Because Belgium, sorry to say it, sucks. A country with a single language and no violence or complete hostility because you don't speak french would be very nice. Americans actually react positively when you say you speak 4 languages, instead of making a sniping comment about how your french is not perfect. (sorry I'm frustrated on this topic)
Also the wide open spaces in the US seem kinda nice. The US actually still has a countryside.
But need to finish lots of stuff here, then get a job, apparently some sort of "sponsor" etc (?). so it will not be for at least a few years.
I also kinda like the culture of personal responsability that there seems to be in the US. That you actually can and should take charge of yourself. In Belgium it's not the fault of a killer that he murdered, it's "the system". So they let guys like this go see football (no joke), and obviously, this idiocy does not reduce violence, it increases it massively. We sue more cops for brutality than thieves, and yet this does not seem idiotic for some reason.
But to see this culture I guess I'd have to stay in the US for a number of years, and I'd also like to live in Japan for a few years. Just to explore the life of these people, and in Russia, because I've met many Russians and I don't understand anything they do. And I still want to ask how to drink an entire bottle of vodka without losing conciousness.
Computers are filled with nothing less than cultural influence
- every RTS is showing us we can win irak (and we can obviously, it will take time, lots of time, but we can) - every sim is showing us that capitalism works (and it does, obviously:-p) - every game contains the christian mantra that every story ends well (which is, unfortunately, not true, although we try) - the whole concept of a PC is obviously a testament to individuality, which is the basis of capitalism (and one of its limits, as evidenced by the nobel prize economics 3 years ago) - the internet itself is a very democratic concept (everyone an ip, one-to-one communication, empowerment of the individual,...) - linux itself (it may be free, but it was implemented as a cost-reduction strategy) - slashdot (which tries to have a "democratic" rating system)...
They are (judging from their surnames) nominally Christian. Don't blame this attack on Islam just because these (presumbaly) Christian men were in an Islam chat room.
Everybody makes mistakes. Big ones and small ones.
4 things are certain though : a) america is in iraq to help the iraqi people b) saddam killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions to stay in power, even with the constant attacks, the us does not match him, not even with bogus numbers from the lancet c) many iraqi's want your support (ironically a large group among them are palestinians, who are being attacked by saoudi arabia sunni militia (and shi'ite, nobody really knows why, but they do attack the palestinians, perhaps they just don't care who they kill), others are christians, or armenians, and many, many shi'ite and sunni muslims) d) the worst option by far is to leave them alone, they will all be killed if america were to do that
Ow and let's not forget on the PC front. The big PC issue.
Saying that islamic regimes opress their people (even where it means killing thousands upon thousands every year), and even in America there are multiple islamic communities that opress their own members.
Or saying that it was wrong for mohamed to marry a 5-year-old girl, or to kill entire tribes.
That's the really big "PC" issue. It's also true, though.
As can be seen in many dictatorships, like, say Iran, people DO kill their own kind. WE don't kill our own kind, and many social groups also do not do that. But it's not a given. You are TAUGHT this. It's not "innate morals".
That's why teaching those values to your children is so important. If you don't do it someone else probably will, but, if nobody does it, the child will become a killer. Killing is defineately more "natural" than a strict policy of not killing, as evidenced everywhere in the "natural" world.
Neural networks without training wither away and die (or to put it otherwise, their output becomes strictly monotone). So kids "without training" or "purely innate" would probably do the same, after a certain amount of time without input, there would be no knowledge left in the person, the mind would go blank. They'll never learn to walk, or even crawl. They'll scarcely learn to move. So yes they will have trouble killing someone. But not from an ethical point of view. They will never have anything in their mind resembling your concept of ethics.
There is no "true" nature of humans. Except perhaps for the primary drives (which are motives for many murders).
A child will not have trouble killing someone. Unfortunately this is shown with adopted child soldiers. They do not have ethics, but they do posses (some) tactical ability. So they wait until their victims (adoptive parents) sleep, take a knife from the kitchen, and plunge it into one of them. Generally this fails, but there can be no real doubt on their intentions. In this scenario they were never forced to do this in any way. They still did it.
