let us increase funding and illicit aid for the quebecois separatists, and with the next vote of secession, finally divide canada into 3 parts. alberta will choose union with us freely, and then we have 3 smaller anglocanadian units and one frog unit to deal with. divided, internally contentious and much weaker in comparison, we shall dispatch these remnants one by one and digest the mostly useless icebox in our attic once and for all. leave quebec free as a rump reminder. i'm sick of the mosquitoes whining above us (oh no wait, we're talking about the canadian prairie: better get used to mosquitoes. and mud. when its not ice)
since we are already culturally and linguistically assimilated, political domination will be easy. canada is after all, nothing but unincorporated american territory. i know you take pride in the 1812 trouncing that is the only reason you even exist but that wasn't done by canadians. it was done by the british. its strange to me to take pride in a supposed nationality that had to be finally forcibly weaned from the british imperial tit in the 1980s(!). and yet you still have some foreign bitch on your money. pathetic. this is a national identity to take pride in?
<back to reality/>
that's not how the usa deals with canada. or thinks of canada. but that's what an american nationalist zealot would think. are you sure you are dealing with what you think you are dealing with?
reality: relations between canada and the usa is probably the most peaceful relationship between two large neighboring countries in the history of the world. so admit that, and mellow your loud ignorant words
now, if you insist on the "american nationalist zealot" line, i can point to many parallels in the world that might not be so cheerful for canada. if you want a powerful neighbor ruled by nationalist zealots, you can always try the imperial empires of china and russia, and if you know your history of how those empires divided, dissolved, neutralized and incorporated their neighbors over the centuries, you'll be thanking your lucky stars that the usa is your southern neighbor. i'm sorry, your ONLY neighbor. if the usa were run by actual nationalist zealots hell bent on empire, canada would be our siberia or our tibet/ xinjiang in a heartbeat. and if you want to say that the history of the usa IS like russia and china, then you're merely leveling the moral playing field to pointless equivalency, because canada is certainly no saint in the nation-building crimes list:
we surround you, and we are peaceful with you. sorry our airspace policies displease you
but know the relative truth of the reality of canada-usa relations in the history of the world, and be thankful you have the neighbor you do. i am thankful for the peaceful mostly upstanding neighbor to our north, so return the favorable impression. lest you sound like just another whiny clueless prick. we plenty of those in this world and on this forum
the idea is to improve upon failures, not negate the whole entity. to criticize the very existence of government rather than why government needs improvement is a hard fail on your part
government is a necessarily evil, but completely necessary
i don't care what these hominid's brainpower was like. if all they could do is grunt and hoot, they're 150 iq points of nothing. whatever that went on in that braincase that was truly amazing doesn't mean a damn thing if it has no way to get out of that braincase. and lo and behold, they're extinct. completely unsurprising
social intelligence is far, far more important than things like spatial intelligence, mathematical intelligence, or even strategic intelligence. and the iq test doesn't test social intelligence. the whole cult of the iq test is really pointless. the iq test has a very limited specific application and it is given far too much weight than what it actually deserves in contemporary society. i think it has something to do with the panic the west was experiencing as the soviets overtook the west in the space race in the 1950s, and suddenly the emphasis on math and the sciences became paramount. but even in scientific disciplines, its the guys with the social intelligence that dominate: jobs, gates, ellison: these are business guys first, programmers second
a guy with subpar intelligence with good communication skills dominates the guy with the stellar iq who doesn't have very good communication skills. you see it in these forums: "i hate my phb boss". well, why is your phb boss your boss? simply because he communicates better than you. yeah, he's dumber than you. but he COMMUNICATES better than you. this is not some perverse warping of justice, this is very much in line with the way things should be. i don't care how many games of chess you can play in your head at the same time, if you have no charisma and you cannot communicate well, you have less influence, and therefore less power, and less money. its perfectly logical how this plays out
a bad idea communicated well is FAR more important than a good idea communicated badly. not because i say so, but simply because of how reality works. if there is any injustice in this world, its that someone told you because you have a high iq you somehow deserve something superior, or that you yourself believe you are superior because of a test that only determines how well you manipulate complex 3D topologies in your head. guess what: its an amazing skill, but it doesn't actually help you get ahead in life about the things that really matter. your social iq is what really matters, and if you don't have it, you won't go far in this world, no matter how much your iq score is off the charts. in fact, we have a name for people who are extremely brilliant in limited ways but can't communicate: autistic savants. in some iq tests they would be way off the charts. but, like in the movie "rainman", they can't tell the difference between the price of a car and the price of a candy bar
