If that's how I came across then I obviously phrased myself badly. I have no right to be offended. If I don't like something that someone says I certainly have no right to block it so that no one else can see it.
I do, however, have a right to stand up and say "that's bollocks!". I will, endeavour not to give any more trolls/flamebaiters the oxygen of publicity in future, though, and instead pour on the carbon dioxide of ignoring.
Say there are three choices for society, call them A, B, and C. Suppose first that everyone prefers option B the least. That is, everyone prefers every other option to B. By unanimity, society must prefer every option to B. Specifically, society prefers A and C to B. Call this situation Profile 1.
On the other hand, if everyone preferred B to everything else, then society would have to prefer B to everything else by unanimity. So it is clear that, if we take Profile 1 and, running through the members in the society in some arbitrary but specific order, move B from the bottom of each person's preference list to the top, there must be some point at which B moves off the bottom of society's preferences as well, since we know it eventually ends up at the top.
It's an intellectual argument that takes a fluid dynamic and focuses on a theoretical point in a transition. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this just say that "in a major upheaval there will be a point where one person makes the first move"?
I'm open to arguments as to why this isn't tripe but, to me, it reads like a psychologist trying to sound scientific (psychologists think scientific means confusing).
If it travels through china and south america, we'll all be better off. If it hits the islamic countries, and kills a bunch, I'll start believing in god.
I'm sorry, did I miss the change in tagline?
"Slashdot: News for racists. Life for whites who matter"?
Just when the fuck did this become acceptable as long as it's -1 troll?
Sorry, I've been away a while, it's a bit of a shock.
No. In Europe copyright was brought in for entirely different reasons that I won't go in to here - it's too tedious and involves petticoats and imperialism.
because they don't have to compete with Windows XP. If copyright for intellectual property lasted a reasonably long time, like, 5 years, corporations would have to compete with both each other and themselves
Ooooh, I like this. Can we do this, please. I'm possibly coming across as sarcastic here, as my enthusiasm has been eroded away over the past few years, but this is genuinely a good idea.
If only we had some kind of democracy to push through intelligent and reasonable ideas.
it should be made illegal by having corporations stripped of powers of "the invidiual"
This is it. I have no problem with corporations having limited liability but they are offering a product and/or service. Why should they be given rights of a citisen?
The only problem is that lobbyists offer a lot of money. Think about the poor congressman/parliamentarian/president. That money really helps them out. They're like footballers, once they leave their positions they're unlikely to get another well paying job again - they need those bribes, errrr incentives I mean.
You may be sarcastic, but it does beg the question: Isn't that what we pay those people for? Isn't it their damn job to investigate what to do and what laws to pass? Isn't that basically their only reason to exist, to find out what's "best" for what is considered the common good and act in this manner?
If they cannot act that way, fire them. Yes, fire them. Out of a cannon if necessary, but they are essentially our employees. If I'm not satisfied with the performance of an employee, I send him packing and hire someone who can do his job.
"Score:5 funny"... What is wrong with this picture?
As far as the "providing it for less" part, I'd be interested in auditing the books on that. While they may be DIRECTLY billing customers less than TWC and Embarq, I wonder if they are subsidizing the cost with general taxation revenue. Also, did the use general taxation revenue to build the infrastructure? And, are they looking to recoup those costs via the service provided or just ignore it as an off-book expense?
All of those are what other, non-government providers, have to do. None of them are free, but a government can bury the costs so the general public THINKS they're getting something for nothing. TANSTAAFL."
So the government sets up a service that people asked for but no company would provide, runs it at a loss and makes up for it with tax raises that will be unpopular?
Why would they do that rather than, say I don't know, not?
What a sense of humour you must have. I imagine if you were running a company you would find it hilarious if your employees started to dictate your actions.
It's funny because in reality our government controls us and not the other way around! Priceless.
You know in a capitalist society I hear that the employer is in charge not the employee and the unions... I'm too confused now. What point am I making?
My rather clumsy joke seems to have become confused with an opinion.
You see, I was saying it would be quite annoying if you waited 40 years and all you got from an alien intelligence was a simple recognition of your message. It was an attempt at humour, and for that I express my humble apologies.
As a sign of penance I will respond to your "Insightful" comment in a serious manner, and jettison all humour.
Yes, it would be weird and freaky if we spoke to aliens in English and they responded in English. Insightful.
It would, in fact take a long time to decipher a message sent to us by an alien. Insightful.
"Hello? This is humanity, we are [blah, blah - lots of info about us and Earth]..."
Was meant to signify that a lot of information would be sent.
I'm not sure that it would be "wiser" to talk for 20 years, though, mainly because that's plainly ridiculous. You wouldn't actually be doing some form of interstellar radio show you'd probably use binary to transmit information - 20 years worth of raw data would probably be excessive.
You're right. I keep forgetting that it's either one extreme or another, shame really, it would be nice if there were options somewhere in between the two.
For example I was going to have a coffee with 2 sugars today but there was only 1 spoonful left so I had no choice but to ban all caffeine from my flat.