No. Kids do NOT know right from wrong. It's not builtin, it's not part of the character. Unfortunately the nicest child, the gentlest 3-year-old can be indoctrinated to be a ruthless killer (without losing his character by the way, someone like this will remain gentle in other situations).
You ONLY know right from wrong through experience. There is no "innate" "in-born" or... conscience.
And that's completely true what you say about teaching right and wrong. But it's even more true of a child. A 2 year old does not know (as in really does not know) that an outside world exist. A 2 year old litterally thinks that he can grab something with his mother's hand as if it was his own. That the whole world is completely at his command. He's also incapable of comprehending that something exists outside of his direct perception. If he cannot see a person (or an object) it doesn't exist (so for example... it makes no sense to go looking for it, cleaning up a room can be done by leaving that room, etc...). A child does not know that killing is wrong, for starters it is not capable of understanding what it means to kill, or to die for that matter. It does not know that other persons exists, so how would it learn that it's wrong to harm them ?
Remember that humans are, and always have been, hunters. It is "in-born" to every human to be capable to kill other species. It is also "in-born" to every human to battle other humans for geographical area, just as it is in-born to thousands of other species. "If necessary" you too will kill (by this I mean that there are defineately ways to make you kill someone, for example, if you thought greater good would come of it, say in a hostage situation, or in self-defense). It's just your definition of "if necessary" that's different. That's something you were taught.
It is the general consensus in the psychological community that a conscience is something to be trained.
Don't let the gravity of the accusations prevent you from running the classic experiment with this. Ask a 5 or a 6 year old child to kill his brother/sister/pet/... (Be prepared for the situation that he might actually try to do it). You will obviously need to stop the interaction between the "killer" and his "victim" shortly after. Then ask the kid what happened. Why it did/did not do what you asked. You will be very surprised by the answers.
Child soldiers are a very clear illustration of what can happen if a child's conscience is badly trained. These children are trained to kill at an age of 5 or 6 (12 at the most) and they kill. They don't stop, they don't pause. They don't think they've done anything wrong.
Lots of people think this is related to the motivations of terrorists, where violent religious conviction takes precedence over rationality.
And why does my PC have such a ludricous power supply anyway, especially when im just surfing, do I really need it all?
Engineers who have studied for at least 4 years (most have a phd, so that would be 6 years I believe), and have dozens of years experience in the industry are saying yes.
They're even trying to reduce it, which advances slowly. Very slowly.
But if you can do better than them, by all means, do so. I'll buy one of your coming-up low-power (like 10 watts maximum) not-produced-with-any-oil computer for the low price you present by (and I quote) "saving our own hard-earned cash". When will it be available ? ( I'm thinking about buying a mini-itx pc though, or perhaps just always use my laptop which does have lower power usage, for other reasons )
How is this a party line ? This is a concrete issue and I have an opinion. I have no idea wether this is republican or democrat. And frankly, I don't care.
Environmentalists : -> CO2 will cause mass extinctions but also -> gsms cause brain cancer (show me one single case...) -> against nuclear power, the easiest and most economically viable option to stopping global warning
Everybody else -> There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true) -> Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)
So what do we do ? There is one viable option to reduce oil dependancy : nuclear power. So the debate really is coming down to : -> Massive amounts of relatively harmless (in small quantities) CO2 + tar +... or minute quantities of very very harmful nuclear waste
The alternatives are, at best, in development -> fusion : currently not possible, in development -> solar power : too expensive, currently massive quantities of oil are needed to create solar panels, research ongoing -> wind : unreliable, will place extreme demands on distribution net, and effects unknown -> sea wave power : currently not possible, in development
(obviously we will still need oil for chemical industry etc, but nuclear power could cut oil needs 30-40%, and thus cut our dependancy on the middle east)
Imho the environmentalist option to be against both oil and nuclear power is not going anywhere, it's just not helpful. You can call all you want for the moon to come down, but regardless it's just not going to happen. Also, you cannot turn of all energy in the country for 5 years until an alternative is developed. It needs to be here now, working and functional, and proven. Obviously you cannot turn over the country to something like wind power.