that's a hard cold truth a lot of people in these forums probably still haven't accepted, but its true: your iq score means far less than you think. meanwhile, the idiot down the hall who knows how to talk the panties off girls: he will be your boss some day
the ginkgo tree itself is pretty amazing: its the coelacanth of trees
known only from the ancient fossil record, having aspects of a missing link between major plant classifications, and with no other living relatives by a long shot (at least from the perspective of western science). until isolated specimens were located, to western expert's amazed awe, in 1690. it was cultivated in the east, and this probably led to its survival, since the only populations anyone can consider wild are only in a tiny mountain reserve in eastern china... but even this group of trees might only exist because it was tended by monks for millenia, ironically for this story, probably because of medicinal value
in other words, the coelacanth of trees may only continue to exist in this world due to the efforts of ancient man, the inverse relationship between extinction and mankind. either way, if you've ever looked at a ginkgo leaf, you can readily appreciate how ancient and alien the plant is. its like a tiny fan, a completely unique morphology unlike any other leaf you have ever seen on any other plant
Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba; in Chinese and Japanese , pinyin romanization: yín xìng, Hepburn romanization: ich or ginnan), also spelled gingko, also known as the Maidenhair Tree after Adiantum, is a unique species of tree with no close living relatives. The ginkgo is classified in its own division, the Ginkgophyta, comprising the single class Ginkgoopsida, order Ginkgoales, family Ginkgoaceae, genus Ginkgo and is the only extant species within this group. It is one of the best-known examples of a living fossil, because Ginkgoales other than G. biloba are not known from the fossil record after the Pliocene.[1][3] For centuries it was thought to be extinct in the wild, but is now known to grow in at least two small areas in Zhejiang province in Eastern China, in the Tian Mu Shan Reserve. However, recent studies indicate high genetic uniformity among ginkgo trees from these areas, arguing against a natural origin of these populations and suggesting that the ginkgo trees in these areas may have been planted and preserved by Chinese monks over a period of about 1000 years.[4] Whether native ginkgo populations still exist has not been demonstrated unequivocally. The relationship of Ginkgo to other plant groups remains uncertain. It has been placed loosely in the divisions Spermatophyta and Pinophyta, but no consensus has been reached. Since Ginkgo seeds are not protected by an ovary wall, it can morphologically be considered a gymnosperm. The apricot-like structures produced by female ginkgo trees are technically not fruits, but are seeds that have a shell that consists of a soft and fleshy section (the sarcotesta), and a hard section (the sclerotesta).
whenever i hear about a crack like this, there's always this threat to sue/ jail immediately put forth. why shouldn't there be an open promise to reward crackers instead? why don't they HIRE the guy who cracked their scheme to fix the weakness?
1. it encourages crackers to go to you, rather than going underground 2. it suggests to your clients that there are no challenges to your scheme out there, it ensures your algorithm/ scheme is sound, since a crack would reveal itself in an open, non criminal/ non litigious, reward-oriented environment
surely there's someone in business who understands these two attributes are worth far more to you than paying some lawyers to chase ghosts around the internet
and the secret always gets out regardless, its not like they ever stop the crack from gaining wide knowledge
for example, the idea that right wing media versus left wing media is a new development, and in the past the media was neutral is downright laughable. look up "yellow journalism". point being: bias in media will never go away, and you simply should learn to develop a good bullshit meter
therefore, in the future, i fully expect search engines to develop a subtle or not so subtle bias. not that they don't have it already, just that this becomes part of their identity and common wisdom
Preferable to whom? If "martyr" was his preferred status, HE'D be the one with a bomb tied to himself. People who want to BE martyrs do it. People who talk a good martyr status send others out to die in their place.
do you suggest us generals man the front lines? if us generals won't do that, does that nullify their legitimacy in the eyes of their troops? no matter what war you are in, it makes sense to protect the brains of the operation from the front lines. that bin laden won't strap a bomb to himself up front does not nullify his legitimacy according to his followers
however, if in the position between capture and death, he would choose death. its simple image management. his image is more important than his life, and he knows that
Yeah, Charlie Manson's name is so dead. Jefferey Dahmer, too. No, the real way to "kill his name" is to find him the same way Hussein was found: hiding in a little hole in the ground. Which is how he'll probably be found.
manson's and dahmer's names ARE dead. to call their name dead in this context does not imply anonymity, but appeal: their names don't appeal to anyone, ie, their names are dead. however, as the nigerian christmas bomber asshat in detroit proves, bin laden and his ideology, his cause, his name, still has appeal
The concept that "freedom of the press" will allow wide dissemination and discrediting of nutballs requires a press that is free enough to report what the nutball said and unbiased enough to report it in nutball context. While our press may meet those requirements, it is unlikely that the press in many other countries do, and highly unlikely that the people who are the prime candidates for recruitment into extremist groups will be served by a free press.
