Furthermore, humans must eventually bring safe, effective GM to bear on the problems that we have inherited and inflicted on ourselves. Evolution has shaped humans into tool-using social creatures for protection and the societies spawned have radically changed the way our genes are selected for and against. No longer is it as imperative for humans to be in the height of physical fitness, nor have excellent genetic health in terms of hereditary afflictions and cancer defenses. Indeed, I believe the prominence of cancer today to be influenced by the tempering of natural selection in our collective gene pool. This is the threat we will continue to face and it will not go away.
I express these concerns with my consumer dollars. I do not buy organic because of the possibility that proceeds will go to political efforts fighting the progress of GM in any sphere. These political efforts are regressive and threaten the progress and (perhaps, if I am not being too dramatic) the continued well being of the human race.
By stifling this emerging GM market, such political efforts will retard the growth of more advanced, human oriented technologies and economies. Researchers will not be able to learn the necessary lessons to use this technology safely, now or in the future or it will not come to fruition until it is too late. I don't see how we have any choice but to develop these technologies before our own genes betray us. We must become what we are, users of tools, and move forward.
For these reasons and more: Please don't buy organic.
Well met. I think you will find that, without the slightest shred of doubt, in every conceivable universe and in every way you can possibly consider, over-blown exaggeration is the lowest form of humor.
Oh Slashdot. That is terrible.
Using the word 'dithering' in a headline about television standards technology. Shame on you. Punnery is the lowest humor.
You're point is well taken and I am not going to challenge it, but I think I know why the mainstream media would make a big deal out of an insipid story like this. It involves the perception of hackers as highly motivated by notoriety, a perception that the hacking community brings upon itself.
Many hackers try to justify their activities (to judges, the media, their parents) by suggesting that:
-They weren't going to harm anything, just see if they could do whatever it was they were attempting.
-They were doing a service by exposing vulnerabilities.
-They were just joyriding.
I think that these justifications have never sat well with established technophobes, thus we have spurious articles like these trying to paint all hackers with the same brush.
...he must use the vocabulary of victory. He must speak in terms of what actions ( or lack thereof) he will take upon inauguration.
Yet, while there is brief mention of pragmatism and compromise, he doesn't satisfy one of the main questions of the libertarian concept and his potential administration: bi-(or tri)-partisan co-operation.
It is the sticking point I have with most libertarian policies, with which I sympathize. No doubt market based systems will be more efficient, but how can a nation be weened from the nanny/welfare state to which it has become accustomed without disrupting or ending the lives of its members? Is the American political machinery, or any related variant thereof, capable in principal of making such an adjustment? How can a libertarian executive facilitate this change, except by not signing laws handed him from the centrist legislature?
While advancing these political ideas is of great importance, and stumping for the nation's highest goes a long way towards raising visibility, would not energies be better spent trying to simply get the nation in a position for such a transfer? Perhaps concentrate more on reactive and interpretive posts in the judiciary.
I just can't see the use of a highly placed libertarian official right now. What needs to happen revolves around setting conservative judicial precedences and making laws against laws. And of course, the former of these requires amendments and, therefore, lots of seats in congress.
Tut-tut. If you are going to come down on MS over this option, don't distort the issue. MS would love to have more fancy shmancy hipster customers, vis. MSN music store.
The option isn't less useful, it is more useful; especially to IT administrators looking for a greater degree of control over their users' digital schpincters. If you are going to flame MS, it should be over the extension of control they can exert over users, not some kind of social pogrom against whomever you are concerned with.
And, as it has already been pointed out, there have been tools around to do this for some time.
Does anyone recall those IBM e-solutions ads that ran a few years ago? Many of them featured a forceful and decisive Avery Brooks http://imdb.com/name/nm0000984/preaching on what-really-matters in IT.
