assuming rocks were the same size as today. i believe rocks grow an inch in diameter every year, due to the sun's effects on the rate of radioactive decay
Some view freedom as a teenager: I can do anything I want, damn the consequences.
Some view freedom as an adult: I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility. In fact, in a land of people who don't act with responsibility, real freedom pretty much doesn't exist either.
You can see these same problems in the debate on drug use, on healthcare, etc. Some people are just immature and believe freedom means the consequences of their actions don't figure into their conception of freedom.
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
No, the Pentagon gets plenty of money. We're talking about space exploration. There is no "gets plenty of money" considering the modest goals we can imagine with current technology and the range of missions that can be achieved. I'm not sure why you think "gets plenty of money" is appropriate considering the the kinds of things NASA could do with a real budget and considering the kinds of goals that are out there.
I don't trust Anonymous more or less than the FBI, but the motivation to pull this story out of their ass seems smaller than an FBI stooge's motivation to deny and cover their ass.
FBI brass might even be pitted against FBI agent: brass said don't get the UDIDs and the agent went and obtained them anyway. The FBI is a large bureaucracy with complicated relationships between semi-independent operatives, and it's possible there is low coordination between FBI spokesman and FBI worker. Anonymous may have more operational integrity, at least on this isolated issue.
if something serves as the de facto public square, then the public gets to decide the rules. it is owned by a corporation? ok, but the corporation is basically a monopoly, therefore, it is the same sort of entity as a government anyways, especially as it colludes with the government that is supposed to represent my interests. so we move the government to establish regulations in the service of the public on the corporate controlled public square
i want to post videos without being tried and found guilty of copyright infringement by AI, and then the burden placed on me to prove my innocence, and then wait while i am approved to participate in what amounts to the online public square
someone who misrepresents someone else's position is what in your dictionary?
i'm not a warmongerer. i'm saying to say north korea and iran represent no threat is stupid. do you see the difference? i said it elsewhere:
of course, if we attacked north korea, they have so much artillery pointed at seoul they would level it in no time. so i'm not arguing for preemptive war. their trump card really is their insane bellicosity. this is where someone says we pushed them to that. really? the west is a monster whose only proper response is constant war preparation? hey brazil, philippines, india: you better start frothing at the mouth and militarizing like no tomorrow, and threatening to annihilate your neighbors constantly! why?: because the west! pfffffft: the constant war preparation is the fault of iran and north korea only. this is the path they chose
i'm just arguing that people who say they have no menace, that they represent no threat, are wrong. the situation is unstable and has the markings of something that ends badly. not that we should attack the countries, just that you are wrong that this kind of thing just goes away on its own or that they never succeed in having the capacity to do real harm, or that they never strike for no rational reason
if i call you silly stupid and uneducated for thinking these nations represent no threat it does not automatically follow the solution is to wage war. this is you inserting an assumption about me and my position that only exists in your head
do you understand?
i don't want to attack these countries. at the same time, i'm not going to sit here and listen to some moron say these countries are not a threat. any country that hypermilitarizes and issues bellicose warning for decades is obviously a threat
i'm afraid to tell you the sky is blue. you might attack me for not citing it. pffffffffffft
Lolz. Such obvious points of discussion that you can't even name one much less provide a citation, huh?
i stopped reading there and will read you no more. these are countries hypermilitarizing and issuing bellicose language for decades. they don't act rationally, and their capacity to do harm is sufficient to cause a major disruption that theatens our national interests. to say this requires no citation for anyone with the slightest inclination to know the remotest facts of this subject matter
please be honestly interested in being educated on the simplest baseline of facts of a subject matter before speaking in the future. thanks
somebody who constantly militarizes and issues bellicose language for decades isn't someone you look at for the idea of rational self-restraint
if north korea randomly sinks a ship or shells an island, as it has done in the last few years, killing dozens of south koreans, you could ask why, but the answer is simply: who knows? the problem is that therefore you can't depend upon them for anything rational or stable. they'll launch a missile at tokyo tomorrow. why? who knows?
