I do think a capacitive touchscreen (though not the resistive ones) will last at least 15 years (the iphone has one).
The backlight on the lcd might not though, although now with leds this is becoming less and less of a problem. Though, of course, the battery is not going to last.
In 15 years your iphone will still be going strong, keyboard-wise.
You are assuming people individually have the right to be governed as they please. Which is obviously beyond impractical.
Because you were born in America you get a limited choice of governments, which is a LOT more than someone born in Iran or China gets, and it may in fact be the most freedom practically possible.
You don't want a standing army protecting you ? Then the result is simple : why don't you just die ? There are enough people simply wanting to kill you for breathing (or being white, or black, or blue for that matter, or believing in Jesus, or not believing in the paedophile prophet, or because you're female, or...). So if you don't want anyone to protect you with weapons, just move to the conclusion : die.
Or go live in Ramallah or Khartoum or Ryadh, and "be free" : you'll be dead soon enough (esp. if you're female).
Alternatively there are a few European countries that are moving in the "no standing army" direction : Holland, and the EU as a whole (but the EU still has a lot of individual armies), so go live there and watch what happens.
The truth is these people don't want to share power. You hate democracy in general, but most of all you hate the compromises that it necessitates.
Democracy is the best possible government system we know, and we all know why it works : because it delays the point where idiots (and truly sorry : like you) force their idiotic will on the people, on everyone, the point where doing so starts killing them in the process. And yes, you heard me right, delay. Nevertheless making someone like you, or Al Gore, or Barack O. president will lessen said delay (potentially to 0). And yes, I'm fully aware that McCain will not be able to stop the slide into more idiotic, more suicidal policies, but electing him will at least delay said slide.
Now they need to start doing this outside of their country too. Wouldn't be too hard, especially since you can trivially get past American border security as incidents keep illustrating.
Think how trivial something like this would be for the chinese government (btw the nature of the substance is confirmed, and the culprit is a somali muslim that illegaly entered US via the canadian border) :
That you shouldn't threaten lawsuits, especially not lawsuits via the fair US system. Fair lawsuits can't really be used for this at all.
So they should just resort by default to violence, because that works. We all know what happened to "fitna", first on liveleak, but youtube followed soon after. And we all know how much criticism of islam we see online. Keep in mind that this is a religion founded by a paedophile massacrer, that's causing millions of death via organised slaughter, so you can imagine just how necessary criticism is.
So IOC and China : pay attention. "Progressives" or in general "western elites" aren't afraid of the western law system. Therefore, don't use it. Just kill one of them, and they all collectively and immediately shut up.
They're cowards. Utter and complete cowards. So use that, not the court system. Have some Chinese in America send death threats with some sugar in the envelope to the idiots, and they'll soon shut up.
Just find the history of the pakistan secession and read about his role.
And btw, Gandhi did actually had this to say about the holocaust. He was alive and very powerfull during said holocaust, after all, so judge for yourself how moral this guy actually was :
The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep. Mahatma Gandhi, Segaon, November 20, 1938
In other words, the Jews should revel in the all-out slaughter of Jews, for doing that would result in "thanksgiving and joy". Once you realize what a superb darling of the left Hitler was, this starts making sense. The "champion of the poor" that Hitler was needed to get rid of just a tiny little bit of people to create utopia, and you shouldn't just a few people who want to live stop you from creating utopia for all the rest, right ?
After all, what do Benito Mussulini, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Jimmy Carter (the cause of our current and soon-to-escalate Iranian problems) have in common ? Nobel peace prize nominations.
But we all know : the wholesale slaughter of Jews would bring joy to a lot of today's left as well. There's however one tiny issue : Jews don't want to die. However the left's feelings provided by "helping" "colored"(? what's the pc term today ?) people... helping them kill others, but that too is helping you know... far outweighs such trivialities as others not wanting to die obviously. People should be glad to lay down their lives for "global equality" "sustainability" and other really nice sounding words.
I don't know why Gandhi let people get killed, and killed and killed some more. Perhaps because Muslims killed his people ("mughal empire") for over a thousand years, as a matter of policy. The same empire killed blacks and sold them into slavery in Africa. This very trade and constant reign of genocides was started by the muslim prophet, but obviously such a detail has nothing to do with islam, right ?
Then again al Gore wants to "lower global population to sustainable levels", so perhaps the more genocidal of muslims will find allies in him. What are the chances of that population lowering happening voluntarily (let's not forget he wants it halved in 60 years) ? I wonder what his plan is when that little problem of people wanting to... well live... gets into his mind. I'm sure he'll start by giving up his own life as an example. Then again not even Gandhi offered up his own life. He always let others take care of that specific part of his ideology:-D.
Then again so do muslim leaders. Suicide bombers never include imams or mullahs or even merely people from political families, but it always turns out to be their students. After all YOU should "revell" in allah's after-death reward. THEY on the other hand, will revell in the pre-death rewards, thank you very much.