One such ad spot opened with him angrily demanding: "Where are my flying cars?!?". Avery Brooks was clearly upset that this great promise of the future had not yet been delivered. His fury gradually subsides as he comes to the revelation that we have something better: the internet. True advancement, says Avery Brooks and IBM, is not in the flash and frill of flying cars, but rather in substantive internet technologies: the ability to move, replicate and share data instantly.
So the question posed: If you could live in a world with flying cars or (exclusive) the internet, which would you choose? Why?
Whoa. I would really like to hear how an inter-dimensional gate to hell on a Demios penal colony has anything to do with socialistic political agendas.:) Seriously. Enlighten me.
Little anecdote along these lines. I was all hot and bothered for the Mechwarrior series of games, so when Mechwarrior 3 came out I jump right in and played the single player campaign until my body screamed for its required raw materials....like 'water' and 'carbohydrates.'
It then dawned on me that I could derive a new plateau of enjoyment from this game by hitting up the multiplayer (we had recently got broadband). Straight away I had visions of joining a clan and rising to a level of prominence. My strategy would confound...my reflexes would dazzle...the sheer artistry and elegance of the custom configuration on my war machine would revolutionize design standards. These were my thoughts as I received the instructions for my first clan audition.
Them: "Get in this machine and configure it with nothing but energy weapons." Me: "But my design philosophy is really built arou---" Them: "You want in or not?" Me: "Yes sir."
I promise this is getting to the point. I couldn't understand why they were having me configure the machine like this, until they explained that all the other weapons were basically useless because of lag: You need to shoot about 3-4 seconds ahead of your opponent and this can only really be done with the energy weapons, because they travel instantaneously.... Three to four seconds ahead? Forget that...so ended my multiplayer Mechwarrior outing. I've been away from it for a while, so maybe it has got better. But the lag situation really took the life out of that 'net play game.
People find the Scalia move suprising because the conservative line usually includes support for 'tough on crime' measures, especially those which focus on drug related crime. Such thermal imaging devices would be invaluable in finding hothouses, labs and the like.
Slashdot Mirror
I concur.
Furthermore, humans must eventually bring safe, effective GM to bear on the problems that we have inherited and inflicted on ourselves. Evolution has shaped humans into tool-using social creatures for protection and the societies spawned have radically changed the way our genes are selected for and against. No longer is it as imperative for humans to be in the height of physical fitness, nor have excellent genetic health in terms of hereditary afflictions and cancer defenses. Indeed, I believe the prominence of cancer today to be influenced by the tempering of natural selection in our collective gene pool. This is the threat we will continue to face and it will not go away.
I express these concerns with my consumer dollars. I do not buy organic because of the possibility that proceeds will go to political efforts fighting the progress of GM in any sphere. These political efforts are regressive and threaten the progress and (perhaps, if I am not being too dramatic) the continued well being of the human race.
By stifling this emerging GM market, such political efforts will retard the growth of more advanced, human oriented technologies and economies. Researchers will not be able to learn the necessary lessons to use this technology safely, now or in the future or it will not come to fruition until it is too late. I don't see how we have any choice but to develop these technologies before our own genes betray us. We must become what we are, users of tools, and move forward. For these reasons and more: Please don't buy organic.
Well met. I think you will find that, without the slightest shred of doubt, in every conceivable universe and in every way you can possibly consider, over-blown exaggeration is the lowest form of humor.
Oh Slashdot. That is terrible. Using the word 'dithering' in a headline about television standards technology. Shame on you. Punnery is the lowest humor.
You're point is well taken and I am not going to challenge it, but I think I know why the mainstream media would make a big deal out of an insipid story like this. It involves the perception of hackers as highly motivated by notoriety, a perception that the hacking community brings upon itself.
Many hackers try to justify their activities (to judges, the media, their parents) by suggesting that:
-They weren't going to harm anything, just see if they could do whatever it was they were attempting.
-They were doing a service by exposing vulnerabilities.
-They were just joyriding.
I think that these justifications have never sat well with established technophobes, thus we have spurious articles like these trying to paint all hackers with the same brush.
