Communication doesn't require internet or telephones. But you can bet that without some form of communication, you will not be able to win a war, much less know when the war is has been won.
If "the Americans" don't follow the rules that the UN comes up with, what would the UN do? Seriously, I'm not trolling here, I'm seriously interested in hearing what the UN would/could do. Sanction the US? Military action?
Article:
Daaaamn, not even Yahoo employees want to use their email, it must suck.
Me: The point of this article is moot because it's got nothing to do with Yahoo's email sucking, it's that no one wants to change their email from where it is, and for a variety of reasons.
You: The article's point isn't moot because they get paid for working there. At least changing to Yahoo's email is optional unlike Apple.
You lost me. Why would their paycheck have any effect on them wanting to move their email to another carrier?
A more interesting move for Yahoo would be to only correspond to employees via a yahoo email account. That way everyone wins.
You're right, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm just saying that the point that the article seems to be trying to make, "no one wants to change to Yahoo" is moot because no one wants to change from anything else, to anything else.
Email is just fucking email, all we want is to get messages from other people and respond. But since the powers that be have had their focus on setting things up to be so different, it's a pain in the ass to move things over. As if it's like that by design, hmm go figure.
The opposition, which is science – well, first let me say this: Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.
But we can't all run around naked in the forest eating nuts and berries.
What a statement!
Do you mean that we cannot run?
Do you mean that we cannot be naked?
Do you mean that we cannot eat nuts?
Do you mean that we cannot eat berries?
Oh, no I see what you mean. The forest(s) are not big enough to house us all. Well my friend, that's because of Western culture. It's Western culture that 'we all' cannot do, as this article is trying to point out. The bit about running, being naked, eating nuts and berries is the only thing that can always be done, and by everyone.
The IRS said in its response to the findings that it issued a new manual this year to help improve its monitoring practices and that the agency would audit completed actions in the future.
So, if I file the wrong kind of taxes, can I take the same sort of stance? "Yeah yeah, I know I filled out the form totally with the wrong numbers, and made it look like I needed a huge return, but I've purchased a new pen, and I've trained myself to better understand the form. So in the future, I will do better."
I'm tired of hearing so much wrong done by our governing body, and never hear of any repercussions.
Since the NSA has been confirmed, I feel that I am obligated to explain to everyone (I work at a corporate level with many other integrated departments) that things have changed, and nothing is secure anymore, so on the level of business buyouts, where secrecy seems to be sooo important, sending all of your email through gmail isn't a good idea anymore, as all of your data is compromised.
One could almost make a living off of selling slackware boxes running sendmail with mimedefang and spamassassin as their own email server that would be run in-house;)
Some time around the seventh century, a new board game appears in India. Its pieces include a counsellor, elephants, chariots, infantrymen, horsemen and a king. Called chaturanga, it's the ancestor of modern chess - and a game of war. But if chess in all its variations has been used historically to illustrate battlefield tactics and probe new strategies, today nothing's changed. Teams at the Swedish national defence college in Stockholm and the defence science and technology organisation in Australia are studying the game afresh in an attempt to understand better how to gain military success. In Sweden, the researchers are using real players. In Australia, the team has run tens of thousands of virtual games - with some clear messages for their military sponsors.
On the face of it, the bloodless, low-tech game of chess might seem to bear little resemblance to modern warfare. "But it resembles real war in many respects," maintains Jan Kuylenstierna, one of the Swedish researchers. "Chess involves a struggle of will, and it contains what has been termed the essentials of fighting - to strike, to move and to protect." By studying chess and other adversarial abstract games such as checkers (draughts), researchers can strip away some of the confusion of the battlefield and identify the factors that are most important for winning, says Jason Scholz, who leads the Australian work. "The strength of this approach is our level of abstraction," Scholz says.
Uh, you can, but it won't do you any good: they all just use the website to sign you up. Those options are for people without computers, not ways around the website.
Right. This is true, and it's because the website really is a 2-part thing. The 1st part has to do with getting an insurance plan for you and each family member. The 2nd part has to do with the tax credit, and this is the biggest thing, because insurance just went from like $400/month for a family of four to like $1,800 a month for a family of four. The tax credit is what you really want to get figured out, because without it, you'll not be able to know what you can afford..
Another catchy thing here is the fact that the insurance has to be gotten from the Exchange website, or you won't qualify for the tax credit. That means that if you keep your current insurance company, and they're prepared to simplify things for you by automatically rolling you over to the new policy, it will disable you from qualifying for a tax credit at all. Not that it matters all that much if you're with Blue Cross, because the plan that they're rolling everyone over to, is their only plan that in and of itself, does not qualify for a tax credit, although I never got a straight answer on why that is.
