so the culmination of mankind's civilization, scientific efforts, and technological achievements, is to go to some exoplanet, only to find some foot fungus some dinosaur had long before mankind ever appeared?
based on previous opinions put forth by the troll behind this account name, that the troll has no concern about the state of the world we leave our children is not exactly a surprising statement
we won't have uranium and thorium forever, we won't have petroleum and coal forever. at some point, we need to harness fusion. and solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.: boutique sources in terms of the energy demand of a growing population and growing richer population
in the future, they won't talk A.D. and B.C., they will talk A.I. and B.I. (after ignition and before ignition). Because this really will transform the human race in terms of what we can do and instantly rendering so many petty geopolitical and economic problems null and void
and if we never reach A.I.? then we may very well be talking about a future where civilization devolves, and never musters enough willpower and resources to attempt this again. fusion is that important to the future of mankind
oh and thank you MIT Researchers for answering my question, #17
followup question:
how does it feel to know the future of mankind rests on your shoulders?
that's all very well and said, but you could have written the same thing in 1954. and it is now 2012. i wonder if we'll be saying the same thing in 2066
yes, there is a mighty cost in knocking these inept losers out. and now think of the nuclear destabilization and proliferation in all this time we've been waiting for them to fall of their own incompetence. so the cost of allowing them to continue to exist is greater than the cost of snuffing the assholes out. and this isn't even broaching the humanitarian subject of what these scumbags have done to the north korean people in all this time, and will continue to do
Little Johnny tortures hamsters. Little Sammy bullies classmates.
How do you solve the problem of Little Johnny and Little Sammy?
Apparently, you think equating Johnny and Sammy, then walking away in disgust, is of some sort of use to anyone.
Your "contribution" seems to only serve a sense of smugness on your part, and solves no problems in the world.
So yay: congratulations, you've discovered all nations do bad things. It is a stunning insight.
Or: the USA does a lot of bad things. So... we excuse the bad North Korea does? We side with North Korea? What's the point?
Is it we forget about criticizing North Korea because we have no right to criticize because we are not perfect ourselves? So a German can criticize North Korea? Not a German, oh, because of World War II. How about a Turk? Nah, the Armenian genocide... how about some isolated South American tribesmen? Yeah, but they murder their rivals.
So basically, no one can criticize North Korea.
!?
Exactly what do you think the use of your words are?
look at north korea: a committed government, with enough fanatics at its disposal, will turn their country into a prison. revolution becomes difficult to muster. outside force is required to make real change
this is what happens if you defy the regime in Iran:
it only affects those people constant babbling loudly in quiet public places about their boyfriend's parents, their kid's rash, or their awesome trip to the city, because they have the cell phone constantly stuck to their ear
a mobile app user like myself, i just keep my cell phone at my waist, so my brain is fine. it only means i'm going to be sterile and leave no offspring
it will be quieter world, whatever type of mobile user you are
i did not read past your first sentence, because you immediately went off the rails
i am intolerant of this man because he is intolerant. that's my point. that's where my point ends. meanwhile, the whole "it's ok to silence him" part is where your mind is supplying some sort of paranoia about the subject matter that only exist in your mind and has nothing to do with what i am saying
i have no desire to control any one else's thoughts
but i have every right to call someone an intolerant ignorant asshole if, in fact, you are an intolerant asshole
your right to free speech does not include a right to not be judged harshly for the poor content of your speech
yes, i could hear battle hymn of the republic playing while reading your words. thank you for completely reading nonsense interpretations into the meaning of my words
"i do not tolerate you because of the color of your skin"
not the same as
"i do not tolerate you because you do not tolerate people based on the color of their skin"
do you see a difference? that's my point. please try to stay on point
the way someone thinks is malleable. someone's skin color, sexual orientation, religious background, etc.: not malleable, and to judge someone on that before knowing the person is intolerance in and of itself. so i am sorry but intolerance of intolerance is most definitely not the same thing as intolerance itself. once is to judge because of appearance, one is to judge because of poor content of thought. do you see the difference?
there were a lot of Syrian emigrants on the ill-fated oceanliner. I liked that in Cameron's movie, he actually had some Syrians on screen for 2-3 seconds in steerage, confused about directions. Nice historical touch.
double useless trivia: the movie had to be renamed for the Middle Eastern market, as "Titanic" sounds like a slang term for "let's have sex"
Are you trying to tell me that if there was no attack by Anonymous the Chinese Government could find no excuse to deny the Chinese people their freedom of expression and would just let free expression reign?