Maybe arms isn't the only option? "If it comes to the worst at least I am armed" isn't really the cry of of a patriot. I hate the cliche, so I'm going to gut it:
frog... boiling... slowly...
This isn't a society where a last stand applies. You can decry all the injustice as it flies past in the news cycle if you like (I do) but I have to wonder what our grand parents would do if what has happened to us had happened on their watch.
Maybe we are the generation of the iPod, depressing as it sounds. Maybe our children will do better at working for a fairer society - this pyramid scheme we're working with now is pretty shocking to be honest, and could probably be summarised with the oxymoron "communist capitalism" in that capitalism is king until it fails, and then we help them out.
Indeed. I couldn't not disagree more. We are incredibly vigilant nowadays, though, aren't we. We noticed the patriot act with eagle eyes. Torturing detainees who were suspected terrorists was something that we caught in our vigilance. Criminal prosecution for civil cases didn't pass our vigilant eyes unnoticed.
We're so vigilant it's scary. It's reassuring to know that whatever actions of idiocy and questionable legality the government commits at least we'll notice and say "Tut! At least it's not the other guy!"
There's always some dastardly evildoers trying to steal our freedoms, nowadays, isn't there. If it's not the extremists it's the communists, or the democrats, or the republicans or the liberals, or the PC brigade with all their health and safety mumbo jumbo, coming to take away our precious, precious freedoms (it's our freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedommmmms, preeeeeeeeeeeeeeecious). As we stare at this wonderous package of glory. Our freedoms, which we have, and those ever growing hordes of zealots - from one side of the political spectrum or another (depending on our own beliefs) - coming to rip it from our hands and hurl it in to the volcanoes of Mordor or something. Or freedoms! Please! Won't someone think of the freedoms!
It's certainly an emotive issue.
And if people actually did care then maybe they'd stop slinging shit into the eyes of fabricated enemies for 15 seconds and realise that there is a middle ground in which you can actually work together and not just boil it down to some pitiful good/evil pantomime.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's how I came across then I obviously phrased myself badly. I have no right to be offended. If I don't like something that someone says I certainly have no right to block it so that no one else can see it.
I do, however, have a right to stand up and say "that's bollocks!". I will, endeavour not to give any more trolls/flamebaiters the oxygen of publicity in future, though, and instead pour on the carbon dioxide of ignoring.
Fair point, I apologise. I guess I should never post with an equal amount of anger and disbelief.
Balls
Say there are three choices for society, call them A, B, and C. Suppose first that everyone prefers option B the least. That is, everyone prefers every other option to B. By unanimity, society must prefer every option to B. Specifically, society prefers A and C to B. Call this situation Profile 1.
On the other hand, if everyone preferred B to everything else, then society would have to prefer B to everything else by unanimity. So it is clear that, if we take Profile 1 and, running through the members in the society in some arbitrary but specific order, move B from the bottom of each person's preference list to the top, there must be some point at which B moves off the bottom of society's preferences as well, since we know it eventually ends up at the top.
It's an intellectual argument that takes a fluid dynamic and focuses on a theoretical point in a transition. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this just say that "in a major upheaval there will be a point where one person makes the first move"?
I'm open to arguments as to why this isn't tripe but, to me, it reads like a psychologist trying to sound scientific (psychologists think scientific means confusing).
That's car crash punctuation, it's giving me nausea.
If it travels through china and south america, we'll all be better off. If it hits the islamic countries, and kills a bunch, I'll start believing in god.
I'm sorry, did I miss the change in tagline?
"Slashdot: News for racists. Life for whites who matter"?
Just when the fuck did this become acceptable as long as it's -1 troll?
Sorry, I've been away a while, it's a bit of a shock.
No. In Europe copyright was brought in for entirely different reasons that I won't go in to here - it's too tedious and involves petticoats and imperialism.
because they don't have to compete with Windows XP. If copyright for intellectual property lasted a reasonably long time, like, 5 years, corporations would have to compete with both each other and themselves
Ooooh, I like this. Can we do this, please. I'm possibly coming across as sarcastic here, as my enthusiasm has been eroded away over the past few years, but this is genuinely a good idea.
If only we had some kind of democracy to push through intelligent and reasonable ideas.
Exactly.
Although it's a different method, E=MC^2, like Britney's "Hit Me One More Time", made Einstein millions. It's comparable, you see.
it should be made illegal by having corporations stripped of powers of "the invidiual"
This is it. I have no problem with corporations having limited liability but they are offering a product and/or service. Why should they be given rights of a citisen?
The only problem is that lobbyists offer a lot of money. Think about the poor congressman/parliamentarian/president. That money really helps them out. They're like footballers, once they leave their positions they're unlikely to get another well paying job again - they need those bribes, errrr incentives I mean.
You may be sarcastic, but it does beg the question: Isn't that what we pay those people for? Isn't it their damn job to investigate what to do and what laws to pass? Isn't that basically their only reason to exist, to find out what's "best" for what is considered the common good and act in this manner?