then there is another argument you have: that even with all their menace, they are harmless idiots: their missile won't hit tokyo, their tech doesn't work. we can counter their tech easily and effectively. well, this depends upon the notion that they are hapless fuck ups. they did create a nuclear bomb. i'm certain the idiots in charge are idiots, but they have intelligent engineers. the question then is just one of time: they keep militarizing and steeping their people in bellicose propaganda. to what end? does it sound like a stable situation to you? we've been waiting for these idiots to self-implode. for decades. it's not happening
there is an end game here. it involves a screw up that crosses a line. it's just that, when iran or north korea screw up, it may cost someone in tokyo or aleppo way, way, way too much. a cost that our children might scratch their heads: "they stockpiled weapons for years, constantly threatened to kill their neighbors, and no one did anything about them until disaster {XYZ}? i don't get it"
there's an argument for nipping the problem in the bud before the mistake happens. an unstable idiot with a gun is a problem. no matter how faulty the gun or how many cops are standing around him
of course, if we attacked north korea, they have so much artillery pointed at seoul they would level it in no time. so i'm not arguing for preemptive war. their trump card really is their insane bellicosity. this is where someone says we pushed them to that. really? the west is a monster whose only proper response is constant war preparation? hey brazil, philippines, india: you better start frothing at the mouth and militarizing like no tomorrow, and threatening to annihilate your neighbors constantly! why?: because the west! pfffffft: the constant war preparation is the fault of iran and north korea only. this is the path they chose
i'm just arguing that people who say they have no menace, that they represent no threat, are wrong. the situation is unstable and has the markings of something that ends badly. not that we should attack the countries, just that you are wrong that this kind of thing just goes away on its own or that they never succeed in having the capacity to do real harm, or that they never strike for no rational reason
the USA didn't make iran and north korea. this would disavow the existence of millions of human beings who of their own volition have made it their life's work to militarize and issue bellicose language for decades
oh i know "in ancient history cold war, the USA did {XYZ} to country {ABC}. therefore, the USA is forevermore 100% responsible for what country {ABC} does." with such stunning intellectual analysis, nevermind completely condescension and patronization of iranians and north koreans as nothing but cardboard cutouts of american actions, how can one argue?
also, i like how it disavows the USA of anything that happens in afghanistan. since because the USSR invaded it in the 1980s, by some idiot's logic, that means 100% of everything in afghanistan is Russia's fault forever. Oh wait, I'm sorry! We sold Osama bin Laden a stinger missile in the 1980s, so therefore, everything the man does after that is 100% our fault. sorry, i have to get with the mindless blanket blame game program and stop thinking of these people as having free will and the ability to create their own agenda, and remember that they are all just reflections of past american actions, of course
As for actual capacity - your hand waving at google is not a citation.
i'm not going to cite anything. i'm not your father. this is not an obscure discussion on little known facts. if you require an education on the obvious points of discussion, you shouldn't be in the discussion. there has been nothing but a drumbeat of attacks, deaths, abducitions, and bellicose language for decades. if you don't know that, why are you talking about this subject and registering an uninformed opinion?
The best north korea has been able to do is launch missiles that fall apart long before they reach japan. Iran isn't much better, their missiles could probably hit Athens on a good day.
the point is, they are building and launching these missiles and bombs and constantly engage in bellicose talk! it means nothing to you?
they've been doing this for decades, meaning rational behavior isn't the point. that makes them a threat: they are constantly prepping for war and they are unstable. one is a theocracy, the other is cult of personality for a twenty something. they are highly militarized, going nuclear, and constantly talking about annihilating neighbors. this means nothing to you?
if a neighbor constantly stockpiled guns, and constantly threatened to shoot his neighbors, do you call the cops? or dismiss him as a harmless kook?
Or maybe i should be free to use my culture as I see fit, free from IP trolls, and trolls from the internet such as yourself. It should not be beholden on me to have a legal department with a research wing if I want to post a video on the internet. This is an absurdity that will not stand the test of time. Nor am I going to tolerate it. I do so at my legal peril? why is that a world anyone wants to be a part of? And therefore bring on the fight, the outcome is to my benefit if I value a clean conscience over submission to an absurd legal climate, win or lose in the kangaroo court.
