You show an inability to see beyond the parochial legislation of the USA, assuming that their priorities are a human universal.
No, the US actually has limits on free speech. Though opinions are almost always not within those limits, unless an opinion is made with the express intention of causing harm to somebody else, in which case it's a civil matter, which the government never gets involved in.
They are not. I don't expect you to open your mind, so I won't be answering any more.
Actually my mind is quite open. The US also doesn't have a history of causing world wars because some people failed to question the wisdom of their government.
Too many sites are impossible to get to. Google isn't.
So you've chosen Google to answer for the sins of others.
It's nothing to do with censoring opinions. This is a right to be forgotten.
It doesn't matter what it's a right to, or even what purpose it is for. These are still opinions.
Your concept of free speech, that you are implicitly defending, is just another right. It's not more important. It just happens to be one that the US considers a higher priority.
And for very good reason. Being denied the ability to express an opinion, even if it's an unpopular one, is the driving force behind oppressive governments of any variety. In fact it was the very basis of that with which allowed Fascism to take over Europe, and is the same basis behind North Korea and China holding the power they presently do.
For example some people's lives are ruined by "revenge porn". Imagine that there was video of you having sex, or some other activity you aren;t proud of.
So then go after the hosting provider of that content.
Search results are literally Google's opinion of what is the most relevant to what you're looking for. Censoring that basically means that your government is allowed to censor whatever opinions they'd like.
Or SF86 wasn't the only data stolen, and the US government only chose to reveal that it was just SF86 stolen.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the US government has a lot of knowledge of basically every spy network in the world, allied and non-allied countries alike. It's called counter-surveillance, and the US has been doing it for a long time.
Nazi is basically an abbreviation of the German word for National Socialism, spelt in German as Nationalsozialismus, with those first four letters sounding exactly like the word you know as Nazi ("not see".) I'm sure National Socialism sounds similar when said in other languages as well, so it wouldn't surprise me if there are other "Nazi" parties that aren't the same as the German one from the early 20th century.
National Socialism is basically Fascism, (a "strength in unity, but one person doesn't matter" type approach to politics and economics) which actually started in Italy by Benito Mousolini, and spread throughout Europe, even to countries that weren't allied to the Axis powers during WWII, in fact many weren't part of WWII at all. For example, Spain was officially Fascist in that period, remained so until at least the 1970's, and still carries fascist elements within its government.
Most Eastern countries then, and still do, consider Fascism to be an example of a European model of government.
So what's Google supposed to do? Install a Great Firewall of France that even blocks French people from using proxy servers that might be used to get uncensored search results?
Hopefully if Windows 10 actually takes off, we'll see more interest by groups like Google in producing decent tablet versions of their applications for Windows.
Good lord...why? The modern app platform sucks royally from a developer perspective.
Not only that, but the modern UI userbase is small enough to safely ignore for any sane developer.
That's not what I asked. What message do you believe they're going to deliver that the NOAA and EPA don't already deliver?
Use less carbon? Already done. Pollute less? Already done. Recycle more? Already done. Stop cutting down trees? Already done.
In other words, what exactly do we expect to gain from NASA's research that we won't gain from NOAA/EPA?
Doing research just for the sake of doing research is not only pointless but wasteful. If you don't have some kind of concrete goal, then at the very least come up with one, otherwise don't waste money.
In addition to what AC already said, simply giving money to people doesn't do them any favors. Ultimately the only way to bring anybody out of poverty is for them to act on their own. Neither you, the government, nor charitable organizations can change that fact.
Honestly I want to believe the global warming stuff because it's based in empirical science, which I put a LOT of stock in. Empirical science has literally saved my life numerous times.
I mean shit, I even donated to Greenpeace once. No joke.
The problem is I always see "irreversible climate disaster coming in 10 years unless we act now" every 10 years, and not a one of them has actually happened.
Sometimes the scientific consensus is not only wrong, but way wrong. Take nutrition science for example. We believed for 30 years that dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol, and just now we're finding out how dead wrong that is. Look at how many times the food pyramid has changed.
Personally I've had it with climate science. I just don't care anymore.
I actually think that's kind of genius. It makes everybody's code more legible. I'm not that much of a programmer, mostly dealing with interpreted scripting languages like TCL, Bash, and Powershell, and I can't tell you how many times I've hated reading somebody else's script because they didn't indent for shit, and they put their curly braces in such weird places that it was hard to tell what was encapsulated inside of what. And then they somehow expect somebody else to be able to debug it later.
An incredibly crap method of transport, two tons heap burning fossil fuels - wasting most of what they burn.
Most of the population do not seem to be able to think rationally about cars.