there's no government in the world that would put bin laden in a positive light. china is fighting muslim extremists, russia is fighting muslim extremists, all sunni countries' governments are no friends of bin laden (since he's tried to overthrow most of them), and iran, though run by an extremist government, is a shiite country, while bin laden is a sunni extremist. of course there will be pro-bin laden propaganda and lies about his treatment and his words on die hard fan sites, but none of that matters: there's those who are anti-bin laden no matter what, and those who are pro-bin laden no matter what. their minds are made up before the trial
the audience for the trial are those where bin laden's humbling is an issue that will cause them to grow disillusioned with him. there's always someone on the fence on every issue, and a wide open trial would sweep a fair number of them into disenchantment with violent jihad, and that matters, and that's important. the trial is highly unlikely though, unfortunately. he'll kill himself if near capture
the idea would be to capture him and try him. i doubt that is possible though, not because he is impossible to find, but he would probably kill himself if he saw his capture as imminent, well knowing himself that his status as a martyr is preferable
and of course other people will take his place, but no one with his fame/ infamy. that matters
the point is, you shouldn't just kill the man. you should kill his name. and you can only do this with a trial. the chance of that ever actually happening though is unfortunately very small, but it would be wonderful if osama bin laden were alive, in custody, and ready to be tried for his crimes
let him speak freely even. so you can slay his thinking directly on the stand. that's way more important than killing the man: killing his ideology
when gas prices go to $8, $10 gallon in a decade or so
right now the world economy is anemic, but when it recovers again, it will not be merely the west guzzling hydrocarbons anymore, but india and china as well. additionally, new petro deposits just keep getting deeper and harder to refine. gas prices are on a permanent uptick
you just wish we all had the foresight to see this coming up front, rather than waiting for the inevitable suffering that will be the only thing that will prod the usa into reviving its moribund rail
and an orange hair milla jovovich stopped it in time by kissing with 4 rocks taken from the abdomen of a blue opera diva, after blowing up a chrome domed gary oldman and some french mid 1990s supermodels who morph into orcs. and chris tucker stuttered a lot
seriously, most entertaining french sci fi since jules verne
that there are other issues in play in a free society, other than free association, and that some of those issues override free association IN CERTAIN LIMITED CONTEXTS. and all of this is perfectly agreeable with the us constitution. in fact, that the constitution itself has limits on free association, for example. furthermore, that these limits actually serve to maximize your freedom in a well-functioning of a free society
i'm not getting drawn into this discussion, because its intellectual charity. its beneath me. you seem to be only able to hold one concept in your head at a time, leading you to erroneous ridiculous conclusions derived in a vacuum of consideration of any other valid constitutional concepts, concepts equally important for the functioning of a free society. its a balancing act kid. not the taking of one isolated concept and amping it to the max
it is not worth my effort to continue talking to you on this issue, as it is not a debate, its an educational endeavour, and i am not your father or your teacher. if this sounds condescending, it would be even more condescending to plaster a smile on my face, hold your hand, and calmly explain to you some of the obvious constitutional issues you fail to see as important, when they are obviously important, strictly from a constitutional perspective, and if you honestly had a sound understanding of the constitution, you would already have considered these issues yourself. the fact you haven't merely demonstrates what a joke your so-called understanding of the constution is, if you think something like universal health care is unconstitutional
you need a lot of work on your own to catch up with the understanding that there are other issues at play here, none of them arranged to compromise your principles, but in fact arranged to deepen your understanding of your principles and what the founding fathers were grappling with when they wrote our important documents. one hopes you have the intellectual acumen to achieve this greater state of wisdom
as a starting place, make believe, suspend your disbelief for the moment, and consider that the constitution actually allows for limited limits on free association, and that universal health care perfectly falls within those limits. see if you can justify that to yourself, from within the framework of the constitution. if you can do that, you have hope, and you're not doomed to permanent fringe crackpot status. use this epiphany as a starting point for the expansion and growth of your understanding of the constitution and your future intellectual growth. good luck kid
do you happen to notice any parallels between the themes enunciated by those who oppose universal health insurance, and the mentality of the protagonist in that fable?
what does the fable teach us about the protagonist's attitude and why it fails?