I am not required to be a warmongerer to make a laughingstock out of someone who sees no threats from North Korea or Iran. Does one need a PhD in google search to review the recent history of those country's statements and actions? what is the magic exactly whereby you are convinced of the harmlessness of these countriesdespite the evidence of statements of intent and actions to obtain Capacity to fulfill intent?
You seem hung up on my word choice. I also question your judgment of what constitutes a threat. Regardless, we're just talking about malware here and you do agree a threat should be opposed and I can't fathom that you would think malware is provocative, so we're in the same ballpark at least.
i live in a country, the usa, that believes that the free market should supply what the government does not. ok, but first we must admit that we aren't talking about the free market, we are talking about monopolies and oligopolies that dominate a market space just as much as a government in a communist country does. there is no competition. there are entrenched massive players and a few marginal pipsqueaks. enough with the lies about the fantasy of a fair marketplace, especially as the largest players collude with the government and warp the rules to entrench their position
a statement like yours presupposes that i have a free choice to shop somewhere else. therefore i have no right to demand anything from a capitalist corporation. i should simply choose another capitalist corporation to serve my needs. when of course the truth is that youtube dominates it's space, and to post my video somewhere else automatically dooms me to less views
therefore, if we are going to go with this delusion that the market will provide what the government should not, then we are going to hold to the marketplace behemoths demands that otherwise we could only hold against the government, such as conforming to certain rules of fairness, since i live in a country that abdicates to the "free market" what the government otherwise would provide
where do these ignorant twits who believe in the immaculate fair marketplace that never existed and never will come from exactly? it's like a demented pseudoreligion, whose adherents cling to their nonsense in spite of all overwhelming economic fact and historical evidence like a creationist or a ufo cultist
no: if the market is dominated by a monopoly or oligopoly, the people can and should demand of them rights and protections since it is not possible to simply shop somewhere else and get anywhere near the same service. youtube provides, in effect, a public service. so you can, and should, hold it to standards of conduct on the same level as a government entity
you can't have it both ways. either the government provides the service, and then you demand a certain level of service, or the government abdicates to the monopoly, and then you have no right to demand any level of service? bullshit
Slashdot Mirror
assuming rocks were the same size as today. i believe rocks grow an inch in diameter every year, due to the sun's effects on the rate of radioactive decay
What the pressure levels were in 1707?
Inferred? Or some renaissance japanese scientist at work?
Either way, doesnt sound like a reliable value
speed differential is important, yes. but outright absolute speed is still important. just ask an armadillo
Some view freedom as a teenager: I can do anything I want, damn the consequences.
Some view freedom as an adult: I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
When you speed, you put other lives at risk, not just your own.
Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility. In fact, in a land of people who don't act with responsibility, real freedom pretty much doesn't exist either.
You can see these same problems in the debate on drug use, on healthcare, etc. Some people are just immature and believe freedom means the consequences of their actions don't figure into their conception of freedom.
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"
-Oliver Wendell Holmes
is a rip off of the American band "Beastie Boys" and does irreparable damage to the band by associating it with a New Zealand beer.
The band's lawyers have been notified and this craft brew will be sued into oblivion.
Now that we got that over with... what's the topic of this discussion?
"gets plenty of money"
No, the Pentagon gets plenty of money. We're talking about space exploration. There is no "gets plenty of money" considering the modest goals we can imagine with current technology and the range of missions that can be achieved. I'm not sure why you think "gets plenty of money" is appropriate considering the the kinds of things NASA could do with a real budget and considering the kinds of goals that are out there.
Fixed that for you.
idiots
I thought you just said "Warp Factor 9, Engage, Make it so, Earl Grey Tea, Hot, etc." and it worked.
Or Georgi had to modulate the frequency of the phase array of the trans warp coil tachyon pulse... technobabble... problem solved.
It should be that easy, right?
I don't trust Anonymous more or less than the FBI, but the motivation to pull this story out of their ass seems smaller than an FBI stooge's motivation to deny and cover their ass.
FBI brass might even be pitted against FBI agent: brass said don't get the UDIDs and the agent went and obtained them anyway. The FBI is a large bureaucracy with complicated relationships between semi-independent operatives, and it's possible there is low coordination between FBI spokesman and FBI worker. Anonymous may have more operational integrity, at least on this isolated issue.
Is your barber named Occam?
there's something fishy about your comment
Do you want fries with that?