The thing is, this was one of the biggest changes for America, and it really demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that America's governing body doesn't have what it takes.
I think he's pointing out that the person's conscious experience may be a strange one, or the brain may simply adjust the new in with the old. Just think about your current understanding of color. Could you imagine a new color, one that consists of no other color that you know of now? See, you cannot (no pun intended). So it could be the same thing with seeing other things as well. As in perhaps the reason that we cannot see those things right now could be either that the eye is not capable of detecting those things, or that the optic nerve may not be capable of sending the signal to the brain.
I think they're starting with plants (that require carbon dioxide to create food) when there's no carbon dioxide on the moon, at least not where plants could utilize it for photosynthesis, when what I think would be better, and probably more in tune with how Nature works, would be fungi of a wide variety. Fungi don't need carbon dioxide from the air, they use oxygen from the ground. The moon has water in the form of ice all in the soil, we're told. Fungi would be so much better to start off with for so many reasons, but the main one being that they could prepare the soil as well as the atmosphere for more Earth-like activity.
It seems to me that any technological advancements that humans have "invented" is merely a fabrication of context, in order to do what Nature is already doing. Perhaps the next "super computers" will not be what we think of as computers, but more like biological structures that are able to process things without using mathematics, or bits at all. As if all aspects of mathematics will be inherently built into the structure itself.
I agree with you totally, but I thought I'd point out one stupid thing that all of those people did, and probably warrants them being checkes for drugs or whatever:
They went to Texas.
How funny would it be to see a smear campaign commercial:
Thomas Edison rolls up in his 2013 Tesla whatever, gets out and hooks some wires from the car to Topsy the elephant, then gets back to the car and starts it. The elephant shakes until it falls over and catches fire, all the while, Edison's in the car revving it more and more, laughing hysterically. Fade to black. White text appears: Think of the children!
Slashdot Mirror
Communication doesn't require internet or telephones. But you can bet that without some form of communication, you will not be able to win a war, much less know when the war is has been won.
If "the Americans" don't follow the rules that the UN comes up with, what would the UN do? Seriously, I'm not trolling here, I'm seriously interested in hearing what the UN would/could do. Sanction the US? Military action?
Article:
Daaaamn, not even Yahoo employees want to use their email, it must suck.
Me: The point of this article is moot because it's got nothing to do with Yahoo's email sucking, it's that no one wants to change their email from where it is, and for a variety of reasons.
You: The article's point isn't moot because they get paid for working there. At least changing to Yahoo's email is optional unlike Apple.
You lost me. Why would their paycheck have any effect on them wanting to move their email to another carrier?
A more interesting move for Yahoo would be to only correspond to employees via a yahoo email account. That way everyone wins.
You're right, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm just saying that the point that the article seems to be trying to make, "no one wants to change to Yahoo" is moot because no one wants to change from anything else, to anything else.
No because it specified "making it a felony to alter a vehicle to add a secret compartment".
The rest of this quote is just argument from incredulity. Worthless.
Right, but I think that was his point.
Email is just fucking email, all we want is to get messages from other people and respond. But since the powers that be have had their focus on setting things up to be so different, it's a pain in the ass to move things over. As if it's like that by design, hmm go figure.
The opposition, which is science – well, first let me say this: Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.
I like your point, and would like to add to it, 4 words:
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
I live in the effected area, and things haven't been the same since. But as far as what we're talking about, they have remained exactly the same...
But we can't all run around naked in the forest eating nuts and berries.
What a statement!
Do you mean that we cannot run?
Do you mean that we cannot be naked?
Do you mean that we cannot eat nuts?
Do you mean that we cannot eat berries?
Oh, no I see what you mean. The forest(s) are not big enough to house us all. Well my friend, that's because of Western culture. It's Western culture that 'we all' cannot do, as this article is trying to point out. The bit about running, being naked, eating nuts and berries is the only thing that can always be done, and by everyone.
The IRS said in its response to the findings that it issued a new manual this year to help improve its monitoring practices and that the agency would audit completed actions in the future.
So, if I file the wrong kind of taxes, can I take the same sort of stance? "Yeah yeah, I know I filled out the form totally with the wrong numbers, and made it look like I needed a huge return, but I've purchased a new pen, and I've trained myself to better understand the form. So in the future, I will do better."
I'm tired of hearing so much wrong done by our governing body, and never hear of any repercussions.
I found an audio version on youtube here. Thanks, I'll check it out.
Since the NSA has been confirmed, I feel that I am obligated to explain to everyone (I work at a corporate level with many other integrated departments) that things have changed, and nothing is secure anymore, so on the level of business buyouts, where secrecy seems to be sooo important, sending all of your email through gmail isn't a good idea anymore, as all of your data is compromised.