I'm sure I'm blowing quite a few fuses of yours here. But given the way things are going, I'd prepare for some VERY "inconvenient truths", and prepare for them being forced into your mind by the harsh mistress that is clear and present reality (right now future, but it's coming as they say).
Actually said mutagenic properties could be used as a weapon against AIDS instead of trying to counter them.
Aids dies a few decades after the last uninfected human contracts it.
Think about it : mutations in the aids virus will mean longer survival for the carriers of the virus, which means more children, therefore more spreading of the virus. AIDS's evolution would have the same goal as human evolution : human survival.
And for good reason they would not let this happen. I mean I'm all for scientific research, but this blows every moral limit existing out of the water.
This guy (girl ?) would be parentless, possibly violent and retarded. He would not tell us much about their civilization, since that's "software" and we can only clone the "hardware". He'd just depend on us and die, at worst he'll strike oil and become like the middle east.
Then what do we do ? Clone 20 and let them start breeding an army ? Then when they finally figure out how to hurt us, after 100 or 200 years, we eradicate the lot of them ?
I mean it will be VERY hard indeed to merely keep most modern humans alive & peaceful in the next 50 years. Any specific reason you want to bring back actual wild, but extremely intelligent monkeys ? Or alternatively called really dumb humans ? In case you've never been to africa : monkeys beat the crap out of humans all the time, and tend to steal in organized parties, commander, orders and basic language are all present. Dunno if they involve any prophets. So do humans, unless civilized (as long as you don't mistake "have fancy cars" and "civilized", this is an easily defensible position)
Let's not create this. It'd be horrible for the created, and a disaster in waiting for the creator.
Is it possible to prevent this by preparing, planning, and mitigating? Sure. Will we do that? Not enough to save everyone.
I thought you people believed in Darwin. Evolution works because species grow until they reach a "balance".
Now what does a balance mean and what does it NOT mean :
It does NOT mean policies pushed by lying idiots. In other words a "natural balance" is not a political thing.
Mathematically you will have a natural balance if about 29% of any given generation dies, either due to violence, or food shortage, or (most likely) both. That's what's called a "natural balance".
Now let's get one thing straight : if there is any truth at all to evolution, this WILL happen (unless you want to claim that evolution doesn't apply to humans, but I assume you're not). It's only a matter of when and how, and to who it will happen, not if.
In other words the real bullshit is this :
Nobody will be safe, and it will all be because douchebags today do their best to convince everyone that the people who are trying to work cooperatively, together, toward a common good are the enemy. You're sowing it, you better well fucking expect to reap it.
This is idiotic anti-evolutionism. It's "mama I don't want to" cries at the first day of kindergarten.
The only cooperation evolution really allows for is simple : cooperation in killing "the others" (for all sorts of definitions of "others", but basically once someone is 3 degrees (parents = 1st degree, siblings = 1st degree, nephew = 2nd degree, grandparents = 2nd degree,...) removed from you they basically got to die.
Unless you have, well faith... what else to call it ?, that evolution doesn't apply to humans, there is nothing to do. And there is no-one to blame if you don't have faith. It's just the way it is.
And yes without faith the prediction is that you're going to lose all your little toys (and I mine), and we're going to pick up weapons and attempt to kill eachother once oil starts to go down significantly.
But then again, blaming is a very human, and very counterproductive activity, so just blame it on Bush. The Lord knows everyon else does, so if that makes you feel better, just blame him. Or republicans (I imagine you'll have to switch to McCain at some point, right ?).
The real problem is your ideology (shared by too many ohers). And yes, this problematic ideology is atheism. Unless something overrides Darwin, we won't even try to save ourselves.
In advising this to people, I'm sure you know what will happen to a network (and to the helpdesk of said network) when multiple people start using the same mac-address, right ?
Yeah indeed. That reads like a list of excuses too idiotic to be reasonably believed.
A dhcp server can't match ip to mac ? Oh sure why not... if I were the RIAA's lawyer I'd say "then I'm sure you won't mind if I take a look at those logfiles, now will you ?". And then accept their apology in trade for a promise not to persecute this guy personally for lying in court (2 years).
"Only ARP is possible" riiiiiiiiiiiiiight... and that would have nothing to do with arp being impossible after the computer is disconnected, in other words, it'd be worthless for the RIAA.
They're attempting to bullshit a judge. I'm ambivalent about this. This really shouldn't work and should get that "expert wittness" prosecuted for fraud. On the other hand, I like what he's doing...
But this is bullshit. Since it's presented as the truth to a judge, it really should get someone in trouble.
The problem is intellectuals (defined as "people who think they can do better", or, only partly joking people who think "if everybody did what I say there would be world peace"). We both know slashdot is rife with them.