and therefore, maybe this christmas you can come to appreciate why the currently losing side on healthcare debate might be founded on losing principles, if you can see how A Christmas Carol actually does in fact comment on the losing principles and failed mentality of those who oppose universal health care
hint: those losing principles have nothing to do with constitutional principles, if you actually understand the us constitution, as you assert you do, but seem to understand in only the most rudimentary, crude fashion
there are 3 parties in a hypothetical country, of equal strength and appeal
there is an inevitable effort by two of them to align themselves against the third. any power politician worth their salt would attempt this. it will probably happen along grounds of ideological affinity, some sort of shared interest/ agenda. eventually, this affinity means that entire opinions as well as political characters are coopted by one party which is slightly more dominant, a process which accelerates because the idea is to be on the winning side, and if ideology is mostly the same, all things being equal, put your energy into the larger party assured of more winning and more power for you. this leads to the drying up and marginalization of the third increasingly smaller party until it is a historical fringe anachronism. its simply inevitable power politics at work: three parties is unstable, two parties is stable
further consolidation, to one party, is impossible without force. simply because there are always alternative views on any important issue, and this means there is always a legitimate, valid, popular ideological basis for a second party in countries that play fair (as we see in japan and mexico)
all issues can be seen as having a myriad of opinions. so it would seem that the dominant three or four or five, etc parties will migrate to one of those opinion themes to stand out as a good choice. but the way the human mind works, its always a duality that asserts itself, that third or fourth options are relegated down the mental checklist, such that only two options dominate the mind and thought processes at picking between those choices. its simple psychology, this duality. we debate between two sides in our mind, we aren't equipped mentally to juggle between three or four or more choices mentally. its always two
even if the mind is aware of three or four or more good choices, it doesn't work out those choices in parallel. it focuses on one conflict between two choices at a time, works that out, and then focuses on another conflict. in this way, there's always only two competing sides to an issue in the human mind. this is the basis for two parties being dominant, always and only, and why we think, always and only, in all cultures, and all time periods, in terms of left wing and right wing. its a simple, inevitable consequence of the structure of our mind and how it works
third or fourth opinion themes, and the parties associated with them, simply lack interest or attention because of this bias in our mental processes. and even if a new third or fourth opinion theme reasserts itself as more sensible or popular, one of the two dominant parties, in the simple interest of retaining power, simply coopts that opinion theme so as to not lose traction with people's attention. they can do this because third and fourth choices are not usually that far ideologically from one of the other two top opinion choices
however, there do exist issues that both top parties are anathema to even address, for various reasons, such as, even talking about the issue is a liability. this allows for a third or fourth party to appear, based on a single taboo issue that the dominant two parties do not address. you see that with the piracy party, the marijuana party, and other fringe single issue parties
but, for example, if marijuana goes more mainstream, as it promises to do in the usa, you will not see the growth of the marijuana party. instead, you will see a shrinking of this party, simply because, now that the issue isn't taboo anymore, the republicans and democrats start talking about marijuana, start taking positions on marijuana, and therefore coopting the reason for the marijuana party to even exist in the first place. and so it dries up. in this way, there is no room for a third party to ever gain traction in the minds of the public based on the issues: the dominant two coopt all of the relevant issues in a
crackpots on teh intarwebs, who have identified a vast conspiracy to pass flagrantly unconstitutional laws in the senate and the house
fight on, retards!
if this is the best you pathetic morons can muster against healthcare reform in this country, the legislation is obviously a winner. but its good to know there's low iq assholes out there bravely defending the constitution, as they pathetically understand it, from dire threats in this country. dire threats like common sense legislation in the full glare of everyone's attention. ah! but you see the real threat to constitutional liberties! hilarious. retarded.
"You are a moderate? Could have fooled me. You are behaving exactly as the partisan hacks that you just claimed to hate so much."
yes, i am a moderate, not a liberal. of course, from the perspective of the crackpot fringe right, i'm certain moderate america looks liberal. but i have just as much disdain for the morons on the far left as i do for morons on the far right like yourself
if you like, you can consider me a partisan moderate. because i do have a strong emotional hatred for the far left AND the far right. you assholes are the source of so much stupidity on the airwaves and in the so-called "debates", aka zero iq propaganda flinging contests. we in moderate middle are sick of you, you on the far left, you on the far right. you assholes are what is wrong with this country. so fucking loud, so fucking stupid
if he's some sort of partisan hack, liberal or conservative, i am proud not to know who he is, as all these loud ignorant vindictive partisan assholes is the problem with our country, not a solution. i am a moderate. if you hadn't noticed, the issue of healthcare overhaul is not some sort of liberal agenda, its a squarely moderate concern
furthermore, thanks for the links. what exactly are your links suppose to tell me? that there are more morons than you out there? ok, you win, i admit defeat. i was wrong to say you alone believe the constitution is being defiled by the healthcare overhaul. i humbly accept your assertion of the existence of many more morons out there
meanwhile, i look forward to the supreme court taking up this highly egregious defiling of the constitution in the immediate future! what a hot potato!