;)
One could almost make a living off of selling slackware boxes running sendmail with mimedefang and spamassassin as their own email server that would be run in-house
Some time around the seventh century, a new board game appears in India. Its pieces include a counsellor, elephants, chariots, infantrymen, horsemen and a king. Called chaturanga, it's the ancestor of modern chess - and a game of war. But if chess in all its variations has been used historically to illustrate battlefield tactics and probe new strategies, today nothing's changed. Teams at the Swedish national defence college in Stockholm and the defence science and technology organisation in Australia are studying the game afresh in an attempt to understand better how to gain military success. In Sweden, the researchers are using real players. In Australia, the team has run tens of thousands of virtual games - with some clear messages for their military sponsors.
On the face of it, the bloodless, low-tech game of chess might seem to bear little resemblance to modern warfare. "But it resembles real war in many respects," maintains Jan Kuylenstierna, one of the Swedish researchers. "Chess involves a struggle of will, and it contains what has been termed the essentials of fighting - to strike, to move and to protect." By studying chess and other adversarial abstract games such as checkers (draughts), researchers can strip away some of the confusion of the battlefield and identify the factors that are most important for winning, says Jason Scholz, who leads the Australian work. "The strength of this approach is our level of abstraction," Scholz says.
Imagine chess replacing actual war.
Uh, you can, but it won't do you any good: they all just use the website to sign you up. Those options are for people without computers, not ways around the website.
Right. This is true, and it's because the website really is a 2-part thing. The 1st part has to do with getting an insurance plan for you and each family member. The 2nd part has to do with the tax credit, and this is the biggest thing, because insurance just went from like $400/month for a family of four to like $1,800 a month for a family of four. The tax credit is what you really want to get figured out, because without it, you'll not be able to know what you can afford..
Another catchy thing here is the fact that the insurance has to be gotten from the Exchange website, or you won't qualify for the tax credit. That means that if you keep your current insurance company, and they're prepared to simplify things for you by automatically rolling you over to the new policy, it will disable you from qualifying for a tax credit at all. Not that it matters all that much if you're with Blue Cross, because the plan that they're rolling everyone over to, is their only plan that in and of itself, does not qualify for a tax credit, although I never got a straight answer on why that is.
The thing is, this was one of the biggest changes for America, and it really demonstrates, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that America's governing body doesn't have what it takes.
I think he's pointing out that the person's conscious experience may be a strange one, or the brain may simply adjust the new in with the old. Just think about your current understanding of color. Could you imagine a new color, one that consists of no other color that you know of now? See, you cannot (no pun intended). So it could be the same thing with seeing other things as well. As in perhaps the reason that we cannot see those things right now could be either that the eye is not capable of detecting those things, or that the optic nerve may not be capable of sending the signal to the brain.
That's an interesting point. Surely the brain would come up with something to do with the extra data, but yeah, very interesting to think over.
Not if you live in the United States.
It could be pretty useful if they included the ability to see other spectra of light that aren't visible to normal eyes.
I think they're starting with plants (that require carbon dioxide to create food) when there's no carbon dioxide on the moon, at least not where plants could utilize it for photosynthesis, when what I think would be better, and probably more in tune with how Nature works, would be fungi of a wide variety. Fungi don't need carbon dioxide from the air, they use oxygen from the ground. The moon has water in the form of ice all in the soil, we're told. Fungi would be so much better to start off with for so many reasons, but the main one being that they could prepare the soil as well as the atmosphere for more Earth-like activity.
It seems to me that any technological advancements that humans have "invented" is merely a fabrication of context, in order to do what Nature is already doing. Perhaps the next "super computers" will not be what we think of as computers, but more like biological structures that are able to process things without using mathematics, or bits at all. As if all aspects of mathematics will be inherently built into the structure itself.
just a thought.
It's a mat, with conclusions on it that you, jump, to.
I agree with you totally, but I thought I'd point out one stupid thing that all of those people did, and probably warrants them being checkes for drugs or whatever:
They went to Texas.
How funny would it be to see a smear campaign commercial:
Thomas Edison rolls up in his 2013 Tesla whatever, gets out and hooks some wires from the car to Topsy the elephant, then gets back to the car and starts it. The elephant shakes until it falls over and catches fire, all the while, Edison's in the car revving it more and more, laughing hysterically. Fade to black. White text appears: Think of the children!
I always wondered why the porn industry doesn't have the same problems as "normal" Hollywood in regards to pirating. Porn everywhere, no one cares.
Shit, did I just admit to looking at cheap porn?