Well you're referring to internal combustion engines more than you're referring to cars, as electric cars don't have this problem. Not only that but they've only been around for not much longer than a century, which in the grand scheme of things, isn't long at all. And as you mentioned, internal combustion is VERY energy inefficient, which means it's also costly. As better technologies come around (which they are) the internal combustion engine will go the way of the buggy whip.
Which by the way, had we stayed with the horse and carriage, the roads would be so filled with horse shit that there would be no room to do anything else. The combustion engine offered cheaper transportation, just as whatever comes next will offer even cheaper transportation.
Or are you just attempting to bunch together people who have their eyes open with the gullible fools who believe everything that prison-planet comes out with?
No. You, and everybody else are (deliberately?) grossly misinterpreting what I'm saying. There's virtually no scientific basis I can see where people are incapable of perceiving long term threats, because people do it all the time. Just most of the time when they do it, it's against an imagined threat. Before the Alex Jones types, it was biblical apocalypse, hell-fire and brimstone, blah blah.
I didn't say that all threats are imagined. One very real one, that I don't see anybody ever denying, is that our sun will eventually run out of hydrogen, and when it does, the earth is quite finished (as in, basically everything above the mantle becomes vaporized.) This is perhaps the key reason why I think NASA is better focused on manned space flight rather than basically doing the same thing that the EPA/NOAA already do anyways.
Well, the problem is that the premise of this article is that the author somehow is superhuman and sees threats to humanity that the common plebs can't observe because of their inferior mental capabilities. The idea that brains might be better at detecting direct threats to the individual rather than the herd isn't that controversial and further studies on the subject could be interesting.
Not only that but there are actually a lot of people who are very perceptive of long term threats. These people typically suffer from various forms of anxiety disorders and/or various chondrias. The worst ones typically hang out at 911truth.org, infowars.com, or prisonplanet.com, constantly pester the bilderberg group, and believe that there's an active global conspiracy by completely imagined groups like NWO or Illuminati.
One of these things will benefit humanity in the near future. The other will not.
So in other words, what you're saying is that we should look out for the near future and just do nothing at all for the far future, because right now that's basically what we're doing.
Throwing that aside entirely, what further point are we going to drive home by NASA basically doing the same thing the EPA and NOAA are already doing? Tell people even more to reduce carbon emissions? Sounds super productive, and an amazing use of tax money.
Why is it idiotic? It's just dark humor at the worst.
So it being really bad dark humour (if it is) isn't idiotic? I'd say making ill advised jokes is idiotic.
Check this joke out that I heard
You may have noticed that when a group makes a joke about itself it is generally taken very differently from an outside group making a joke about the group. You may wish to consider why.
Have you ever seen the movie "The Dark Knight"? Most people who saw it loved the character of the Joker. He actually does make most people laugh. Essentially what you're saying is that they're all idiots, and you're also not only wrong, but yourself a prude for actually thinking so. It was a brilliantly written character in a brilliantly written movie, and only a very non-idiot can make very demented actions seem funny.
Anyways go ahead and reply with another prudish SJW rant.
Oh God! When the general media gets a hold of the projections and they prove to be not perfect, the pundits are gonna come out and claim that all of NASA's climate research is garbage. The Republicans will want to reduce NASA's budget even more.
I don't know about what the Republicans want, but I do know that it's rather pathetic that even though we won the space race, we've since lost the ability to put astronauts in space. Oh but you know what? Who needs manned space exploration when we've got not one, but three, count it, THREE federal agencies dedicated to developing an awesome climate model!
In all seriousness, I wonder if it may some day be possible to piece together the few remaining codons (usually remaining in sequences of a hundred or less) using some kind of avian as a broader template without using it to fill in any gaps. Definitely don't use frog DNA to fill in the gaps, because as a 90's documentary has shown us, the "dinosaurs" end up looking more like reptiles than dinosaurs, that and the 100% female population may breed out of control and take over the island you're experimenting on.
Would be an ungodly massive undertaking if so, and I doubt our existing best possible microscopy is up for the task (I think using PCR would fudge some of the sequences.)
Slashdot Mirror
You show an inability to see beyond the parochial legislation of the USA, assuming that their priorities are a human universal.
No, the US actually has limits on free speech. Though opinions are almost always not within those limits, unless an opinion is made with the express intention of causing harm to somebody else, in which case it's a civil matter, which the government never gets involved in.
They are not. I don't expect you to open your mind, so I won't be answering any more.
Actually my mind is quite open. The US also doesn't have a history of causing world wars because some people failed to question the wisdom of their government.
Too many sites are impossible to get to. Google isn't.
So you've chosen Google to answer for the sins of others.
It's nothing to do with censoring opinions. This is a right to be forgotten.