They have the big problem that Joe Schmoe cares for exactly what you'd think he cares for : his ability to drive his/her car as far as he wants. Food, luxurious food, a big house, toys, children... and that's it. (Or as Barack O states they care for "guns and religion", which is not true, they care for getting their ass comfortable, guns and religion simply help too much to give up)
So a democracy will always be in favor of increased private spending, and increased energy usage, which today means "more co2 release". Which is the very antithesis of most "progressive" (socialist/communist) policies. Let's not forget that it's "progressives" (albeit not American ones, though it did include many European ones) that engineered the USSR famines, and for example China's one child policy is also of progressive making (the Nazi's, also socialists, had similar measures).
This is NOT to say that they're nazi or communist, but it is beyond obvious when listening to Barack O. or Al Gore that what they really want to do is massive, involuntary social re-engineering (whether it's energy usage, "tolerance" as defined by giving money to the day's "popular victims", or "genetic purity" (which was big in socialist circles between 1920 and, well 1960-70, google for "eugenics movement"), they want to re-engineer the whole of society to fit their image of an ideal society). These people are also responsible for the current Iranian government AND for the ascent of power of people like Saddam Hussein (and they were in favor of them on many occasions, why ? Because of their political leanings. Those little details of genocides like the halabja campaign of Iraq, or the recently "impossible to locate anywhere" marsh arabs of Iran, are but pesky problems that can be ignored for the "greater purpose")
The problem is beyond obvious : they expect economical sacrifices of Joe Schmoe, which they will never get from him/her voluntary.
So without violence, the ultimate, massively irrefutable argument, their policies won't be implemented. However they are intellectuals : in an open fight... they lose (and lose big, as cannot be illustrated more thoroughly by the events in Iran in 1972. First progressives overthrew the government. Next the government started executing gays. Something must have gone wrong. It's easy to find out what exactly went wrong : the terrorism of khomeini).
It should be obvious to even the 5 year old daughter of Obama that the energy reductions necessary to reduce carbon output will NEVER be implemented voluntary. The other idea of the green movement, "limiting population", you can guess how much enthousiasm people will have for that one. Some of the greens, by the way, are discussing genocide in order to implement this, though fortunately it's the lunatic fringe for the moment.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
But the solutions of the socialists (and the greens these days) are utter disasters for the common man.
Reducing co2 output is painful. VERY painful. It will never really happen in a democracy. And before you state that Europe proves otherwise, I'd like you to check 2 little details : -> who has the power in the EU ? Does the composition of that body make the EU democratic... or not ? (the commission is the lawgiving instrument of the EU, not the parliament, as you might think. Again, google this) -> exactly how many coal fired power plants are being constructed in the EU ? Zero right ? Oh wait...
I'm sorry, which side is accused of being incorrigibly hateful?
Well we all believe in Darwin, and evolution, don't we ? Because that "theory" (whatever your understanding of that word) states simply :
"everyone is trying to kill everyone else"
So to answer your question : which side is being incorrigibly hateful ? There are many answers :
Darwin : --------
Both, and we ourselves too. Either we're incorrigibly hateful (attempting to exterminate all the other sides) or we're dead.
Islam : -------
Jews, after all allah says they're apes and pigs and should be pursued in order to bring about the end of the world. (I kid you not, the paedophile prophet states that Jews are to be killed to bring about the "last day", which is the end of the world. Well whatever sounded good to the dumb arab masses was good enough for the paedophile prophet, after all he managed to talk his way out of getting caught in bed with a 9 year old girl at age 54. This is also what ahmadinejad is promising to Iranians who, as any sane person would, don't believe any of it)
Judaism : ---------
Jews are forced to defend themselves. Jews value all human life, and therefore Jews don't even kill those trying to kill them, except in direct defense of another human life.
Actually in reality you're going to find that Arab countries get a LOT more of your tax dollars than Israel does.
Did you know that Saudi Arabia actually demands that the U.S. pays them food aid ?
So do a host of other oil-producing muslim countries. Including, but not limited to : Lybia, Tunisia, Sudan, Algeria,...
Tax dollars that are, in more than one case, being used to eradicate whole cultures. Currently Sudan is in the news, but you should ask yourself this question : as recently as 100 years ago, people reported seeing entirely black cities on the south of the mediterranean.
What... what happened to those blacks ? Because there isn't a single black city within 1000 km of the mediterranean coast left.
"jihad" you say, Omar al Bashir ? Now what's that ? Oh right... "inner spiritual struggle"... So that's what massacring black people is called these days.
Great ! Because it's Jews that were living there, and it's Jews that ARE living there.
So if you really believe in the argument that land belongs to the people living on it, there cannot be any possible argument about the land of Israel : it's Jewish.
The first people in recorded history to live on that land were... Jews... and that's just about the only bit of data we have on them.
And if you take the historical Israel : let's not forget that that was quite a bit bigger than the current little spec of land. In fact the original Israel included a few cities that you might have heard of : Damascus, Mecca, Medina, Kirkuk, Amman,...
These cities are, as historical books accurately described, stolen, by massacres, from Jews. And compared to the amount of Jews that the muslims killed and how long they kept killing them, Hitler looks like an annoying fly on the wall.