Corporate hijacking of my govt via financial influence does not count
if something serves as the de facto public square, then the public gets to decide the rules. it is owned by a corporation? ok, but the corporation is basically a monopoly, therefore, it is the same sort of entity as a government anyways, especially as it colludes with the government that is supposed to represent my interests. so we move the government to establish regulations in the service of the public on the corporate controlled public square
i want to post videos without being tried and found guilty of copyright infringement by AI, and then the burden placed on me to prove my innocence, and then wait while i am approved to participate in what amounts to the online public square
that's me "wanting to be special?"
what an asshole
someone who misrepresents someone else's position is what in your dictionary?
i'm not a warmongerer. i'm saying to say north korea and iran represent no threat is stupid. do you see the difference? i said it elsewhere:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3091717&cid=41220345
so don't misrepresent what i said
if i call you silly stupid and uneducated for thinking these nations represent no threat it does not automatically follow the solution is to wage war. this is you inserting an assumption about me and my position that only exists in your head
do you understand?
i don't want to attack these countries. at the same time, i'm not going to sit here and listen to some moron say these countries are not a threat. any country that hypermilitarizes and issues bellicose warning for decades is obviously a threat
i'm afraid to tell you the sky is blue. you might attack me for not citing it. pffffffffffft
i stopped reading there and will read you no more. these are countries hypermilitarizing and issuing bellicose language for decades. they don't act rationally, and their capacity to do harm is sufficient to cause a major disruption that theatens our national interests. to say this requires no citation for anyone with the slightest inclination to know the remotest facts of this subject matter
please be honestly interested in being educated on the simplest baseline of facts of a subject matter before speaking in the future. thanks
somebody who constantly militarizes and issues bellicose language for decades isn't someone you look at for the idea of rational self-restraint
if north korea randomly sinks a ship or shells an island, as it has done in the last few years, killing dozens of south koreans, you could ask why, but the answer is simply: who knows? the problem is that therefore you can't depend upon them for anything rational or stable. they'll launch a missile at tokyo tomorrow. why? who knows?
then there is another argument you have: that even with all their menace, they are harmless idiots: their missile won't hit tokyo, their tech doesn't work. we can counter their tech easily and effectively. well, this depends upon the notion that they are hapless fuck ups. they did create a nuclear bomb. i'm certain the idiots in charge are idiots, but they have intelligent engineers. the question then is just one of time: they keep militarizing and steeping their people in bellicose propaganda. to what end? does it sound like a stable situation to you? we've been waiting for these idiots to self-implode. for decades. it's not happening
there is an end game here. it involves a screw up that crosses a line. it's just that, when iran or north korea screw up, it may cost someone in tokyo or aleppo way, way, way too much. a cost that our children might scratch their heads: "they stockpiled weapons for years, constantly threatened to kill their neighbors, and no one did anything about them until disaster {XYZ}? i don't get it"
there's an argument for nipping the problem in the bud before the mistake happens. an unstable idiot with a gun is a problem. no matter how faulty the gun or how many cops are standing around him
of course, if we attacked north korea, they have so much artillery pointed at seoul they would level it in no time. so i'm not arguing for preemptive war. their trump card really is their insane bellicosity. this is where someone says we pushed them to that. really? the west is a monster whose only proper response is constant war preparation? hey brazil, philippines, india: you better start frothing at the mouth and militarizing like no tomorrow, and threatening to annihilate your neighbors constantly! why?: because the west! pfffffft: the constant war preparation is the fault of iran and north korea only. this is the path they chose
i'm just arguing that people who say they have no menace, that they represent no threat, are wrong. the situation is unstable and has the markings of something that ends badly. not that we should attack the countries, just that you are wrong that this kind of thing just goes away on its own or that they never succeed in having the capacity to do real harm, or that they never strike for no rational reason
the USA didn't make iran and north korea. this would disavow the existence of millions of human beings who of their own volition have made it their life's work to militarize and issue bellicose language for decades
oh i know "in ancient history cold war, the USA did {XYZ} to country {ABC}. therefore, the USA is forevermore 100% responsible for what country {ABC} does." with such stunning intellectual analysis, nevermind completely condescension and patronization of iranians and north koreans as nothing but cardboard cutouts of american actions, how can one argue?