and executive branches is embroiled in the healthcare overhaul
the entirety of the media and all of the partisan hacks are out in full force
do you honestly believe that the common fucking sense legislation currently being passed, in the full blinding light of everyone's attention, is something only you have discovered to be an abrogation of some sort of basic constitutional principles?
you're a middle school teenager or a complete moron if you do believe that
if you honestly think the constitution is somehow arranged against universal healthcare, you simply don't understand the constitution. i see a whole bunch of broad concepts out of context up there, a gordian knot of confused misunderstandings. good luck in your intellectual growth kid, you'll get it someday
"If you are passed out on the ground, I can simply choose to walk by without caring. Police officers or other public servants may be required to offer assistance as part of their job, but as a member of the public no such obligations exist for me."
this is the part where those who oppose something as simple and obvious as universal health insurance show their true colors: selfish self-centered irresponsible unethical assholes
thank you for going on record and showing to the world exactly what you are
in addition, i am wary of individuals who treat it like fundamentalists treat their religious documents, that it is without question. everything should be questioned: this is the philosophical spirit in which the founding fathers wrote the fucking thing!
the constitution is a living breathing document, it describes a pact between a people and their government. naturally and inescapably, it changes over time. to not understand this is the frightening part
furthermore, to say any part of the constitution somehow stands against healthcare reform is the egregious lack of understanding of constitution in play here, friend
i do not say "do you have health insurance or $200K in an emergency health fund?" and if you say no, i walk away and let you die
if you understand why it is impossible for anyone with even a rudimentary human conscience to do that, then you understand the "twisted context" in play here as you call it
Only in the twisted context where we have made "society"(i.e. government) responsible for the well being of the individual
incredible. amazing. you are simply retarded beyond belief or have less sense of morality than a kindergartener if you actually believe those words
the "twisted context" you refer to asshole is called simple morality according to any definition of morality by any culture that has ever existed: you render aid to the sick and fallen
let me repeat: you render aid to the sick and fallen
are you willing to argue that? are you willing to call this simple obvious unavoidable morality a "twisted context"?
if yes, you are an amoral asshole who has no place in the debate
Slashdot Mirror
let us increase funding and illicit aid for the quebecois separatists, and with the next vote of secession, finally divide canada into 3 parts. alberta will choose union with us freely, and then we have 3 smaller anglocanadian units and one frog unit to deal with. divided, internally contentious and much weaker in comparison, we shall dispatch these remnants one by one and digest the mostly useless icebox in our attic once and for all. leave quebec free as a rump reminder. i'm sick of the mosquitoes whining above us (oh no wait, we're talking about the canadian prairie: better get used to mosquitoes. and mud. when its not ice)
since we are already culturally and linguistically assimilated, political domination will be easy. canada is after all, nothing but unincorporated american territory. i know you take pride in the 1812 trouncing that is the only reason you even exist but that wasn't done by canadians. it was done by the british. its strange to me to take pride in a supposed nationality that had to be finally forcibly weaned from the british imperial tit in the 1980s(!). and yet you still have some foreign bitch on your money. pathetic. this is a national identity to take pride in?
<back to reality/>
that's not how the usa deals with canada. or thinks of canada. but that's what an american nationalist zealot would think. are you sure you are dealing with what you think you are dealing with?