...he must use the vocabulary of victory. He must speak in terms of what actions ( or lack thereof) he will take upon inauguration. Yet, while there is brief mention of pragmatism and compromise, he doesn't satisfy one of the main questions of the libertarian concept and his potential administration: bi-(or tri)-partisan co-operation. It is the sticking point I have with most libertarian policies, with which I sympathize. No doubt market based systems will be more efficient, but how can a nation be weened from the nanny/welfare state to which it has become accustomed without disrupting or ending the lives of its members? Is the American political machinery, or any related variant thereof, capable in principal of making such an adjustment? How can a libertarian executive facilitate this change, except by not signing laws handed him from the centrist legislature? While advancing these political ideas is of great importance, and stumping for the nation's highest goes a long way towards raising visibility, would not energies be better spent trying to simply get the nation in a position for such a transfer? Perhaps concentrate more on reactive and interpretive posts in the judiciary. I just can't see the use of a highly placed libertarian official right now. What needs to happen revolves around setting conservative judicial precedences and making laws against laws. And of course, the former of these requires amendments and, therefore, lots of seats in congress.
No, it's not some Microsoft conspiracy to end iTMS and the iPod.
No, that's what the MSN Music Store is for.
Tut-tut. If you are going to come down on MS over this option, don't distort the issue. MS would love to have more fancy shmancy hipster customers, vis. MSN music store. The option isn't less useful, it is more useful; especially to IT administrators looking for a greater degree of control over their users' digital schpincters. If you are going to flame MS, it should be over the extension of control they can exert over users, not some kind of social pogrom against whomever you are concerned with. And, as it has already been pointed out, there have been tools around to do this for some time.
Does anyone recall those IBM e-solutions ads that ran a few years ago? Many of them featured a forceful and decisive Avery Brooks http://imdb.com/name/nm0000984/preaching on what-really-matters in IT.
One such ad spot opened with him angrily demanding: "Where are my flying cars?!?". Avery Brooks was clearly upset that this great promise of the future had not yet been delivered. His fury gradually subsides as he comes to the revelation that we have something better: the internet. True advancement, says Avery Brooks and IBM, is not in the flash and frill of flying cars, but rather in substantive internet technologies: the ability to move, replicate and share data instantly.
So the question posed: If you could live in a world with flying cars or (exclusive) the internet, which would you choose? Why?
Whoa. I would really like to hear how an inter-dimensional gate to hell on a Demios penal colony has anything to do with socialistic political agendas. :) Seriously. Enlighten me.
You sound like some Objectivists I know.
Little anecdote along these lines. I was all hot and bothered for the Mechwarrior series of games, so when Mechwarrior 3 came out I jump right in and played the single player campaign until my body screamed for its required raw materials....like 'water' and 'carbohydrates.'
...
It then dawned on me that I could derive a new plateau of enjoyment from this game by hitting up the multiplayer (we had recently got broadband). Straight away I had visions of joining a clan and rising to a level of prominence. My strategy would confound...my reflexes would dazzle...the sheer artistry and elegance of the custom configuration on my war machine would revolutionize design standards. These were my thoughts as I received the instructions for my first clan audition.
Them: "Get in this machine and configure it with nothing but energy weapons."
Me: "But my design philosophy is really built arou---"
Them: "You want in or not?"
Me: "Yes sir."
I promise this is getting to the point. I couldn't understand why they were having me configure the machine like this, until they explained that all the other weapons were basically useless because of lag: You need to shoot about 3-4 seconds ahead of your opponent and this can only really be done with the energy weapons, because they travel instantaneously.
Three to four seconds ahead? Forget that...so ended my multiplayer Mechwarrior outing. I've been away from it for a while, so maybe it has got better. But the lag situation really took the life out of that 'net play game.
People find the Scalia move suprising because the conservative line usually includes support for 'tough on crime' measures, especially those which focus on drug related crime. Such thermal imaging devices would be invaluable in finding hothouses, labs and the like.