If they cannot act that way, fire them. Yes, fire them. Out of a cannon if necessary, but they are essentially our employees. If I'm not satisfied with the performance of an employee, I send him packing and hire someone who can do his job.
"Score:5 funny" ... What is wrong with this picture?
As far as the "providing it for less" part, I'd be interested in auditing the books on that. While they may be DIRECTLY billing customers less than TWC and Embarq, I wonder if they are subsidizing the cost with general taxation revenue. Also, did the use general taxation revenue to build the infrastructure? And, are they looking to recoup those costs via the service provided or just ignore it as an off-book expense?
All of those are what other, non-government providers, have to do. None of them are free, but a government can bury the costs so the general public THINKS they're getting something for nothing. TANSTAAFL."
So the government sets up a service that people asked for but no company would provide, runs it at a loss and makes up for it with tax raises that will be unpopular?
Why would they do that rather than, say I don't know, not?
What a sense of humour you must have. I imagine if you were running a company you would find it hilarious if your employees started to dictate your actions.
It's funny because in reality our government controls us and not the other way around! Priceless.
You know in a capitalist society I hear that the employer is in charge not the employee and the unions... I'm too confused now. What point am I making?
My rather clumsy joke seems to have become confused with an opinion.
You see, I was saying it would be quite annoying if you waited 40 years and all you got from an alien intelligence was a simple recognition of your message. It was an attempt at humour, and for that I express my humble apologies.
As a sign of penance I will respond to your "Insightful" comment in a serious manner, and jettison all humour.
Yes, it would be weird and freaky if we spoke to aliens in English and they responded in English. Insightful.
It would, in fact take a long time to decipher a message sent to us by an alien. Insightful.
Mod parent up! (insightful).
I believe they do in a vacuum.
The problem you have though is that if the aliens are really polite they'll just sit there waiting for you to finish before they respond.
"Hello? This is humanity, we are [blah, blah - lots of info about us and Earth]..."
Was meant to signify that a lot of information would be sent.
I'm not sure that it would be "wiser" to talk for 20 years, though, mainly because that's plainly ridiculous. You wouldn't actually be doing some form of interstellar radio show you'd probably use binary to transmit information - 20 years worth of raw data would probably be excessive.
The star is about 20 light years away. That's a 20-year round trip for radio communications,
40 years round trip. That's a long time to wait for a response. Imagine we sent out a message announcing our presence and saying hello:
"Hello? This is humanity, we are [blah, blah - lots of info about us and Earth]..." ..... .....
40 years later and you get the response:
"Hi!"
How pissed would you be?
You're right. I keep forgetting that it's either one extreme or another, shame really, it would be nice if there were options somewhere in between the two.
For example I was going to have a coffee with 2 sugars today but there was only 1 spoonful left so I had no choice but to ban all caffeine from my flat.
Maybe arms isn't the only option? "If it comes to the worst at least I am armed" isn't really the cry of of a patriot. I hate the cliche, so I'm going to gut it:
frog... boiling... slowly...
This isn't a society where a last stand applies. You can decry all the injustice as it flies past in the news cycle if you like (I do) but I have to wonder what our grand parents would do if what has happened to us had happened on their watch.
Maybe we are the generation of the iPod, depressing as it sounds. Maybe our children will do better at working for a fairer society - this pyramid scheme we're working with now is pretty shocking to be honest, and could probably be summarised with the oxymoron "communist capitalism" in that capitalism is king until it fails, and then we help them out.
I think that's true, but I think copyright is a good thing as long as it protects the artist and not some middleman organisation.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Indeed. I couldn't not disagree more. We are incredibly vigilant nowadays, though, aren't we. We noticed the patriot act with eagle eyes. Torturing detainees who were suspected terrorists was something that we caught in our vigilance. Criminal prosecution for civil cases didn't pass our vigilant eyes unnoticed.
We're so vigilant it's scary. It's reassuring to know that whatever actions of idiocy and questionable legality the government commits at least we'll notice and say "Tut! At least it's not the other guy!"
There's always some dastardly evildoers trying to steal our freedoms, nowadays, isn't there. If it's not the extremists it's the communists, or the democrats, or the republicans or the liberals, or the PC brigade with all their health and safety mumbo jumbo, coming to take away our precious, precious freedoms (it's our freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedommmmms, preeeeeeeeeeeeeeecious). As we stare at this wonderous package of glory. Our freedoms, which we have, and those ever growing hordes of zealots - from one side of the political spectrum or another (depending on our own beliefs) - coming to rip it from our hands and hurl it in to the volcanoes of Mordor or something. Or freedoms! Please! Won't someone think of the freedoms!
It's certainly an emotive issue.
And if people actually did care then maybe they'd stop slinging shit into the eyes of fabricated enemies for 15 seconds and realise that there is a middle ground in which you can actually work together and not just boil it down to some pitiful good/evil pantomime.
If you want to be informal, why not just say "fuck?"
Surely the question mark should be outside of the quotes?
'These places may hold small asteroids, which could be leftovers from a Mars-sized planet that formed billions of years ago,'
Can we not confirm the existence of these using telescopes on Earth or in orbit?