reality: relations between canada and the usa is probably the most peaceful relationship between two large neighboring countries in the history of the world. so admit that, and mellow your loud ignorant words
now, if you insist on the "american nationalist zealot" line, i can point to many parallels in the world that might not be so cheerful for canada. if you want a powerful neighbor ruled by nationalist zealots, you can always try the imperial empires of china and russia, and if you know your history of how those empires divided, dissolved, neutralized and incorporated their neighbors over the centuries, you'll be thanking your lucky stars that the usa is your southern neighbor. i'm sorry, your ONLY neighbor. if the usa were run by actual nationalist zealots hell bent on empire, canada would be our siberia or our tibet/ xinjiang in a heartbeat. and if you want to say that the history of the usa IS like russia and china, then you're merely leveling the moral playing field to pointless equivalency, because canada is certainly no saint in the nation-building crimes list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Riel
we surround you, and we are peaceful with you. sorry our airspace policies displease you
but know the relative truth of the reality of canada-usa relations in the history of the world, and be thankful you have the neighbor you do. i am thankful for the peaceful mostly upstanding neighbor to our north, so return the favorable impression. lest you sound like just another whiny clueless prick. we plenty of those in this world and on this forum
but no government is far, far worse
the idea is to improve upon failures, not negate the whole entity. to criticize the very existence of government rather than why government needs improvement is a hard fail on your part
government is a necessarily evil, but completely necessary
its our ability to communicate richly
i don't care what these hominid's brainpower was like. if all they could do is grunt and hoot, they're 150 iq points of nothing. whatever that went on in that braincase that was truly amazing doesn't mean a damn thing if it has no way to get out of that braincase. and lo and behold, they're extinct. completely unsurprising
social intelligence is far, far more important than things like spatial intelligence, mathematical intelligence, or even strategic intelligence. and the iq test doesn't test social intelligence. the whole cult of the iq test is really pointless. the iq test has a very limited specific application and it is given far too much weight than what it actually deserves in contemporary society. i think it has something to do with the panic the west was experiencing as the soviets overtook the west in the space race in the 1950s, and suddenly the emphasis on math and the sciences became paramount. but even in scientific disciplines, its the guys with the social intelligence that dominate: jobs, gates, ellison: these are business guys first, programmers second
a guy with subpar intelligence with good communication skills dominates the guy with the stellar iq who doesn't have very good communication skills. you see it in these forums: "i hate my phb boss". well, why is your phb boss your boss? simply because he communicates better than you. yeah, he's dumber than you. but he COMMUNICATES better than you. this is not some perverse warping of justice, this is very much in line with the way things should be. i don't care how many games of chess you can play in your head at the same time, if you have no charisma and you cannot communicate well, you have less influence, and therefore less power, and less money. its perfectly logical how this plays out
a bad idea communicated well is FAR more important than a good idea communicated badly. not because i say so, but simply because of how reality works. if there is any injustice in this world, its that someone told you because you have a high iq you somehow deserve something superior, or that you yourself believe you are superior because of a test that only determines how well you manipulate complex 3D topologies in your head. guess what: its an amazing skill, but it doesn't actually help you get ahead in life about the things that really matter. your social iq is what really matters, and if you don't have it, you won't go far in this world, no matter how much your iq score is off the charts. in fact, we have a name for people who are extremely brilliant in limited ways but can't communicate: autistic savants. in some iq tests they would be way off the charts. but, like in the movie "rainman", they can't tell the difference between the price of a car and the price of a candy bar
that's a hard cold truth a lot of people in these forums probably still haven't accepted, but its true: your iq score means far less than you think. meanwhile, the idiot down the hall who knows how to talk the panties off girls: he will be your boss some day
the ginkgo tree itself is pretty amazing: its the coelacanth of trees
known only from the ancient fossil record, having aspects of a missing link between major plant classifications, and with no other living relatives by a long shot (at least from the perspective of western science). until isolated specimens were located, to western expert's amazed awe, in 1690. it was cultivated in the east, and this probably led to its survival, since the only populations anyone can consider wild are only in a tiny mountain reserve in eastern china... but even this group of trees might only exist because it was tended by monks for millenia, ironically for this story, probably because of medicinal value
in other words, the coelacanth of trees may only continue to exist in this world due to the efforts of ancient man, the inverse relationship between extinction and mankind. either way, if you've ever looked at a ginkgo leaf, you can readily appreciate how ancient and alien the plant is. its like a tiny fan, a completely unique morphology unlike any other leaf you have ever seen on any other plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginkgo_biloba
get attention to a hoax site with a hoax takedown story
whenever i hear about a crack like this, there's always this threat to sue/ jail immediately put forth. why shouldn't there be an open promise to reward crackers instead? why don't they HIRE the guy who cracked their scheme to fix the weakness?
1. it encourages crackers to go to you, rather than going underground
2. it suggests to your clients that there are no challenges to your scheme out there, it ensures your algorithm/ scheme is sound, since a crack would reveal itself in an open, non criminal/ non litigious, reward-oriented environment
surely there's someone in business who understands these two attributes are worth far more to you than paying some lawyers to chase ghosts around the internet
and the secret always gets out regardless, its not like they ever stop the crack from gaining wide knowledge
i always knew santa claus was a soviet. the red suit was the clue
for example, the idea that right wing media versus left wing media is a new development, and in the past the media was neutral is downright laughable. look up "yellow journalism". point being: bias in media will never go away, and you simply should learn to develop a good bullshit meter
therefore, in the future, i fully expect search engines to develop a subtle or not so subtle bias. not that they don't have it already, just that this becomes part of their identity and common wisdom
Preferable to whom? If "martyr" was his preferred status, HE'D be the one with a bomb tied to himself. People who want to BE martyrs do it. People who talk a good martyr status send others out to die in their place.