also, i like how it disavows the USA of anything that happens in afghanistan. since because the USSR invaded it in the 1980s, by some idiot's logic, that means 100% of everything in afghanistan is Russia's fault forever. Oh wait, I'm sorry! We sold Osama bin Laden a stinger missile in the 1980s, so therefore, everything the man does after that is 100% our fault. sorry, i have to get with the mindless blanket blame game program and stop thinking of these people as having free will and the ability to create their own agenda, and remember that they are all just reflections of past american actions, of course
i'm not going to cite anything. i'm not your father. this is not an obscure discussion on little known facts. if you require an education on the obvious points of discussion, you shouldn't be in the discussion. there has been nothing but a drumbeat of attacks, deaths, abducitions, and bellicose language for decades. if you don't know that, why are you talking about this subject and registering an uninformed opinion?
the point is, they are building and launching these missiles and bombs and constantly engage in bellicose talk! it means nothing to you?
they've been doing this for decades, meaning rational behavior isn't the point. that makes them a threat: they are constantly prepping for war and they are unstable. one is a theocracy, the other is cult of personality for a twenty something. they are highly militarized, going nuclear, and constantly talking about annihilating neighbors. this means nothing to you?
if a neighbor constantly stockpiled guns, and constantly threatened to shoot his neighbors, do you call the cops? or dismiss him as a harmless kook?
Or maybe i should be free to use my culture as I see fit, free from IP trolls, and trolls from the internet such as yourself. It should not be beholden on me to have a legal department with a research wing if I want to post a video on the internet. This is an absurdity that will not stand the test of time. Nor am I going to tolerate it. I do so at my legal peril? why is that a world anyone wants to be a part of? And therefore bring on the fight, the outcome is to my benefit if I value a clean conscience over submission to an absurd legal climate, win or lose in the kangaroo court.
I am not required to be a warmongerer to make a laughingstock out of someone who sees no threats from North Korea or Iran. Does one need a PhD in google search to review the recent history of those country's statements and actions? what is the magic exactly whereby you are convinced of the harmlessness of these countriesdespite the evidence of statements of intent and actions to obtain Capacity to fulfill intent?
You seem hung up on my word choice. I also question your judgment of what constitutes a threat. Regardless, we're just talking about malware here and you do agree a threat should be opposed and I can't fathom that you would think malware is provocative, so we're in the same ballpark at least.
the topic of the fucking story you are posting under?
where did i say anything about shedding blood asshole? i said OPPOSE. what does the verb "oppose" mean nitwit?
i live in a country, the usa, that believes that the free market should supply what the government does not. ok, but first we must admit that we aren't talking about the free market, we are talking about monopolies and oligopolies that dominate a market space just as much as a government in a communist country does. there is no competition. there are entrenched massive players and a few marginal pipsqueaks. enough with the lies about the fantasy of a fair marketplace, especially as the largest players collude with the government and warp the rules to entrench their position
a statement like yours presupposes that i have a free choice to shop somewhere else. therefore i have no right to demand anything from a capitalist corporation. i should simply choose another capitalist corporation to serve my needs. when of course the truth is that youtube dominates it's space, and to post my video somewhere else automatically dooms me to less views
therefore, if we are going to go with this delusion that the market will provide what the government should not, then we are going to hold to the marketplace behemoths demands that otherwise we could only hold against the government, such as conforming to certain rules of fairness, since i live in a country that abdicates to the "free market" what the government otherwise would provide
where do these ignorant twits who believe in the immaculate fair marketplace that never existed and never will come from exactly? it's like a demented pseudoreligion, whose adherents cling to their nonsense in spite of all overwhelming economic fact and historical evidence like a creationist or a ufo cultist
no: if the market is dominated by a monopoly or oligopoly, the people can and should demand of them rights and protections since it is not possible to simply shop somewhere else and get anywhere near the same service. youtube provides, in effect, a public service. so you can, and should, hold it to standards of conduct on the same level as a government entity
you can't have it both ways. either the government provides the service, and then you demand a certain level of service, or the government abdicates to the monopoly, and then you have no right to demand any level of service? bullshit