Is that what you are trying to say?
If your answer is no, then why do you think they need an excuse to do what they would do no matter what?
And why do you think the excuse they use even matters?
The point is to vilify the GOVERNMENT'S behavior. The way you think, it seems that because someone defies an abuser, they get what they deserve from the abuser. Is that what you think? No? Then why is it so important to you to not give an abuser a reason to make a convenient excuse? Why are you criticizing the actions of those fighting for freedom, and why are you not criticizing the abuser?
It seems like you, and other people posting here, seem to have the psychology of the victim and the slave motivating your thoughts: "don't give the abuser a reason to hit me, and if he hits me, you are to blame, for giving him a reason to hit me." This is the way the chronically abused think. The possibility of defying and defeating the abuser does not occur to them. So they are angry at anyone who tries to stop the abuser, rather than the abuser himself/ herself.
Why don't you point your criticism AT THE ABUSER DOING THE HITTING. That would be the Chinese Government, thinking that it has the right to control the thoughts of Chinese people. NOT ANONYMOUS.
Yes, and 9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, Obama is a secret Communist Muslim, Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand, etc., etc.
An abusive husband/ boyfriend blames his wife's/ girlfriend's choice of dress.
Etc., etc.
Abusers everywhere always have a convenient excuse to be an abuser.
So I don't understand what the point of your post is. They will ALWAYS have an excuse. Is your point that if Anonymous didn't do what they did the Chinese Govt would go "we found no excuse today to deny Chinese people their freedoms so we're letting them express themselves freely now."
Seriously, what is your point? There is ALWAYS a scapegoat.
Pointing out that an abuser has an excuse or can find an excuse is completely useless. Explaining their excuse is useless. It's still just an excuse, and they can always find one. A scapegoat requires no effort and can be imagined in any way possible. Logic and reason is no limitation.
So please explain to me what the point of your post is?
word choice, subject choice, what is delicately omitted, what is unnaturally focused on, what is purposefully ignored or ignored as an artifact of honest subconscious prejudicial mistake... these all create media bias. and there is no objective guide to these issues. every reader has their own agenda, and every reader has a different idea of what is important to focus on and what to ignore
so there will always be some reader somewhere outraged by bias. and the only way to say he is wrong is to compare to the average set of concerns in society, which are always shifting, and are complex
bias is impossible to root out, or even define
the best that can ever be hoped for is to minimize bias as much as possible. it is up to the reader to have a good bullshit meter functioning, no matter what they are reading. the person who implicitly trusts the media, any media, is a fool. trust only your own judgment, and verify, by referencing international sources, different ideological sources, etc. it is the best you can ever hope to do
but obviously, NBC completely screwed up here. this is a situation where bias is obvious and huge. therefore, as an organization whose word and integrity depends upon minimizing bias, they have hurt their brand image
come to think of it, that might make a great military program: camouflage. no one will guess the vultures are coopted spies
although, when the enemy gets paranoid about where the good intel against them is coming from and see something gleam off of a vulture's wing, they'll shoot down every vulture they see
not good for vultures. then again, war in general is good for vultures, so i guess it's wash from the vulture's POV
Slashdot Mirror
everyone seems to blame mccarthy for this madness, wrong
mccarthy is just an idiot, the loudest, dumbest soccer mom
but this whole madness was started by this evil asshole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
being stupid is no defense. but this guy isn't stupid. his action is an intelligent calculated preying on the stupid
it was a calculated fraud. andrew wakefield is an evil mass murderer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
And he is a murderer. It was a fraud.
Being stupid is no defense, but preying on the stupid is something worse: it's evil.
so the culmination of mankind's civilization, scientific efforts, and technological achievements, is to go to some exoplanet, only to find some foot fungus some dinosaur had long before mankind ever appeared?