Also let's not forget that muslims still execute (as in KILL) people for disagreeing with the statement "Non-muslims are the uglyest animals on the face of the earth", followed by advice on what to do if one irritates you : kill not just one, but enough, so that non-muslims "know their place".
Of course, statements like this do not make islam racist. They would make anything else racist, obviously.
And that would be a really cool definition of where land goes, since that would make over 99% of the muslim lands not really anyone's at all, since, in case you haven't noticed, with a few exceptions (which, almost without exceptions, were quite recently mainly Christian lands, e.g. Turkey before the Armenian Genocide, Sudan,...) muslim lands are desolate empty wastelands. So someone really ought to go live there, and just claim it as an independant country, right ?
Muslims merely want to conquer, to steal everything from others, like they have stolen so many things already, like the paedophilic massacring thief that was their "prophet". They even stole the temple, and the kaaba, both of which cannot be called muslim by any stretch of the imagination. If you remain unconvinced of the kaaba being non-muslim, google for allah's daughters, and read some history.
"Muslims are the uglyest animals on the face of the earth. Remember, if they do anything bad, do not just kill the muslim that did it, but kill enough muslims, so that the rest knows their place" (Quran 8:22, with "infidels" replaced by "muslims")
That they'll cut 10 other customers' lines to have one new one !
"Great for the economy".
Not that I haven't got 10 other questions about this, first and foremost being "who owns the 'peering point'" (the incumbent telco ?) ??? (I imagine I'd want a local fiber switch there, would that be possible ?)
Needless to say an (english) sign "NO ENTRY", if clearly visible is sufficient. This means that ALSO the utility company and FedEx are forbidden.
For everyone who does not have "reasonable assumption of permission" (think "the neighbours called 911 and I'm a paramedic"), it is simply forbidden always. Private persons are only allowed to step on private property if (beforehand) invited to do so.
Above & below your property is state domain. In other words you need permission from the state to fly over your property and you need permission from the state to tunnel under it (assuming you take reasonable precautions to prevent collapse or otherwise damage the property, then again permission to fly over it does not equal permission to dump garbage on it from a plane).
In most other countries it's simply not clear. The only thing that's very clear about it, in most European countries, is that if someone decides to violate the law, nothing can be done about it (legally it's a mess, since you don't get to find out the identity of the guy trespassing, and physically you don't get to actually remove him).
Becoming a tired classic : some study is made, and known to give the same result every single time. Girls and boys are not equal in math skills.
However once upon a time. Some "psychologists" manage to devise a test that changes the expected result to be more in line with political correctness. Mostly this just means the title (note how that upon closer examination white boys put down double the scores of white girls, so this is in fact for white girls a worse result than "average" for these studies, also the result mentions very clearly that there were no truly unknown problems on the test, so was this a test of math skills, or a test of carrying out given instructions correctly, an area where women have always outperformed men ?)
And *boom* it is published far and wide and accepted as universal truth, and I mean only the title, not the entire study.
This is, upon close examination, always the result of either fraud or skewing either the test, or the results.
There are way too many things too many scientists just REALLY want to be true, and this is one of them. Therefore, I for one will be trusting the many, many older and politically incorrect tests, and not let this one result override it.
It seems this Janet Hyde woman had priviledged access to SAT results, and therefore this study was at least partially sponsored by the government, who, surprise, surprise really wants women to score equally well. Although even she makes the point that the test has been dumbed down, and the question remains how well it tested analytical skills on hard problems. Clearly boys and girls do equally well on trivial, preprogrammed problems (then again, it is trivial to write a computer program that under those circumstances will have same or better performance, I mean if not presented with unknown problems).
You see this more and more. Even more controversial are cultural differences. Ever notice how even in Egypt where the general population is >90% muslim, the university (except the al-azhar, which does not teach anything we'd consider science), while run by muslims, has a majority non-muslims (which raises the question of how exactly the teaching staff manages to remain muslim... can't be racism right ? muslims opressing non-muslims, a central part of the islamic religion, isn't racism apparently) (and let's just not mention how the same is true in gaza. Despite being less than a percent of the population, non-muslims outperform muslims academically in gaza, and in the west bank there is a small group of jews, a few hundred, versus several million muslims and even those few hundred... but then that's so politically incorrect it cannot ever be mentioned, after all Jews are evil, especially in Israel, so nothing good can be theirs, right ?)
Slashdot Mirror
I do think a capacitive touchscreen (though not the resistive ones) will last at least 15 years (the iphone has one).
The backlight on the lcd might not though, although now with leds this is becoming less and less of a problem. Though, of course, the battery is not going to last.
In 15 years your iphone will still be going strong, keyboard-wise.
(I'm not necessarily pro-guns, but let's be fair here : more normal people with guns = less gun crime BUT more gun accidents)
(and before you say anything, crime causes a LOT more deaths than those accidents)
Why not just compare Texas, lots'a guns, with Washington, "no guns".
Compare the violent death rate. Guess you're sure that Washington will be safer than texas, right ? Oh wait ...
You are assuming people individually have the right to be governed as they please. Which is obviously beyond impractical.
