Popeye hates spinach, so much so that he frequently chooses not to eat it at the start of a conflict with Bruto, and only gets saved when the can is crushed and pops open, and, in the most unbelievable example of luck I for one have ever seen, the spinach squirts into his mouth and he eats it, allowing him to beat the crap out of Blutus or anything else, except for this one time when the moster still beat him up, but that turned out to be just a dream so it didn't count.
Evidently it's a world after the polar icecaps had melted (didn't they learn not to get preachy in movies after "Waterworld"?) Also, you have to get permission to have a baby (more preachy stuff, so much for juliansimon.com.)
It reminds me of watching the PBS production of The Lathe of Heaven. Awesome as a kid, as an adult, couldn't get around the issue that all the chronic long lines were the result of government intervention in the economy because of the (political-only) argument of "necessity".
Re:Dumb Question from a NON Physicist
on
Universe is Flat
·
· Score: 2
> If you constrain yourself to the surface of the
> balloon...then as you inflate the balloon you'll
> see that this universe expands and all the
> galaxies fly apart from each other.
One thing that puzzled me with this analogy is that, for this to work, the galaxies had to be taped-on solid items. If galaxies are just collections of space (a bunch of dots) then why wouldn't the dots inside the galaxy fly apart, too (and thus, to your viewpoint, the universe would stay constant w.r.t. the size of the galax.
And if galaxy, why not your body?
I do recall somewhere that galaxies rotated as if a solid disk, rather than as if a whirlpool, which would be the case if they were in orbits around a cenrtal area.
I wonder if thinking it immoral to force people to join the government's health care plan under threats of physical harm makes me kind and loving or antisocial.
"Are you testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?"
Can we please have some politicians read that, too?
God forbid the robot start issuing edicts that you shall join this health care plan, or be killed, or you should follow this religious belief, or be killed, or that you need to drive a dangerous, light car and live in a shack because there must be six hundred million acres of a forest pleasing to him, or be killed, or that you may not participate in sexual activities other than normal, heterosexual copulation of penis with vagina, or be killed.
> How many people keep only one copy of any really
> important file? If *I* was storing the entire
> human consciousness on magnetic media *I* would
> certainly keep more than one copy.
> Just think how helpful the next version of The
> Annoying Paperclip Thing in MS Office could be
> with a petabyte of consciousness.
Never fear, it's still aways out, even beyond this new standard. That petabyte of consciousness would definitely NOT fit on the 128 petabyte disk, having been written in a scripting language by Microsoft.
Especially true DVD pr0n, not a conversion from VHS. Hopefully by that dime, DVD2 or whatever will be out, with true max HDTV quality recording.
> This allows for up to 128 pB (petabytes of 2^50),
But can I defrag it overnight, especially if I only have about 20k free?
Also, if I recall correctly (ok, so I looked it up), a LOC, or library of Congress is only 10 Tb, or 0.010 Pb. By that time, I expect Windows to come with "free" LOC, "free" emulators for all other OS's, and "free" copies of all other software written for all other OS's.
Re:Violent (Re)Actions
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
> McDonald's is destroying the rainforest and killing innocent cows!
Somebody got me with a very similar statement just the other day.
Poor guy, lacking critical thinking ability, didn't realize that massive destruction of the environment, especially when done for farmland, has been an incalculable boon for humanity. Europe's forests have been mowed down for a thousand years and they haven't exactly died out yet.
As for killing an innocent animal (or "executing something that doesn't want to be killed"), well, it tastes really good!
> effective, repeated, pounding ads anti-Spence
> Abraham, who apparently took a big chunk of cash
> to make some calls to get a guy sprung from
> prison while at the exact same time not
> returning calls to a woman with a dying child
> who had no insurance...
Of course, Debbie and the Democrats view the victory now as being a big repudiation of Republican policies.
> Microsoft was famously giving much more to Democrats than to Republicans.
And what good did it do them?
Similarly, the state of Michigan, who lives and dies by the auto industry, ESPECIALLY the SUV, which is where 120% of the auto profits are (120% because small cars are sold at a loss to make the CAFE quotas) voted for Al Gore. Al Gore is the one who called cars (hyperbole/on -only_slight_exaggeration) more evil than Nazi Germany (/hyperbole), voting against dub, who is an oil man, which SUV's love. Does it show they care for the environment, or that they're idiots? (Actually, it was a halo effect from Debbie Stabenow's effective, repeated, pounding ads anti-Spence Abraham, who apparently took a big chunk of cash to make some calls to get a guy sprung from prison while at the exact same time not returning calls to a woman with a dying child who had no insurance...)
> Sounds like Heinlein by the style, though I
> don't recognize the story.
