wealthy, or an elected official in the LNP, you are correct.
If you are in one of those minorities, you have it backwards.
The LNP is being completely honest when it says it wants to support minorities. These are the minorities it is talking about.
A lot of this confusion is caused by Murdoch's Blog... I mean the mainstream media in Australia... saying the Greens are doing one thing, while the Greens are in fact doing something else.
The thing I feel is that people who consider marriage to be purely something based on The Bible and therefore no part of government should be completely and utterly prohibited from getting divorced - just as their scripture dictates should be the case.
It's the concept that they want to tout marriage as something sacred, then ignore their most sacred text with regards to everything related to marriage that makes me feel they have completely lost the right to be involved in this argument. They don't consider marriage to be sanctified, or else they wouldn't ignore The Bible as often as they do. It's childish behavior, throwing tantrums over something because they don't want to share.
Considering the number of religions that use marriage, the number of societies that use marriage, the number of governments that use marriage and the history of marriage existing before many of the currently popular religions (including Christianity) - would it not make more sense to separate marriage from religion?
When you get married in a civil service you are proclaimed to be married.
When you get married in most religious services I have seen, the key phrase seems to be "Joined Under God" - even during the service the word marriage is secondary.
So lets let each religion define their own term, and let marriage be the socially acceptable form that incorporates all races, creeds, colours, and orientations.
Of course this wont happen, because a group of people who follow a man who preached tolerance, generosity and hope all spend their lives practicing discrimination, greed and fear.
Considering marriage was around long before The Bible in it's current form, and that marriage exists within many different religions; I could go for this if people who were married outside the church could call themselves "married" and inside the church had to use the term "joined under God".
The only reason they were able to publicly attack the ABC was because they had almost every other media outlet bending over backwards to help them. The LNP have already stated their plans to privatize the ABC, which will almost certainly bundle it with the existing media. After which, the government not supported by the owners of big media will not be able to get their message out at all. How do you distribute a dissenting attitude when the media is refusing to report truth?
This has led to revolution elsewhere in the world, but Australia is currently to lazy to care. Bread and circuses. (or beer and football)
The current government is doing what it can, but all you need to do is read the speeches and policies posted on the web, and then compare it to the media coverage of the same. The media is lying, sometimes outright, sometimes just through omission; but that is the only exposure to information that 90% of Australians are getting. Unless we want our government to attempt to seize control of the media, then this next election will be purchased by people like Murdoch. It's a shame, it's disgusting, it's happening.
Very well summed up. I wish Australia would see these comments, and even if they didn't take them at face value, at least think about them. At no point in history do I remember being exposed to such a massive fraud being perpetuated on the public by the media elite. I saw Tony Abbott speak once and he was a complete disaster, couldn't string two sentences together clearly, unable to answer questions that weren't phrased to permit a bottled answer, unwilling to look at or even recognize the existence of people who disagreed with him.
Total media coverage of this disaster... ZERO? Never made it to the news at all that I saw or heard. However Gillard was to do something as harmless as a spoonerism, there would be multiple articles talking about her incompetence.
I am also worried that come September, I will for the first time in my life, be ashamed to be an Australian.
Thank you.
Not sure why this got modded down, it makes good solid sense to me.
Thanks for posting.