Because you were born in America you get a limited choice of governments, which is a LOT more than someone born in Iran or China gets, and it may in fact be the most freedom practically possible.
You don't want a standing army protecting you ? Then the result is simple : why don't you just die ? There are enough people simply wanting to kill you for breathing (or being white, or black, or blue for that matter, or believing in Jesus, or not believing in the paedophile prophet, or because you're female, or ...). So if you don't want anyone to protect you with weapons, just move to the conclusion : die.
Or go live in Ramallah or Khartoum or Ryadh, and "be free" : you'll be dead soon enough (esp. if you're female).
Alternatively there are a few European countries that are moving in the "no standing army" direction : Holland, and the EU as a whole (but the EU still has a lot of individual armies), so go live there and watch what happens.
The truth is these people don't want to share power. You hate democracy in general, but most of all you hate the compromises that it necessitates.
Democracy is the best possible government system we know, and we all know why it works : because it delays the point where idiots (and truly sorry : like you) force their idiotic will on the people, on everyone, the point where doing so starts killing them in the process. And yes, you heard me right, delay. Nevertheless making someone like you, or Al Gore, or Barack O. president will lessen said delay (potentially to 0). And yes, I'm fully aware that McCain will not be able to stop the slide into more idiotic, more suicidal policies, but electing him will at least delay said slide.
Hmmm, on second thought, I think they already know :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7562669.stm
Now they need to start doing this outside of their country too. Wouldn't be too hard, especially since you can trivially get past American border security as incidents keep illustrating.
Think how trivial something like this would be for the chinese government (btw the nature of the substance is confirmed, and the culprit is a somali muslim that illegaly entered US via the canadian border) :
http://cbs4denver.com/local/burnsley.hotel.death.2.793573.html
Let's just think America keeps buying. More ... and more ... and more.
That you shouldn't threaten lawsuits, especially not lawsuits via the fair US system. Fair lawsuits can't really be used for this at all.
So they should just resort by default to violence, because that works. We all know what happened to "fitna", first on liveleak, but youtube followed soon after. And we all know how much criticism of islam we see online. Keep in mind that this is a religion founded by a paedophile massacrer, that's causing millions of death via organised slaughter, so you can imagine just how necessary criticism is.
So IOC and China : pay attention. "Progressives" or in general "western elites" aren't afraid of the western law system. Therefore, don't use it. Just kill one of them, and they all collectively and immediately shut up.
They're cowards. Utter and complete cowards. So use that, not the court system. Have some Chinese in America send death threats with some sugar in the envelope to the idiots, and they'll soon shut up.
Just find the history of the pakistan secession and read about his role.
And btw, Gandhi did actually had this to say about the holocaust. He was alive and very powerfull during said holocaust, after all, so judge for yourself how moral this guy actually was :
The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the godfearing death has no terror. It is a joyful sleep to be followed by a waking that would be all the more refreshing for the long sleep. Mahatma Gandhi, Segaon, November 20, 1938
In other words, the Jews should revel in the all-out slaughter of Jews, for doing that would result in "thanksgiving and joy". Once you realize what a superb darling of the left Hitler was, this starts making sense. The "champion of the poor" that Hitler was needed to get rid of just a tiny little bit of people to create utopia, and you shouldn't just a few people who want to live stop you from creating utopia for all the rest, right ?
After all, what do Benito Mussulini, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Jimmy Carter (the cause of our current and soon-to-escalate Iranian problems) have in common ? Nobel peace prize nominations.
But we all know : the wholesale slaughter of Jews would bring joy to a lot of today's left as well. There's however one tiny issue : Jews don't want to die. However the left's feelings provided by "helping" "colored"(? what's the pc term today ?) people ... helping them kill others, but that too is helping you know ... far outweighs such trivialities as others not wanting to die obviously. People should be glad to lay down their lives for "global equality" "sustainability" and other really nice sounding words.
I don't know why Gandhi let people get killed, and killed and killed some more. Perhaps because Muslims killed his people ("mughal empire") for over a thousand years, as a matter of policy. The same empire killed blacks and sold them into slavery in Africa. This very trade and constant reign of genocides was started by the muslim prophet, but obviously such a detail has nothing to do with islam, right ?
Then again al Gore wants to "lower global population to sustainable levels", so perhaps the more genocidal of muslims will find allies in him. What are the chances of that population lowering happening voluntarily (let's not forget he wants it halved in 60 years) ? I wonder what his plan is when that little problem of people wanting to ... well live ... gets into his mind. I'm sure he'll start by giving up his own life as an example. Then again not even Gandhi offered up his own life. He always let others take care of that specific part of his ideology :-D.
Then again so do muslim leaders. Suicide bombers never include imams or mullahs or even merely people from political families, but it always turns out to be their students. After all YOU should "revell" in allah's after-death reward. THEY on the other hand, will revell in the pre-death rewards, thank you very much.