You may be thinking of "The Man Who Sold The Moon", which this reminded me of, too.
In that, some charlatan tries to acquire the moon by buying the rights to it from all the (poor) equatorial countries, planning to claim that could indeed sell it to him because they owned the exclusive rights to it under international law. You see, it was technically in their airspace, if a little high up, and if he could be the first there, that would really clinch it...
> Who's with me: Let's patent the patent. Then we
> can eliminate the influx of needless patents by
> denying the use of patents....
You silly, silly fool. Do you think you would deny the use of patents, had you such a patent? No, you would let them be used in exchange for a 1% cut on the gross proceeds of any device sold with a patent.
In fact, you would become much more lax than the government in issuing patents, giving them out the way Willy gave out pardons. "Patent the wheel?" you'd say. "Sounds good to me."
> So the core issue here is that you, as a
> libertarian, are saying that some rights deserve
> to be defended and some do not.
There is an infinite gulf of difference between a government that can take your right away, throwing you in jail, or simply killing you, and a corporation, that you can walk away from.
Yes, you may be somewhat disadvantaged not using that corporation, but that's the choice you make living in a free country WITHOUT a government empowered to take away rights.
Keep in mind that the godawfuly "worst" corporate monopolies (all noncoercive, remember) like oil, Big 3, Big Blue, Microsoft, chemical companies, whatever, are all far less "harmful" than the average government out there is. Indeed, they are far more beneficial to actual, real people than the average government out there.
I'd rather live in a country where big corporations and the rich bought politicians in order to prevent most laws from being passed than have those laws, quite simply.
> If there is ever a change away from the
> electoral college to a purely populist (majority
> rules) voting scheme, your rights will be pissed
> away incredibly quickly.
"Ok, let's all vote on president. Al Gore wins? Fine. Let's now vote on lunch and dinner for the rest of our lives. McDonald's wins? Fine. We all eat McDonalds from here on out."
"Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner." This country is about freedom, not democracy. Insofar as democracy conflicts with freedom, it is democracy that should lose, not freedom. Of course, when freedom loses, the power hungry politician has won, to the cheers of those he has just kicked in the skull. "The crude leading the crud." "Jackals leading jackasses."
It just goes to show how idiotic and two-faced "the masses" are when lead by power-hungry politicians.
"Oh, gee. Big store kill Mom&Popp Shoppe. That is bad."
refrain: "That Is Baaaaaad!"
Then the store gets built next to the Mom&Popp Shoppe, and people, sorry, "The People" go into Wal Mart anyway, even if it has higher prices anyway, because it has a ton of stuff, and it's open 24 hours a day, including Sunday evening when it's packed, absolutely-fing-packed, all with people who no doubt would decry the "evil" of losing Momm & Poppe Shoppes, Inc. even as they walked right by it to pay higher prices in Wal Mart.
> So if its a choice between backing legislation
> that screws joe and strokes Mr. Fatcat, or
> vice-versa, do you think joe gets an equal
> voice?
With a properly-defined government, the government cannot pass any laws that screw anyone, or benefit anyone else (in the ways you're talking about.)
In our current government, the laws are heavily weighted towards silly, "feel good" laws that seem wise to people with an IQ of 70, which is most of the masses, but such laws do not have any real benefit, and most actually hurt things. So what is an "evil rich" person supposed to do? You got it! Buy legislators. Which is, of course, exactly why these laws get passed, or threatened to get passed.
Actually, disliking regulations because they hurt profits is not a bad idea, either. Higher profits (remember, in the absence of government-guaranteed industries) means a stronger economy. A stronger economy benefits everyone. Regulations slow the economy, so if you have regulations, they should be of the type a libertarian will allow, which is to say, laws preventing your smokestack from polluting the air you don't own.
Even then, how much pollution should be allowed should err on the dirty side. Life under the filthy smokestacks of newly-industrialized London was a lot longer and healthier than under an agrarian society.
Now that is confusing. One would think a "gentlemen's agreement" would be the highest form of contract available, and would most certainly be enforceable in court.
And yet, someone must eventually win the lottery, and some planet must eventually have Elvis crash a UFO into Nessie.
I mean, statistically, eventually countless nonillions of particles in a long-burnt out universe will just happen to come together to form such objects. And wouldn't that just be too bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Popeye hates spinach, so much so that he frequently chooses not to eat it at the start of a conflict with Bruto, and only gets saved when the can is crushed and pops open, and, in the most unbelievable example of luck I for one have ever seen, the spinach squirts into his mouth and he eats it, allowing him to beat the crap out of Blutus or anything else, except for this one time when the moster still beat him up, but that turned out to be just a dream so it didn't count.
A Beowulf cluster of crying, emotional robot babies? No thank you.