do you suggest us generals man the front lines? if us generals won't do that, does that nullify their legitimacy in the eyes of their troops? no matter what war you are in, it makes sense to protect the brains of the operation from the front lines. that bin laden won't strap a bomb to himself up front does not nullify his legitimacy according to his followers
however, if in the position between capture and death, he would choose death. its simple image management. his image is more important than his life, and he knows that
Yeah, Charlie Manson's name is so dead. Jefferey Dahmer, too. No, the real way to "kill his name" is to find him the same way Hussein was found: hiding in a little hole in the ground. Which is how he'll probably be found.
manson's and dahmer's names ARE dead. to call their name dead in this context does not imply anonymity, but appeal: their names don't appeal to anyone, ie, their names are dead. however, as the nigerian christmas bomber asshat in detroit proves, bin laden and his ideology, his cause, his name, still has appeal
The concept that "freedom of the press" will allow wide dissemination and discrediting of nutballs requires a press that is free enough to report what the nutball said and unbiased enough to report it in nutball context. While our press may meet those requirements, it is unlikely that the press in many other countries do, and highly unlikely that the people who are the prime candidates for recruitment into extremist groups will be served by a free press.
there's no government in the world that would put bin laden in a positive light. china is fighting muslim extremists, russia is fighting muslim extremists, all sunni countries' governments are no friends of bin laden (since he's tried to overthrow most of them), and iran, though run by an extremist government, is a shiite country, while bin laden is a sunni extremist. of course there will be pro-bin laden propaganda and lies about his treatment and his words on die hard fan sites, but none of that matters: there's those who are anti-bin laden no matter what, and those who are pro-bin laden no matter what. their minds are made up before the trial
the audience for the trial are those where bin laden's humbling is an issue that will cause them to grow disillusioned with him. there's always someone on the fence on every issue, and a wide open trial would sweep a fair number of them into disenchantment with violent jihad, and that matters, and that's important. the trial is highly unlikely though, unfortunately. he'll kill himself if near capture
the idea would be to capture him and try him. i doubt that is possible though, not because he is impossible to find, but he would probably kill himself if he saw his capture as imminent, well knowing himself that his status as a martyr is preferable
and of course other people will take his place, but no one with his fame/ infamy. that matters
the point is, you shouldn't just kill the man. you should kill his name. and you can only do this with a trial. the chance of that ever actually happening though is unfortunately very small, but it would be wonderful if osama bin laden were alive, in custody, and ready to be tried for his crimes
let him speak freely even. so you can slay his thinking directly on the stand. that's way more important than killing the man: killing his ideology
http://www.wired.com/vanish/2009/08/author-evan-ratliff-is-on-the-lam-locate-him-and-win-5000/
i guess finding a missing writer wasn't that exciting, why not go for finding a missing convict?
i suggest wired take it to even the next level, and just go and challenge us to find osama bin laden
not a bad idea, since the combined might of the world's governments can't seem to do the job of neutralizing that symbol
it will be with high tech
meanwhile, this amazing low tech thing called exploding human populations is the real source of our environmental issues
so, whatever. tech v environment is a completely contrived, false dichotomy
please, please, pretty please
when gas prices go to $8, $10 gallon in a decade or so
right now the world economy is anemic, but when it recovers again, it will not be merely the west guzzling hydrocarbons anymore, but india and china as well. additionally, new petro deposits just keep getting deeper and harder to refine. gas prices are on a permanent uptick
you just wish we all had the foresight to see this coming up front, rather than waiting for the inevitable suffering that will be the only thing that will prod the usa into reviving its moribund rail
and an orange hair milla jovovich stopped it in time by kissing with 4 rocks taken from the abdomen of a blue opera diva, after blowing up a chrome domed gary oldman and some french mid 1990s supermodels who morph into orcs. and chris tucker stuttered a lot
seriously, most entertaining french sci fi since jules verne
that there are other issues in play in a free society, other than free association, and that some of those issues override free association IN CERTAIN LIMITED CONTEXTS. and all of this is perfectly agreeable with the us constitution. in fact, that the constitution itself has limits on free association, for example. furthermore, that these limits actually serve to maximize your freedom in a well-functioning of a free society
i'm not getting drawn into this discussion, because its intellectual charity. its beneath me. you seem to be only able to hold one concept in your head at a time, leading you to erroneous ridiculous conclusions derived in a vacuum of consideration of any other valid constitutional concepts, concepts equally important for the functioning of a free society. its a balancing act kid. not the taking of one isolated concept and amping it to the max