It doesn't matter what it's a right to, or even what purpose it is for. These are still opinions.
Your concept of free speech, that you are implicitly defending, is just another right. It's not more important. It just happens to be one that the US considers a higher priority.
And for very good reason. Being denied the ability to express an opinion, even if it's an unpopular one, is the driving force behind oppressive governments of any variety. In fact it was the very basis of that with which allowed Fascism to take over Europe, and is the same basis behind North Korea and China holding the power they presently do.
For example some people's lives are ruined by "revenge porn". Imagine that there was video of you having sex, or some other activity you aren;t proud of.
So then go after the hosting provider of that content.
Search results are literally Google's opinion of what is the most relevant to what you're looking for. Censoring that basically means that your government is allowed to censor whatever opinions they'd like.
Or SF86 wasn't the only data stolen, and the US government only chose to reveal that it was just SF86 stolen.
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the US government has a lot of knowledge of basically every spy network in the world, allied and non-allied countries alike. It's called counter-surveillance, and the US has been doing it for a long time.
So what is France trying to accomplish then? Clearly if Frenchies want to find this information, they will. And why should Google even comply?
Nazi is basically an abbreviation of the German word for National Socialism, spelt in German as Nationalsozialismus, with those first four letters sounding exactly like the word you know as Nazi ("not see".) I'm sure National Socialism sounds similar when said in other languages as well, so it wouldn't surprise me if there are other "Nazi" parties that aren't the same as the German one from the early 20th century.
National Socialism is basically Fascism, (a "strength in unity, but one person doesn't matter" type approach to politics and economics) which actually started in Italy by Benito Mousolini, and spread throughout Europe, even to countries that weren't allied to the Axis powers during WWII, in fact many weren't part of WWII at all. For example, Spain was officially Fascist in that period, remained so until at least the 1970's, and still carries fascist elements within its government.
Most Eastern countries then, and still do, consider Fascism to be an example of a European model of government.
So what's Google supposed to do? Install a Great Firewall of France that even blocks French people from using proxy servers that might be used to get uncensored search results?
Well, except tablet users...
Hopefully if Windows 10 actually takes off, we'll see more interest by groups like Google in producing decent tablet versions of their applications for Windows.
Good lord...why? The modern app platform sucks royally from a developer perspective.
Not only that, but the modern UI userbase is small enough to safely ignore for any sane developer.
what's with Go's 'Capital letters means public' thing. Grrrrr.
So you don't have to type the word public and can just Go straight to coding the function.
That's not what I asked. What message do you believe they're going to deliver that the NOAA and EPA don't already deliver?
Use less carbon? Already done.
Pollute less? Already done.
Recycle more? Already done.
Stop cutting down trees? Already done.
In other words, what exactly do we expect to gain from NASA's research that we won't gain from NOAA/EPA?
Doing research just for the sake of doing research is not only pointless but wasteful. If you don't have some kind of concrete goal, then at the very least come up with one, otherwise don't waste money.
In addition to what AC already said, simply giving money to people doesn't do them any favors. Ultimately the only way to bring anybody out of poverty is for them to act on their own. Neither you, the government, nor charitable organizations can change that fact.
Honestly I want to believe the global warming stuff because it's based in empirical science, which I put a LOT of stock in. Empirical science has literally saved my life numerous times.
I mean shit, I even donated to Greenpeace once. No joke.
The problem is I always see "irreversible climate disaster coming in 10 years unless we act now" every 10 years, and not a one of them has actually happened.
Sometimes the scientific consensus is not only wrong, but way wrong. Take nutrition science for example. We believed for 30 years that dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol, and just now we're finding out how dead wrong that is. Look at how many times the food pyramid has changed.
Personally I've had it with climate science. I just don't care anymore.
Last I checked, spacex wants to charge less than Russia. Also last I checked, Russia isn't a corporation.
I actually think that's kind of genius. It makes everybody's code more legible. I'm not that much of a programmer, mostly dealing with interpreted scripting languages like TCL, Bash, and Powershell, and I can't tell you how many times I've hated reading somebody else's script because they didn't indent for shit, and they put their curly braces in such weird places that it was hard to tell what was encapsulated inside of what. And then they somehow expect somebody else to be able to debug it later.
Cars.
An incredibly crap method of transport, two tons heap burning fossil fuels - wasting most of what they burn.
Most of the population do not seem to be able to think rationally about cars.
Well you're referring to internal combustion engines more than you're referring to cars, as electric cars don't have this problem. Not only that but they've only been around for not much longer than a century, which in the grand scheme of things, isn't long at all. And as you mentioned, internal combustion is VERY energy inefficient, which means it's also costly. As better technologies come around (which they are) the internal combustion engine will go the way of the buggy whip.