I'm sure I'm blowing quite a few fuses of yours here. But given the way things are going, I'd prepare for some VERY "inconvenient truths", and prepare for them being forced into your mind by the harsh mistress that is clear and present reality (right now future, but it's coming as they say).
Actually said mutagenic properties could be used as a weapon against AIDS instead of trying to counter them.
Aids dies a few decades after the last uninfected human contracts it.
Think about it : mutations in the aids virus will mean longer survival for the carriers of the virus, which means more children, therefore more spreading of the virus. AIDS's evolution would have the same goal as human evolution : human survival.
Hey it's no crazier than carbon trading :-D
And for good reason they would not let this happen. I mean I'm all for scientific research, but this blows every moral limit existing out of the water.
This guy (girl ?) would be parentless, possibly violent and retarded. He would not tell us much about their civilization, since that's "software" and we can only clone the "hardware". He'd just depend on us and die, at worst he'll strike oil and become like the middle east.
Then what do we do ? Clone 20 and let them start breeding an army ? Then when they finally figure out how to hurt us, after 100 or 200 years, we eradicate the lot of them ?
I mean it will be VERY hard indeed to merely keep most modern humans alive & peaceful in the next 50 years. Any specific reason you want to bring back actual wild, but extremely intelligent monkeys ? Or alternatively called really dumb humans ? In case you've never been to africa : monkeys beat the crap out of humans all the time, and tend to steal in organized parties, commander, orders and basic language are all present. Dunno if they involve any prophets. So do humans, unless civilized (as long as you don't mistake "have fancy cars" and "civilized", this is an easily defensible position)
Let's not create this. It'd be horrible for the created, and a disaster in waiting for the creator.
Perhaps they were just a lot less violent than modern humans ?
Gandhi, after all, got about 10 million people killed.
Is it possible to prevent this by preparing, planning, and mitigating? Sure. Will we do that? Not enough to save everyone.
I thought you people believed in Darwin. Evolution works because species grow until they reach a "balance".
Now what does a balance mean and what does it NOT mean :
It does NOT mean policies pushed by lying idiots. In other words a "natural balance" is not a political thing.
Mathematically you will have a natural balance if about 29% of any given generation dies, either due to violence, or food shortage, or (most likely) both. That's what's called a "natural balance".
Now let's get one thing straight : if there is any truth at all to evolution, this WILL happen (unless you want to claim that evolution doesn't apply to humans, but I assume you're not). It's only a matter of when and how, and to who it will happen, not if.
In other words the real bullshit is this :
Nobody will be safe, and it will all be because douchebags today do their best to convince everyone that the people who are trying to work cooperatively, together, toward a common good are the enemy. You're sowing it, you better well fucking expect to reap it.
This is idiotic anti-evolutionism. It's "mama I don't want to" cries at the first day of kindergarten.
The only cooperation evolution really allows for is simple : cooperation in killing "the others" (for all sorts of definitions of "others", but basically once someone is 3 degrees (parents = 1st degree, siblings = 1st degree, nephew = 2nd degree, grandparents = 2nd degree, ...) removed from you they basically got to die.
Unless you have, well faith ... what else to call it ?, that evolution doesn't apply to humans, there is nothing to do. And there is no-one to blame if you don't have faith. It's just the way it is.
And yes without faith the prediction is that you're going to lose all your little toys (and I mine), and we're going to pick up weapons and attempt to kill eachother once oil starts to go down significantly.
But then again, blaming is a very human, and very counterproductive activity, so just blame it on Bush. The Lord knows everyon else does, so if that makes you feel better, just blame him. Or republicans (I imagine you'll have to switch to McCain at some point, right ?).
The real problem is your ideology (shared by too many ohers). And yes, this problematic ideology is atheism. Unless something overrides Darwin, we won't even try to save ourselves.
In advising this to people, I'm sure you know what will happen to a network (and to the helpdesk of said network) when multiple people start using the same mac-address, right ?
Yeah indeed. That reads like a list of excuses too idiotic to be reasonably believed.
A dhcp server can't match ip to mac ? Oh sure why not ... if I were the RIAA's lawyer I'd say "then I'm sure you won't mind if I take a look at those logfiles, now will you ?". And then accept their apology in trade for a promise not to persecute this guy personally for lying in court (2 years).
"Only ARP is possible" riiiiiiiiiiiiiight ... and that would have nothing to do with arp being impossible after the computer is disconnected, in other words, it'd be worthless for the RIAA.
They're attempting to bullshit a judge. I'm ambivalent about this. This really shouldn't work and should get that "expert wittness" prosecuted for fraud. On the other hand, I like what he's doing ...
But this is bullshit. Since it's presented as the truth to a judge, it really should get someone in trouble.
Why are so many people so keen on a revolution?
The problem is intellectuals (defined as "people who think they can do better", or, only partly joking people who think "if everybody did what I say there would be world peace"). We both know slashdot is rife with them.
