If I understand your comment correctly, you just want the thought behind my statement.
First in regards to:
Well as a closed system maybe but, if your "society" is being propped up via funding and arms, and you have no need to actually produce anything yourself or even produce engineers at all, then it isn't as much of a problem.
The US spends over half a trillion dollars on the DOD a year. For decades, we have moved away from producing goods to a service providing nation. Granted, this is starting to improve a bit but it's nothing to celebrate, yet.
That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.
If we let them provoke us though, then they will likely feed off that and use our involvement to deflect criticism away from their own otherwise self-defeating brutality.
The US government has been doing this for decades as well. Every few years we find a new enemy, rally cry and release the hounds of war.
If you want me to do all the work for you and provide specific examples of the above, let me know. There are many.
You seemed to entirely miss the point of that book. Apart from just being a fun read, it ultimately points out that we cannot create a flawless system of control over other intelligent beings. At first glance, the three laws of robotics are a fool proof system for keeping robots in check, so much so the three laws have withstood over half a century of scrutiny.
The anecdotes in the book are all scenarios specifically created to show the flaws of this system, concluding that we will undoubtedly create A.I. but never be able to control it.
Oddly enough, the last story of I Robot seems to have a different conclusion. It's as if Asimov accepted the outcome of that story as the best option for humanity, contradicting the rest of the book.
But on the flip side of that we also seem to have a resurgence of hard core single player games. For the longest time big block buster games had to have both, but now we are seeing a change in both directions. I am referring to Tomb Raider and Wolfenstein.
I, for one, am liking the shifting market, on both fronts.
You said exactly "I've never heard of a strong social community that also involved high weapon ownership" and I responded to that point alone. The rest of your argument goes to show that it is not in fact gun regulation that we need but a better education system and I agree whole heartedly on that point.
Stop swinging your political dicks around. Its not capitalism or socialism's fault. They are merely ideas. The problem is corruption and it can happen to any system. So advertently opposed party lines only helps one group of people, the politically corrupt and morally bankrupt.
This movement is trying to break ground on both parts: understanding and altering genes, and distributing those changes throughout a system. Its really not that infeasible.
Why should there be regulations put in place to protect someone from themselves? What right does the government have to intervene there?
Seat belt laws do just that. In fact, there is a strong correlation between the implementation of seat belt laws and car wrecks. Its theorized that because people 'feel' safer they drive more recklessly, so yes, seat belt laws have not reduced harm. Tell me more about this fantasy world I live in again.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean the sky isn't falling. Take off your rosy colored glasses and see the country for the police state it has become.
Whether or not you agree with the initial finding of United States v. Reynolds, do you not remember this incident where blatant clerical error added someone to the no-fly list and it was denied up and down. When asked repeatedly why Rahinah Ibrahim was on a no fly list, the resounding answer was "its classified" when in actuality it was do to human error.
Yes and if you read further you would have got my point:
The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia and England
The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community[citation needed], Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.
The six-continent combined-America model is used in Spanish-speaking countries and in some parts of Europe including Greece (equivalent 5 inhabited continents model – i.e. excluding Antarctica – still also found in texts)
So, we can conclude that China, India, Parts of Western Europe, the USA, Australia, England, Canada, South America and Everything south of the US in North America don't use a Eurasia model. Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan do.
My math is a bit fuzzy but that first list seems longer to me. Hence, most people do not include Russia as part of Europe.
1) There are two possibilities here. Have no review of the film and delete records after X days unless there is an incident, in which case they are pulled and saved for court. This would cause the more stupid laws to be revisited and overturned as unenforceable.
2) Again, no permanent records
3) All other federal employees do not have the right to use lethal force. That should be the deciding factor. If they can kill someone on the job, they should have a camera.
4) "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted." - William Blackstone
5) The point is to make them behave differently. They are civil servants and are accountable to the people. Without something like this in place, and this has been shown over and over again, they are accountable to practically no one. I, also, imagine the opposite would be true of employee retention. Only officers looking to subvert the law would leave the force.
Depends on where you are from. Most places teach Europe and Asia as separate continents (Russia being part of Asia), however, teachings in Russia and East Europe lean toward the Eurasia model, combining all of Europe and Asia. So one would assume, most people think Russia is part of Asia.
Capitalism and Communism are philosophical, economic ideas. To think either one is fucking anyone over is absurd.
People fuck over other people, in any system. The main difference therein is capitalism is a free and open economy and communism is one controlled entirely by the state.
Your first point on science is idiotic. One of those things is overwhelming support of a scientific theory, which in turn may be proven wrong, and the other is overwhelming support for the science of genetic engineering as a whole. But don't let that stand in the way of your soap box.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, I thought the same thing. Revisionist history much?
First in regards to:
Well as a closed system maybe but, if your "society" is being propped up via funding and arms, and you have no need to actually produce anything yourself or even produce engineers at all, then it isn't as much of a problem.
The US spends over half a trillion dollars on the DOD a year. For decades, we have moved away from producing goods to a service providing nation. Granted, this is starting to improve a bit but it's nothing to celebrate, yet.