And I'll defineately buy one of the $300 versions, donating 2 others to people in the third world. Let's hope they can join the rest of the world faster using these laptops, or perhaps even, the internet.
Should be modded down. Nothing else. (and remember that what is perceived as an attack to a group external to the discussion is NOT an ad-hominem)
Slashdot's moderation system is overly left. It is not a very good example. It's not republican or democrat or so, people just tend to very strongly choose their own side. E.g. the mp3 downloading debate (stuff like "it's not wrong" when the parliament has decided it IS wrong,...)
Because sattelites are in orbit... what you say would amount to outlawing stuff like gps, or any kind of data network in space, because they are not in geosynchronous orbit, and for good reason.
Any satellite not in geosynchronous orbit will fly over any country that's reasonably close to the equator sooner or later. Deal with it.
It is expensive to the point of making space satellites unfeasible (as there is no way to refuel in space) to avoid certain countries.
And... no you wouldn't. There are Chinese spy satellites in orbit over you (this is what they mean with the "symmetrical" stuff).
Slashdot Mirror
Because Belgium, sorry to say it, sucks. A country with a single language and no violence or complete hostility because you don't speak french would be very nice. Americans actually react positively when you say you speak 4 languages, instead of making a sniping comment about how your french is not perfect. (sorry I'm frustrated on this topic)
Also the wide open spaces in the US seem kinda nice. The US actually still has a countryside.
But need to finish lots of stuff here, then get a job, apparently some sort of "sponsor" etc (?). so it will not be for at least a few years.
I also kinda like the culture of personal responsability that there seems to be in the US. That you actually can and should take charge of yourself. In Belgium it's not the fault of a killer that he murdered, it's "the system". So they let guys like this go see football (no joke), and obviously, this idiocy does not reduce violence, it increases it massively. We sue more cops for brutality than thieves, and yet this does not seem idiotic for some reason.
But to see this culture I guess I'd have to stay in the US for a number of years, and I'd also like to live in Japan for a few years. Just to explore the life of these people, and in Russia, because I've met many Russians and I don't understand anything they do. And I still want to ask how to drink an entire bottle of vodka without losing conciousness.
Computers are filled with nothing less than cultural influence
:-p) ...) ...
- every RTS is showing us we can win irak (and we can obviously, it will take time, lots of time, but we can)
- every sim is showing us that capitalism works (and it does, obviously
- every game contains the christian mantra that every story ends well (which is, unfortunately, not true, although we try)
- the whole concept of a PC is obviously a testament to individuality, which is the basis of capitalism (and one of its limits, as evidenced by the nobel prize economics 3 years ago)
- the internet itself is a very democratic concept (everyone an ip, one-to-one communication, empowerment of the individual,
- linux itself (it may be free, but it was implemented as a cost-reduction strategy)
- slashdot (which tries to have a "democratic" rating system)
So was Adam Pearlman. Look him up.
Everybody makes mistakes. Big ones and small ones.
4 things are certain though :
a) america is in iraq to help the iraqi people
b) saddam killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions to stay in power, even with the constant attacks, the us does not match him, not even with bogus numbers from the lancet
c) many iraqi's want your support (ironically a large group among them are palestinians, who are being attacked by saoudi arabia sunni militia (and shi'ite, nobody really knows why, but they do attack the palestinians, perhaps they just don't care who they kill), others are christians, or armenians, and many, many shi'ite and sunni muslims)
d) the worst option by far is to leave them alone, they will all be killed if america were to do that
Hopefully one day e) can be added
e) it's working
it IS working, it's just taking time
Just look at your new signature. I mean come on. You aren't tolerant of other people's views, don't say that you are. At all.
Ow and let's not forget on the PC front. The big PC issue.
Saying that islamic regimes opress their people (even where it means killing thousands upon thousands every year), and even in America there are multiple islamic communities that opress their own members.