They have the big problem that Joe Schmoe cares for exactly what you'd think he cares for : his ability to drive his/her car as far as he wants. Food, luxurious food, a big house, toys, children ... and that's it. (Or as Barack O states they care for "guns and religion", which is not true, they care for getting their ass comfortable, guns and religion simply help too much to give up)
So a democracy will always be in favor of increased private spending, and increased energy usage, which today means "more co2 release". Which is the very antithesis of most "progressive" (socialist/communist) policies. Let's not forget that it's "progressives" (albeit not American ones, though it did include many European ones) that engineered the USSR famines, and for example China's one child policy is also of progressive making (the Nazi's, also socialists, had similar measures).
This is NOT to say that they're nazi or communist, but it is beyond obvious when listening to Barack O. or Al Gore that what they really want to do is massive, involuntary social re-engineering (whether it's energy usage, "tolerance" as defined by giving money to the day's "popular victims", or "genetic purity" (which was big in socialist circles between 1920 and, well 1960-70, google for "eugenics movement"), they want to re-engineer the whole of society to fit their image of an ideal society). These people are also responsible for the current Iranian government AND for the ascent of power of people like Saddam Hussein (and they were in favor of them on many occasions, why ? Because of their political leanings. Those little details of genocides like the halabja campaign of Iraq, or the recently "impossible to locate anywhere" marsh arabs of Iran, are but pesky problems that can be ignored for the "greater purpose")
The problem is beyond obvious : they expect economical sacrifices of Joe Schmoe, which they will never get from him/her voluntary.
So without violence, the ultimate, massively irrefutable argument, their policies won't be implemented. However they are intellectuals : in an open fight ... they lose (and lose big, as cannot be illustrated more thoroughly by the events in Iran in 1972. First progressives overthrew the government. Next the government started executing gays. Something must have gone wrong. It's easy to find out what exactly went wrong : the terrorism of khomeini).
It should be obvious to even the 5 year old daughter of Obama that the energy reductions necessary to reduce carbon output will NEVER be implemented voluntary. The other idea of the green movement, "limiting population", you can guess how much enthousiasm people will have for that one. Some of the greens, by the way, are discussing genocide in order to implement this, though fortunately it's the lunatic fringe for the moment.
This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".
While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.
But the solutions of the socialists (and the greens these days) are utter disasters for the common man.
Reducing co2 output is painful. VERY painful. It will never really happen in a democracy. And before you state that Europe proves otherwise, I'd like you to check 2 little details : ... or not ? (the commission is the lawgiving instrument of the EU, not the parliament, as you might think. Again, google this) ...
-> who has the power in the EU ? Does the composition of that body make the EU democratic
-> exactly how many coal fired power plants are being constructed in the EU ? Zero right ? Oh wait
I see you've met slashdot's PC police. Just ignore them.
Why doesn't the lava under America sue slashdot ? It used to see the sun, and now only their offices do. Clearly this must be rectified !
I'm sorry, which side is accused of being incorrigibly hateful?
Well we all believe in Darwin, and evolution, don't we ? Because that "theory" (whatever your understanding of that word) states simply :
"everyone is trying to kill everyone else"
So to answer your question : which side is being incorrigibly hateful ? There are many answers :
Darwin :
--------
Both, and we ourselves too. Either we're incorrigibly hateful (attempting to exterminate all the other sides) or we're dead.
Islam :
-------
Jews, after all allah says they're apes and pigs and should be pursued in order to bring about the end of the world. (I kid you not, the paedophile prophet states that Jews are to be killed to bring about the "last day", which is the end of the world. Well whatever sounded good to the dumb arab masses was good enough for the paedophile prophet, after all he managed to talk his way out of getting caught in bed with a 9 year old girl at age 54. This is also what ahmadinejad is promising to Iranians who, as any sane person would, don't believe any of it)
Judaism :
---------
Jews are forced to defend themselves. Jews value all human life, and therefore Jews don't even kill those trying to kill them, except in direct defense of another human life.
That brings the question : what do you think ?
Actually in reality you're going to find that Arab countries get a LOT more of your tax dollars than Israel does.
Did you know that Saudi Arabia actually demands that the U.S. pays them food aid ?
So do a host of other oil-producing muslim countries. Including, but not limited to : Lybia, Tunisia, Sudan, Algeria, ...
Tax dollars that are, in more than one case, being used to eradicate whole cultures. Currently Sudan is in the news, but you should ask yourself this question : as recently as 100 years ago, people reported seeing entirely black cities on the south of the mediterranean.
What ... what happened to those blacks ? Because there isn't a single black city within 1000 km of the mediterranean coast left.
"jihad" you say, Omar al Bashir ? Now what's that ? Oh right ... "inner spiritual struggle" ... So that's what massacring black people is called these days.
Great ! Because it's Jews that were living there, and it's Jews that ARE living there.
So if you really believe in the argument that land belongs to the people living on it, there cannot be any possible argument about the land of Israel : it's Jewish.
The first people in recorded history to live on that land were ... Jews ... and that's just about the only bit of data we have on them.