The local Linux users' group is enough.
Evidently it's a world after the polar icecaps had melted (didn't they learn not to get preachy in movies after "Waterworld"?) Also, you have to get permission to have a baby (more preachy stuff, so much for juliansimon.com.)
It reminds me of watching the PBS production of The Lathe of Heaven. Awesome as a kid, as an adult, couldn't get around the issue that all the chronic long lines were the result of government intervention in the economy because of the (political-only) argument of "necessity".
> If you constrain yourself to the surface of the
> balloon...then as you inflate the balloon you'll
> see that this universe expands and all the
> galaxies fly apart from each other.
One thing that puzzled me with this analogy is that, for this to work, the galaxies had to be taped-on solid items. If galaxies are just collections of space (a bunch of dots) then why wouldn't the dots inside the galaxy fly apart, too (and thus, to your viewpoint, the universe would stay constant w.r.t. the size of the galax.
And if galaxy, why not your body?
I do recall somewhere that galaxies rotated as if a solid disk, rather than as if a whirlpool, which would be the case if they were in orbits around a cenrtal area.
I wonder if thinking it immoral to force people to join the government's health care plan under threats of physical harm makes me kind and loving or antisocial.
"Are you testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?"
Can we please have some politicians read that, too?
God forbid the robot start issuing edicts that you shall join this health care plan, or be killed, or you should follow this religious belief, or be killed, or that you need to drive a dangerous, light car and live in a shack because there must be six hundred million acres of a forest pleasing to him, or be killed, or that you may not participate in sexual activities other than normal, heterosexual copulation of penis with vagina, or be killed.
> How many people keep only one copy of any really
> important file? If *I* was storing the entire
> human consciousness on magnetic media *I* would
> certainly keep more than one copy.
Sounds reasonable, unless you're trying to hide humanity from evil aliens. Of course, the first generation won't be robust enough to survive the banging around.
> Of course, keeping them in sync would be a real
> pain....
Oh it was way worse than that! He kept losing the finger storage pods.
> Just think how helpful the next version of The
> Annoying Paperclip Thing in MS Office could be
> with a petabyte of consciousness.
Never fear, it's still aways out, even beyond this new standard. That petabyte of consciousness would definitely NOT fit on the 128 petabyte disk, having been written in a scripting language by Microsoft.
Especially true DVD pr0n, not a conversion from VHS. Hopefully by that dime, DVD2 or whatever will be out, with true max HDTV quality recording.
> This allows for up to 128 pB (petabytes of 2^50),
But can I defrag it overnight, especially if I only have about 20k free?
Also, if I recall correctly (ok, so I looked it up), a LOC, or library of Congress is only 10 Tb, or 0.010 Pb. By that time, I expect Windows to come with "free" LOC, "free" emulators for all other OS's, and "free" copies of all other software written for all other OS's.
> McDonald's is destroying the rainforest and killing innocent cows!
Somebody got me with a very similar statement just the other day.
Poor guy, lacking critical thinking ability, didn't realize that massive destruction of the environment, especially when done for farmland, has been an incalculable boon for humanity. Europe's forests have been mowed down for a thousand years and they haven't exactly died out yet.
As for killing an innocent animal (or "executing something that doesn't want to be killed"), well, it tastes really good!
It's time for all those "truth lovers" out there to learn the real truth. A problem isn't a "problem" if, when you come out the other end, humanity is better off than without the "problem."
> effective, repeated, pounding ads anti-Spence
> Abraham, who apparently took a big chunk of cash
> to make some calls to get a guy sprung from
> prison while at the exact same time not
> returning calls to a woman with a dying child
> who had no insurance...
Of course, Debbie and the Democrats view the victory now as being a big repudiation of Republican policies.
> Microsoft was famously giving much more to Democrats than to Republicans.
/on -only_slight_exaggeration) more evil than Nazi Germany (/hyperbole), voting against dub, who is an oil man, which SUV's love. Does it show they care for the environment, or that they're idiots? (Actually, it was a halo effect from Debbie Stabenow's effective, repeated, pounding ads anti-Spence Abraham, who apparently took a big chunk of cash to make some calls to get a guy sprung from prison while at the exact same time not returning calls to a woman with a dying child who had no insurance...)
And what good did it do them?
Similarly, the state of Michigan, who lives and dies by the auto industry, ESPECIALLY the SUV, which is where 120% of the auto profits are (120% because small cars are sold at a loss to make the CAFE quotas) voted for Al Gore. Al Gore is the one who called cars (hyperbole
> Sounds like Heinlein by the style, though I
> don't recognize the story.
You may be thinking of "The Man Who Sold The Moon", which this reminded me of, too.