based on previous opinions put forth by the troll behind this account name, that the troll has no concern about the state of the world we leave our children is not exactly a surprising statement
yes to fusion, yes to universal healthcare
no to social darwinists/ hard libertarians/ assorted tea party types
we won't have uranium and thorium forever, we won't have petroleum and coal forever. at some point, we need to harness fusion. and solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.: boutique sources in terms of the energy demand of a growing population and growing richer population
in the future, they won't talk A.D. and B.C., they will talk A.I. and B.I. (after ignition and before ignition). Because this really will transform the human race in terms of what we can do and instantly rendering so many petty geopolitical and economic problems null and void
and if we never reach A.I.? then we may very well be talking about a future where civilization devolves, and never musters enough willpower and resources to attempt this again. fusion is that important to the future of mankind
oh and thank you MIT Researchers for answering my question, #17
followup question:
how does it feel to know the future of mankind rests on your shoulders?
because it does, it really does
more people need to understand this
that's all very well and said, but you could have written the same thing in 1954. and it is now 2012. i wonder if we'll be saying the same thing in 2066
yes, there is a mighty cost in knocking these inept losers out. and now think of the nuclear destabilization and proliferation in all this time we've been waiting for them to fall of their own incompetence. so the cost of allowing them to continue to exist is greater than the cost of snuffing the assholes out. and this isn't even broaching the humanitarian subject of what these scumbags have done to the north korean people in all this time, and will continue to do
Little Johnny tortures hamsters. Little Sammy bullies classmates.
How do you solve the problem of Little Johnny and Little Sammy?
Apparently, you think equating Johnny and Sammy, then walking away in disgust, is of some sort of use to anyone.
Your "contribution" seems to only serve a sense of smugness on your part, and solves no problems in the world.
So yay: congratulations, you've discovered all nations do bad things. It is a stunning insight.
Or: the USA does a lot of bad things. So... we excuse the bad North Korea does? We side with North Korea? What's the point?
Is it we forget about criticizing North Korea because we have no right to criticize because we are not perfect ourselves? So a German can criticize North Korea? Not a German, oh, because of World War II. How about a Turk? Nah, the Armenian genocide... how about some isolated South American tribesmen? Yeah, but they murder their rivals.
So basically, no one can criticize North Korea.
!?
Exactly what do you think the use of your words are?
revolution is not inevitable
look at north korea: a committed government, with enough fanatics at its disposal, will turn their country into a prison. revolution becomes difficult to muster. outside force is required to make real change
this is what happens if you defy the regime in Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan
it only affects those people constant babbling loudly in quiet public places about their boyfriend's parents, their kid's rash, or their awesome trip to the city, because they have the cell phone constantly stuck to their ear
a mobile app user like myself, i just keep my cell phone at my waist, so my brain is fine. it only means i'm going to be sterile and leave no offspring
it will be quieter world, whatever type of mobile user you are
i did not read past your first sentence, because you immediately went off the rails
i am intolerant of this man because he is intolerant. that's my point. that's where my point ends. meanwhile, the whole "it's ok to silence him" part is where your mind is supplying some sort of paranoia about the subject matter that only exist in your mind and has nothing to do with what i am saying
i have no desire to control any one else's thoughts
but i have every right to call someone an intolerant ignorant asshole if, in fact, you are an intolerant asshole
your right to free speech does not include a right to not be judged harshly for the poor content of your speech
yes, i could hear battle hymn of the republic playing while reading your words. thank you for completely reading nonsense interpretations into the meaning of my words
"i do not tolerate you because of the color of your skin"
not the same as
"i do not tolerate you because you do not tolerate people based on the color of their skin"
do you see a difference? that's my point. please try to stay on point
the way someone thinks is malleable. someone's skin color, sexual orientation, religious background, etc.: not malleable, and to judge someone on that before knowing the person is intolerance in and of itself. so i am sorry but intolerance of intolerance is most definitely not the same thing as intolerance itself. once is to judge because of appearance, one is to judge because of poor content of thought. do you see the difference?
or, since we're on slashdot
-1 (-1) != -1
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
woosh?
woosh woosh woosh?
followup #1:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Titanic+Ottawa+woman+alone+survives+sinking+from+group+steerage/6430607/story.html
followup #2:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/1998-04-13/news/18075077_1_white-star-line-magazine-reports-communist-china
followup #3:
FP!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHARGARBBBLE
(how'd that happen?)
there were a lot of Syrian emigrants on the ill-fated oceanliner. I liked that in Cameron's movie, he actually had some Syrians on screen for 2-3 seconds in steerage, confused about directions. Nice historical touch.
double useless trivia: the movie had to be renamed for the Middle Eastern market, as "Titanic" sounds like a slang term for "let's have sex"
They were still in use in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider"
Which was in 2003.