And if you take the historical Israel : let's not forget that that was quite a bit bigger than the current little spec of land. In fact the original Israel included a few cities that you might have heard of : Damascus, Mecca, Medina, Kirkuk, Amman, ...
These cities are, as historical books accurately described, stolen, by massacres, from Jews. And compared to the amount of Jews that the muslims killed and how long they kept killing them, Hitler looks like an annoying fly on the wall.
Also let's not forget that muslims still execute (as in KILL) people for disagreeing with the statement "Non-muslims are the uglyest animals on the face of the earth", followed by advice on what to do if one irritates you : kill not just one, but enough, so that non-muslims "know their place".
Of course, statements like this do not make islam racist. They would make anything else racist, obviously.
And that would be a really cool definition of where land goes, since that would make over 99% of the muslim lands not really anyone's at all, since, in case you haven't noticed, with a few exceptions (which, almost without exceptions, were quite recently mainly Christian lands, e.g. Turkey before the Armenian Genocide, Sudan, ...) muslim lands are desolate empty wastelands. So someone really ought to go live there, and just claim it as an independant country, right ?
Muslims merely want to conquer, to steal everything from others, like they have stolen so many things already, like the paedophilic massacring thief that was their "prophet". They even stole the temple, and the kaaba, both of which cannot be called muslim by any stretch of the imagination. If you remain unconvinced of the kaaba being non-muslim, google for allah's daughters, and read some history.
"Muslims are the uglyest animals on the face of the earth. Remember, if they do anything bad, do not just kill the muslim that did it, but kill enough muslims, so that the rest knows their place" (Quran 8:22, with "infidels" replaced by "muslims")
That they'll cut 10 other customers' lines to have one new one !
"Great for the economy".
Not that I haven't got 10 other questions about this, first and foremost being "who owns the 'peering point'" (the incumbent telco ?) ??? (I imagine I'd want a local fiber switch there, would that be possible ?)
Not yet, but how long will it realistically take ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbFFs4DHWys
Just a thought
Needless to say an (english) sign "NO ENTRY", if clearly visible is sufficient. This means that ALSO the utility company and FedEx are forbidden.
For everyone who does not have "reasonable assumption of permission" (think "the neighbours called 911 and I'm a paramedic"), it is simply forbidden always. Private persons are only allowed to step on private property if (beforehand) invited to do so.
Above & below your property is state domain. In other words you need permission from the state to fly over your property and you need permission from the state to tunnel under it (assuming you take reasonable precautions to prevent collapse or otherwise damage the property, then again permission to fly over it does not equal permission to dump garbage on it from a plane).
In most other countries it's simply not clear. The only thing that's very clear about it, in most European countries, is that if someone decides to violate the law, nothing can be done about it (legally it's a mess, since you don't get to find out the identity of the guy trespassing, and physically you don't get to actually remove him).
The real question is ...
In Soviet Russia ... google is searching you, or you are searching google !
You see my question ...
Any antenna that receives is also a transmitter. So no just reception is not okay for the FCC (and rightly so)
Becoming a tired classic : some study is made, and known to give the same result every single time. Girls and boys are not equal in math skills.
However once upon a time. Some "psychologists" manage to devise a test that changes the expected result to be more in line with political correctness. Mostly this just means the title (note how that upon closer examination white boys put down double the scores of white girls, so this is in fact for white girls a worse result than "average" for these studies, also the result mentions very clearly that there were no truly unknown problems on the test, so was this a test of math skills, or a test of carrying out given instructions correctly, an area where women have always outperformed men ?)
And *boom* it is published far and wide and accepted as universal truth, and I mean only the title, not the entire study.
This is, upon close examination, always the result of either fraud or skewing either the test, or the results.
There are way too many things too many scientists just REALLY want to be true, and this is one of them. Therefore, I for one will be trusting the many, many older and politically incorrect tests, and not let this one result override it.
It seems this Janet Hyde woman had priviledged access to SAT results, and therefore this study was at least partially sponsored by the government, who, surprise, surprise really wants women to score equally well. Although even she makes the point that the test has been dumbed down, and the question remains how well it tested analytical skills on hard problems. Clearly boys and girls do equally well on trivial, preprogrammed problems (then again, it is trivial to write a computer program that under those circumstances will have same or better performance, I mean if not presented with unknown problems).
You see this more and more. Even more controversial are cultural differences. Ever notice how even in Egypt where the general population is >90% muslim, the university (except the al-azhar, which does not teach anything we'd consider science), while run by muslims, has a majority non-muslims (which raises the question of how exactly the teaching staff manages to remain muslim ... can't be racism right ? muslims opressing non-muslims, a central part of the islamic religion, isn't racism apparently) (and let's just not mention how the same is true in gaza. Despite being less than a percent of the population, non-muslims outperform muslims academically in gaza, and in the west bank there is a small group of jews, a few hundred, versus several million muslims and even those few hundred ... but then that's so politically incorrect it cannot ever be mentioned, after all Jews are evil, especially in Israel, so nothing good can be theirs, right ?)