In that, some charlatan tries to acquire the moon by buying the rights to it from all the (poor) equatorial countries, planning to claim that could indeed sell it to him because they owned the exclusive rights to it under international law. You see, it was technically in their airspace, if a little high up, and if he could be the first there, that would really clinch it...
> Who's with me: Let's patent the patent. Then we
> can eliminate the influx of needless patents by
> denying the use of patents....
You silly, silly fool. Do you think you would deny the use of patents, had you such a patent? No, you would let them be used in exchange for a 1% cut on the gross proceeds of any device sold with a patent.
In fact, you would become much more lax than the government in issuing patents, giving them out the way Willy gave out pardons. "Patent the wheel?" you'd say. "Sounds good to me."
> So the core issue here is that you, as a
> libertarian, are saying that some rights deserve
> to be defended and some do not.
There is an infinite gulf of difference between a government that can take your right away, throwing you in jail, or simply killing you, and a corporation, that you can walk away from.
Yes, you may be somewhat disadvantaged not using that corporation, but that's the choice you make living in a free country WITHOUT a government empowered to take away rights.
Keep in mind that the godawfuly "worst" corporate monopolies (all noncoercive, remember) like oil, Big 3, Big Blue, Microsoft, chemical companies, whatever, are all far less "harmful" than the average government out there is. Indeed, they are far more beneficial to actual, real people than the average government out there.
I'd rather live in a country where big corporations and the rich bought politicians in order to prevent most laws from being passed than have those laws, quite simply.
> If there is ever a change away from the
> electoral college to a purely populist (majority
> rules) voting scheme, your rights will be pissed
> away incredibly quickly.
"Ok, let's all vote on president. Al Gore wins? Fine. Let's now vote on lunch and dinner for the rest of our lives. McDonald's wins? Fine. We all eat McDonalds from here on out."
"Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner." This country is about freedom, not democracy. Insofar as democracy conflicts with freedom, it is democracy that should lose, not freedom. Of course, when freedom loses, the power hungry politician has won, to the cheers of those he has just kicked in the skull. "The crude leading the crud." "Jackals leading jackasses."
It just goes to show how idiotic and two-faced "the masses" are when lead by power-hungry politicians.
"Oh, gee. Big store kill Mom&Popp Shoppe. That is bad."
refrain: "That Is Baaaaaad!"
Then the store gets built next to the Mom&Popp Shoppe, and people, sorry, "The People" go into Wal Mart anyway, even if it has higher prices anyway, because it has a ton of stuff, and it's open 24 hours a day, including Sunday evening when it's packed, absolutely-fing-packed, all with people who no doubt would decry the "evil" of losing Momm & Poppe Shoppes, Inc. even as they walked right by it to pay higher prices in Wal Mart.
> So if its a choice between backing legislation
> that screws joe and strokes Mr. Fatcat, or
> vice-versa, do you think joe gets an equal
> voice?
With a properly-defined government, the government cannot pass any laws that screw anyone, or benefit anyone else (in the ways you're talking about.)
In our current government, the laws are heavily weighted towards silly, "feel good" laws that seem wise to people with an IQ of 70, which is most of the masses, but such laws do not have any real benefit, and most actually hurt things. So what is an "evil rich" person supposed to do? You got it! Buy legislators. Which is, of course, exactly why these laws get passed, or threatened to get passed.
Actually, disliking regulations because they hurt profits is not a bad idea, either. Higher profits (remember, in the absence of government-guaranteed industries) means a stronger economy. A stronger economy benefits everyone. Regulations slow the economy, so if you have regulations, they should be of the type a libertarian will allow, which is to say, laws preventing your smokestack from polluting the air you don't own.
Even then, how much pollution should be allowed should err on the dirty side. Life under the filthy smokestacks of newly-industrialized London was a lot longer and healthier than under an agrarian society.
Now that is confusing. One would think a "gentlemen's agreement" would be the highest form of contract available, and would most certainly be enforceable in court.
Technically (philosophically) the concept of rights is independent of any constitution or law.
A constitution that doesn't recognize a right ultimately means nothing more than that right is violated just as if some thug on the street robbed you.
BOOL GenerateWinOrLose(long amtBetInPennies)
{
if (amtBetInPennies > 100)
HTMLPrint("I'm sorry, you lost. Try again!");
else
HTMLPrint("I'm sorry, you lost. Try again!");
return FALSE;
}
Well, porn won't be at its best until someone develops an omni-scent production machine so you can inhale the action too.
And yet, someone must eventually win the lottery, and some planet must eventually have Elvis crash a UFO into Nessie.
I mean, statistically, eventually countless nonillions of particles in a long-burnt out universe will just happen to come together to form such objects. And wouldn't that just be too bad.