Which by the way, had we stayed with the horse and carriage, the roads would be so filled with horse shit that there would be no room to do anything else. The combustion engine offered cheaper transportation, just as whatever comes next will offer even cheaper transportation.
Over-population.
Probably because it's not an actual long-term threat. Population is following a logistic curve, not an exponential one.
Or are you just attempting to bunch together people who have their eyes open with the gullible fools who believe everything that prison-planet comes out with?
No. You, and everybody else are (deliberately?) grossly misinterpreting what I'm saying. There's virtually no scientific basis I can see where people are incapable of perceiving long term threats, because people do it all the time. Just most of the time when they do it, it's against an imagined threat. Before the Alex Jones types, it was biblical apocalypse, hell-fire and brimstone, blah blah.
I didn't say that all threats are imagined. One very real one, that I don't see anybody ever denying, is that our sun will eventually run out of hydrogen, and when it does, the earth is quite finished (as in, basically everything above the mantle becomes vaporized.) This is perhaps the key reason why I think NASA is better focused on manned space flight rather than basically doing the same thing that the EPA/NOAA already do anyways.
I wonder if a summer blockbuster has different social conventions to a conference. Nah that can't be it.
So jokes that might offend somebody are only allowed to come in the form of a summer blockbuster? Hollywood would be proud.
Don't dodge the question, what further point is NASA going to drive home that the NOAA and/or the EPA don't already do?
Well, the problem is that the premise of this article is that the author somehow is superhuman and sees threats to humanity that the common plebs can't observe because of their inferior mental capabilities. The idea that brains might be better at detecting direct threats to the individual rather than the herd isn't that controversial and further studies on the subject could be interesting.
Not only that but there are actually a lot of people who are very perceptive of long term threats. These people typically suffer from various forms of anxiety disorders and/or various chondrias. The worst ones typically hang out at 911truth.org, infowars.com, or prisonplanet.com, constantly pester the bilderberg group, and believe that there's an active global conspiracy by completely imagined groups like NWO or Illuminati.
One of these things will benefit humanity in the near future. The other will not.
So in other words, what you're saying is that we should look out for the near future and just do nothing at all for the far future, because right now that's basically what we're doing.
Throwing that aside entirely, what further point are we going to drive home by NASA basically doing the same thing the EPA and NOAA are already doing? Tell people even more to reduce carbon emissions? Sounds super productive, and an amazing use of tax money.
Why is it idiotic? It's just dark humor at the worst.
So it being really bad dark humour (if it is) isn't idiotic? I'd say making ill advised jokes is idiotic.
Check this joke out that I heard
You may have noticed that when a group makes a joke about itself it is generally taken very differently from an outside group making a joke about the group. You may wish to consider why.
Have you ever seen the movie "The Dark Knight"? Most people who saw it loved the character of the Joker. He actually does make most people laugh. Essentially what you're saying is that they're all idiots, and you're also not only wrong, but yourself a prude for actually thinking so. It was a brilliantly written character in a brilliantly written movie, and only a very non-idiot can make very demented actions seem funny.
Anyways go ahead and reply with another prudish SJW rant.
Oh God! When the general media gets a hold of the projections and they prove to be not perfect, the pundits are gonna come out and claim that all of NASA's climate research is garbage. The Republicans will want to reduce NASA's budget even more.
I don't know about what the Republicans want, but I do know that it's rather pathetic that even though we won the space race, we've since lost the ability to put astronauts in space. Oh but you know what? Who needs manned space exploration when we've got not one, but three, count it, THREE federal agencies dedicated to developing an awesome climate model!
Am I offended? Nope. I'm too jaded, thick skinned and argumentative to be that easily offended. Do I think it's an idiotic thing to say? Yep.
Why is it idiotic? It's just dark humor at the worst. Check this joke out that I heard from a black guy:
What do you call some old black men in a garden shed? Antique farm equipment.
He also tells me that only white people are offended by the N word.
Some people honestly just don't give a shit about race politics, even when they're the victim.
Could be. Just make sure you buy a gun to take care of the business.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
In all seriousness, I wonder if it may some day be possible to piece together the few remaining codons (usually remaining in sequences of a hundred or less) using some kind of avian as a broader template without using it to fill in any gaps. Definitely don't use frog DNA to fill in the gaps, because as a 90's documentary has shown us, the "dinosaurs" end up looking more like reptiles than dinosaurs, that and the 100% female population may breed out of control and take over the island you're experimenting on.
Would be an ungodly massive undertaking if so, and I doubt our existing best possible microscopy is up for the task (I think using PCR would fudge some of the sequences.)