You forgot to qualify the most important betrayal here:
Obama is obviously a secret Radical Christian Communist Muslim born in Kenya.
Are you trying to tell me that if there was no attack by Anonymous the Chinese Government could find no excuse to deny the Chinese people their freedom of expression and would just let free expression reign?
Is that what you are trying to say?
If your answer is no, then why do you think they need an excuse to do what they would do no matter what?
And why do you think the excuse they use even matters?
The point is to vilify the GOVERNMENT'S behavior. The way you think, it seems that because someone defies an abuser, they get what they deserve from the abuser. Is that what you think? No? Then why is it so important to you to not give an abuser a reason to make a convenient excuse? Why are you criticizing the actions of those fighting for freedom, and why are you not criticizing the abuser?
It seems like you, and other people posting here, seem to have the psychology of the victim and the slave motivating your thoughts: "don't give the abuser a reason to hit me, and if he hits me, you are to blame, for giving him a reason to hit me." This is the way the chronically abused think. The possibility of defying and defeating the abuser does not occur to them. So they are angry at anyone who tries to stop the abuser, rather than the abuser himself/ herself.
Why don't you point your criticism AT THE ABUSER DOING THE HITTING. That would be the Chinese Government, thinking that it has the right to control the thoughts of Chinese people. NOT ANONYMOUS.
Wake up. You perspective is seriously flawed.
Yes, and 9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, Obama is a secret Communist Muslim, Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand, etc., etc.
Paranoid schizophrenia is a sad disease.
Assad blames terrorists.
Putin blames foreign meddling.
An abusive husband/ boyfriend blames his wife's/ girlfriend's choice of dress.
Etc., etc.
Abusers everywhere always have a convenient excuse to be an abuser.
So I don't understand what the point of your post is. They will ALWAYS have an excuse. Is your point that if Anonymous didn't do what they did the Chinese Govt would go "we found no excuse today to deny Chinese people their freedoms so we're letting them express themselves freely now."
Seriously, what is your point? There is ALWAYS a scapegoat.
Pointing out that an abuser has an excuse or can find an excuse is completely useless. Explaining their excuse is useless. It's still just an excuse, and they can always find one. A scapegoat requires no effort and can be imagined in any way possible. Logic and reason is no limitation.
So please explain to me what the point of your post is?
are you saying NBC purposefully distorted the call? for what purpose?
it wasn't an overworked intern? or maybe it really was an employee with malicious intent... then that employee represents NBC's intentions fully?
i don't think there's malice on the part of NBC here. maybe an employee, but most probably a stupid mistake
if you say that my willingness to give NBC a pass reveals my bias, then it is easy to respond your willingness to castigate them reveals your bias
we are operating on limited information here as to NBC's intent, just like we are operating on bias when understanding what happened with zimmerman
everyone is biased
"liar" implies a level of malicious intent that you only find in hollywood movies. the real world is not a cartoon
word choice, subject choice, what is delicately omitted, what is unnaturally focused on, what is purposefully ignored or ignored as an artifact of honest subconscious prejudicial mistake... these all create media bias. and there is no objective guide to these issues. every reader has their own agenda, and every reader has a different idea of what is important to focus on and what to ignore
so there will always be some reader somewhere outraged by bias. and the only way to say he is wrong is to compare to the average set of concerns in society, which are always shifting, and are complex
bias is impossible to root out, or even define
the best that can ever be hoped for is to minimize bias as much as possible. it is up to the reader to have a good bullshit meter functioning, no matter what they are reading. the person who implicitly trusts the media, any media, is a fool. trust only your own judgment, and verify, by referencing international sources, different ideological sources, etc. it is the best you can ever hope to do
but obviously, NBC completely screwed up here. this is a situation where bias is obvious and huge. therefore, as an organization whose word and integrity depends upon minimizing bias, they have hurt their brand image
results are random but pretty much eternal
come to think of it, that might make a great military program: camouflage. no one will guess the vultures are coopted spies
although, when the enemy gets paranoid about where the good intel against them is coming from and see something gleam off of a vulture's wing, they'll shoot down every vulture they see
not good for vultures. then again, war in general is good for vultures, so i guess it's wash from the vulture's POV
so we have those bases covered."
Did you train the dog to shoot the gun?
Then you really don't have all of your bases covered, do you now?