That said, what would really make it tough for them is a lack of opposition. Their tactics tend to be very self defeating when the larger powers don't overreact and get drawn into conflict with them.
If we let them provoke us though, then they will likely feed off that and use our involvement to deflect criticism away from their own otherwise self-defeating brutality.
The US government has been doing this for decades as well. Every few years we find a new enemy, rally cry and release the hounds of war.
If you want me to do all the work for you and provide specific examples of the above, let me know. There are many.
Don't forget about English. We are not allowed to learn that as well, apparently.
Oddly enough, everything you said also applies to the United States.
You seemed to entirely miss the point of that book. Apart from just being a fun read, it ultimately points out that we cannot create a flawless system of control over other intelligent beings. At first glance, the three laws of robotics are a fool proof system for keeping robots in check, so much so the three laws have withstood over half a century of scrutiny.
The anecdotes in the book are all scenarios specifically created to show the flaws of this system, concluding that we will undoubtedly create A.I. but never be able to control it.
Oddly enough, the last story of I Robot seems to have a different conclusion. It's as if Asimov accepted the outcome of that story as the best option for humanity, contradicting the rest of the book.
But that's just my two cents.
But on the flip side of that we also seem to have a resurgence of hard core single player games. For the longest time big block buster games had to have both, but now we are seeing a change in both directions. I am referring to Tomb Raider and Wolfenstein.
I, for one, am liking the shifting market, on both fronts.
You said exactly "I've never heard of a strong social community that also involved high weapon ownership" and I responded to that point alone. The rest of your argument goes to show that it is not in fact gun regulation that we need but a better education system and I agree whole heartedly on that point.
Switzerland?
Check out this TED talk. I'm agnostic and it almost made me hurl:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richa...
Stop swinging your political dicks around. Its not capitalism or socialism's fault. They are merely ideas. The problem is corruption and it can happen to any system. So advertently opposed party lines only helps one group of people, the politically corrupt and morally bankrupt.
This movement is trying to break ground on both parts: understanding and altering genes, and distributing those changes throughout a system. Its really not that infeasible.
Thats ok though, the white knight bio hackers are here to save the day!
Why should there be regulations put in place to protect someone from themselves? What right does the government have to intervene there?
Seat belt laws do just that. In fact, there is a strong correlation between the implementation of seat belt laws and car wrecks. Its theorized that because people 'feel' safer they drive more recklessly, so yes, seat belt laws have not reduced harm. Tell me more about this fantasy world I live in again.
That just helps prove my point. Regulation doesn't stop stupidity and in most cases is shown to increase it.
Public safety through regulation. What could go wrong there?
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean the sky isn't falling. Take off your rosy colored glasses and see the country for the police state it has become.
Whether or not you agree with the initial finding of United States v. Reynolds, do you not remember this incident where blatant clerical error added someone to the no-fly list and it was denied up and down. When asked repeatedly why Rahinah Ibrahim was on a no fly list, the resounding answer was "its classified" when in actuality it was do to human error.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
There is a very definitive split of Ukrainians that like Russia and those that don't, hence the civil war that is occurring.
Yes and if you read further you would have got my point:
The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia and England
The six-continent combined-Eurasia model is preferred by the geographic community[citation needed], Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan.
The six-continent combined-America model is used in Spanish-speaking countries and in some parts of Europe including Greece (equivalent 5 inhabited continents model – i.e. excluding Antarctica – still also found in texts)
So, we can conclude that China, India, Parts of Western Europe, the USA, Australia, England, Canada, South America and Everything south of the US in North America don't use a Eurasia model. Russia, Eastern Europe, and Japan do.
My math is a bit fuzzy but that first list seems longer to me. Hence, most people do not include Russia as part of Europe.
Ok point by point:
1) There are two possibilities here. Have no review of the film and delete records after X days unless there is an incident, in which case they are pulled and saved for court. This would cause the more stupid laws to be revisited and overturned as unenforceable.
2) Again, no permanent records
3) All other federal employees do not have the right to use lethal force. That should be the deciding factor. If they can kill someone on the job, they should have a camera.
4) "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted." - William Blackstone
5) The point is to make them behave differently. They are civil servants and are accountable to the people. Without something like this in place, and this has been shown over and over again, they are accountable to practically no one. I, also, imagine the opposite would be true of employee retention. Only officers looking to subvert the law would leave the force.
Depends on where you are from. Most places teach Europe and Asia as separate continents (Russia being part of Asia), however, teachings in Russia and East Europe lean toward the Eurasia model, combining all of Europe and Asia. So one would assume, most people think Russia is part of Asia.
Capitalism and Communism are philosophical, economic ideas. To think either one is fucking anyone over is absurd.
People fuck over other people, in any system. The main difference therein is capitalism is a free and open economy and communism is one controlled entirely by the state.
As a non-programmer, your points hold no weight here.
Think of the flying cars!
Your first point on science is idiotic. One of those things is overwhelming support of a scientific theory, which in turn may be proven wrong, and the other is overwhelming support for the science of genetic engineering as a whole. But don't let that stand in the way of your soap box.