Or saying that it was wrong for mohamed to marry a 5-year-old girl, or to kill entire tribes.
That's the really big "PC" issue. It's also true, though.
Let's summarize your post
... God works through him ... US religiously controlled ...." ..."
Your point : "... Bush
Your signature : "... mark of the beast
You obviously are quite religious. So why complain ?
Actually it kinda does. Maybe you should look at examples of where the US did this ... like Japan, South Korea, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, ...
Give the US a couple of years in Iraq. Lots of people really want to make it work.
And what if the "subversive material" is text ? 128k is seriously more than I had when starting to use p2p.
And what do you mean by subversive material ? Stuff like telling women not to mutilate the genitals of their daughters ? Subversive !
You should check what they were talking about. One can't but wonder if it's a coincidence.
I wonder what the argument was about, exactly.
As can be seen in many dictatorships, like, say Iran, people DO kill their own kind. WE don't kill our own kind, and many social groups also do not do that. But it's not a given. You are TAUGHT this. It's not "innate morals".
That's why teaching those values to your children is so important. If you don't do it someone else probably will, but, if nobody does it, the child will become a killer. Killing is defineately more "natural" than a strict policy of not killing, as evidenced everywhere in the "natural" world.
Neural networks without training wither away and die (or to put it otherwise, their output becomes strictly monotone). So kids "without training" or "purely innate" would probably do the same, after a certain amount of time without input, there would be no knowledge left in the person, the mind would go blank. They'll never learn to walk, or even crawl. They'll scarcely learn to move. So yes they will have trouble killing someone. But not from an ethical point of view. They will never have anything in their mind resembling your concept of ethics.
There is no "true" nature of humans. Except perhaps for the primary drives (which are motives for many murders).
A child will not have trouble killing someone. Unfortunately this is shown with adopted child soldiers. They do not have ethics, but they do posses (some) tactical ability. So they wait until their victims (adoptive parents) sleep, take a knife from the kitchen, and plunge it into one of them. Generally this fails, but there can be no real doubt on their intentions. In this scenario they were never forced to do this in any way. They still did it.
No. Kids do NOT know right from wrong. It's not builtin, it's not part of the character. Unfortunately the nicest child, the gentlest 3-year-old can be indoctrinated to be a ruthless killer (without losing his character by the way, someone like this will remain gentle in other situations).
... conscience.
... it makes no sense to go looking for it, cleaning up a room can be done by leaving that room, etc ...). A child does not know that killing is wrong, for starters it is not capable of understanding what it means to kill, or to die for that matter. It does not know that other persons exists, so how would it learn that it's wrong to harm them ?
You ONLY know right from wrong through experience. There is no "innate" "in-born" or
And that's completely true what you say about teaching right and wrong. But it's even more true of a child. A 2 year old does not know (as in really does not know) that an outside world exist. A 2 year old litterally thinks that he can grab something with his mother's hand as if it was his own. That the whole world is completely at his command. He's also incapable of comprehending that something exists outside of his direct perception. If he cannot see a person (or an object) it doesn't exist (so for example
Remember that humans are, and always have been, hunters. It is "in-born" to every human to be capable to kill other species. It is also "in-born" to every human to battle other humans for geographical area, just as it is in-born to thousands of other species. "If necessary" you too will kill (by this I mean that there are defineately ways to make you kill someone, for example, if you thought greater good would come of it, say in a hostage situation, or in self-defense). It's just your definition of "if necessary" that's different. That's something you were taught.
It is the general consensus in the psychological community that a conscience is something to be trained.
Don't let the gravity of the accusations prevent you from running the classic experiment with this. Ask a 5 or a 6 year old child to kill his brother/sister/pet/... (Be prepared for the situation that he might actually try to do it). You will obviously need to stop the interaction between the "killer" and his "victim" shortly after. Then ask the kid what happened. Why it did/did not do what you asked. You will be very surprised by the answers.
Child soldiers are a very clear illustration of what can happen if a child's conscience is badly trained. These children are trained to kill at an age of 5 or 6 (12 at the most) and they kill. They don't stop, they don't pause. They don't think they've done anything wrong.
Lots of people think this is related to the motivations of terrorists, where violent religious conviction takes precedence over rationality.
Engineers who have studied for at least 4 years (most have a phd, so that would be 6 years I believe), and have dozens of years experience in the industry are saying yes.
They're even trying to reduce it, which advances slowly. Very slowly.
But if you can do better than them, by all means, do so. I'll buy one of your coming-up low-power (like 10 watts maximum) not-produced-with-any-oil computer for the low price you present by (and I quote) "saving our own hard-earned cash". When will it be available ? ( I'm thinking about buying a mini-itx pc though, or perhaps just always use my laptop which does have lower power usage, for other reasons )
How is this a party line ? This is a concrete issue and I have an opinion. I have no idea wether this is republican or democrat. And frankly, I don't care.
Which side is right ...
...)
... or minute quantities of very very harmful nuclear waste
Environmentalists :
-> CO2 will cause mass extinctions
but also
-> gsms cause brain cancer (show me one single case
-> against nuclear power, the easiest and most economically viable option to stopping global warning
Everybody else
-> There is not sufficient evidence to really change our policy (this btw, is unfortunately very true)
-> Therefore CO2 does not cause problems (this conclusion may be true, but the honest answer is : we don't know)
So what do we do ? There is one viable option to reduce oil dependancy : nuclear power. So the debate really is coming down to :
-> Massive amounts of relatively harmless (in small quantities) CO2 + tar +
The alternatives are, at best, in development
-> fusion : currently not possible, in development
-> solar power : too expensive, currently massive quantities of oil are needed to create solar panels, research ongoing
-> wind : unreliable, will place extreme demands on distribution net, and effects unknown
-> sea wave power : currently not possible, in development
(obviously we will still need oil for chemical industry etc, but nuclear power could cut oil needs 30-40%, and thus cut our dependancy on the middle east)
Imho the environmentalist option to be against both oil and nuclear power is not going anywhere, it's just not helpful. You can call all you want for the moon to come down, but regardless it's just not going to happen. Also, you cannot turn of all energy in the country for 5 years until an alternative is developed. It needs to be here now, working and functional, and proven. Obviously you cannot turn over the country to something like wind power.
And I'll defineately buy one of the $300 versions, donating 2 others to people in the third world. Let's hope they can join the rest of the world faster using these laptops, or perhaps even, the internet.
Obviously, no they can't. You have to be
1) not an american
2) not an *xxx* (country where you were caught), nor have a valid residence permit
3) shooting at american soldiers
So if you're a Brit shooting American soldiers in Pakistan without any relation to the government there, then you might end up there. Otherwise, no.
Only
...)
- Ad Hominem attacks
- Threats
Should be modded down. Nothing else. (and remember that what is perceived as an attack to a group external to the discussion is NOT an ad-hominem)
Slashdot's moderation system is overly left. It is not a very good example. It's not republican or democrat or so, people just tend to very strongly choose their own side. E.g. the mp3 downloading debate (stuff like "it's not wrong" when the parliament has decided it IS wrong,
Meta-moderation seems to help though.
Because people in the rest of the world are really not the same as people in the west.
- on-arabs.html
Really.
Check this out :
http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/09/observations
He's asking for the source, isn't he ?
do !
Or we'll call you really, really, really dirty names.
There, however, seems to be a small hole in the plan
Why ? This makes the cards 2 or 3 times more expensive.
Why not leave this on the legal fringes ?
Because sattelites are in orbit ... what you say would amount to outlawing stuff like gps, or any kind of data network in space, because they are not in geosynchronous orbit, and for good reason.
... no you wouldn't. There are Chinese spy satellites in orbit over you (this is what they mean with the "symmetrical" stuff).
Any satellite not in geosynchronous orbit will fly over any country that's reasonably close to the equator sooner or later. Deal with it.
It is expensive to the point of making space satellites unfeasible (as there is no way to refuel in space) to avoid certain countries.
And