it is not worth my effort to continue talking to you on this issue, as it is not a debate, its an educational endeavour, and i am not your father or your teacher. if this sounds condescending, it would be even more condescending to plaster a smile on my face, hold your hand, and calmly explain to you some of the obvious constitutional issues you fail to see as important, when they are obviously important, strictly from a constitutional perspective, and if you honestly had a sound understanding of the constitution, you would already have considered these issues yourself. the fact you haven't merely demonstrates what a joke your so-called understanding of the constution is, if you think something like universal health care is unconstitutional
you need a lot of work on your own to catch up with the understanding that there are other issues at play here, none of them arranged to compromise your principles, but in fact arranged to deepen your understanding of your principles and what the founding fathers were grappling with when they wrote our important documents. one hopes you have the intellectual acumen to achieve this greater state of wisdom
as a starting place, make believe, suspend your disbelief for the moment, and consider that the constitution actually allows for limited limits on free association, and that universal health care perfectly falls within those limits. see if you can justify that to yourself, from within the framework of the constitution. if you can do that, you have hope, and you're not doomed to permanent fringe crackpot status. use this epiphany as a starting point for the expansion and growth of your understanding of the constitution and your future intellectual growth. good luck kid
why don't you try reading A Christmas Carol?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Carol
do you happen to notice any parallels between the themes enunciated by those who oppose universal health insurance, and the mentality of the protagonist in that fable?
what does the fable teach us about the protagonist's attitude and why it fails?
and therefore, maybe this christmas you can come to appreciate why the currently losing side on healthcare debate might be founded on losing principles, if you can see how A Christmas Carol actually does in fact comment on the losing principles and failed mentality of those who oppose universal health care
hint: those losing principles have nothing to do with constitutional principles, if you actually understand the us constitution, as you assert you do, but seem to understand in only the most rudimentary, crude fashion
there are 3 parties in a hypothetical country, of equal strength and appeal
there is an inevitable effort by two of them to align themselves against the third. any power politician worth their salt would attempt this. it will probably happen along grounds of ideological affinity, some sort of shared interest/ agenda. eventually, this affinity means that entire opinions as well as political characters are coopted by one party which is slightly more dominant, a process which accelerates because the idea is to be on the winning side, and if ideology is mostly the same, all things being equal, put your energy into the larger party assured of more winning and more power for you. this leads to the drying up and marginalization of the third increasingly smaller party until it is a historical fringe anachronism. its simply inevitable power politics at work: three parties is unstable, two parties is stable
further consolidation, to one party, is impossible without force. simply because there are always alternative views on any important issue, and this means there is always a legitimate, valid, popular ideological basis for a second party in countries that play fair (as we see in japan and mexico)
all issues can be seen as having a myriad of opinions. so it would seem that the dominant three or four or five, etc parties will migrate to one of those opinion themes to stand out as a good choice. but the way the human mind works, its always a duality that asserts itself, that third or fourth options are relegated down the mental checklist, such that only two options dominate the mind and thought processes at picking between those choices. its simple psychology, this duality. we debate between two sides in our mind, we aren't equipped mentally to juggle between three or four or more choices mentally. its always two
even if the mind is aware of three or four or more good choices, it doesn't work out those choices in parallel. it focuses on one conflict between two choices at a time, works that out, and then focuses on another conflict. in this way, there's always only two competing sides to an issue in the human mind. this is the basis for two parties being dominant, always and only, and why we think, always and only, in all cultures, and all time periods, in terms of left wing and right wing. its a simple, inevitable consequence of the structure of our mind and how it works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical
third or fourth opinion themes, and the parties associated with them, simply lack interest or attention because of this bias in our mental processes. and even if a new third or fourth opinion theme reasserts itself as more sensible or popular, one of the two dominant parties, in the simple interest of retaining power, simply coopts that opinion theme so as to not lose traction with people's attention. they can do this because third and fourth choices are not usually that far ideologically from one of the other two top opinion choices
however, there do exist issues that both top parties are anathema to even address, for various reasons, such as, even talking about the issue is a liability. this allows for a third or fourth party to appear, based on a single taboo issue that the dominant two parties do not address. you see that with the piracy party, the marijuana party, and other fringe single issue parties
but, for example, if marijuana goes more mainstream, as it promises to do in the usa, you will not see the growth of the marijuana party. instead, you will see a shrinking of this party, simply because, now that the issue isn't taboo anymore, the republicans and democrats start talking about marijuana, start taking positions on marijuana, and therefore coopting the reason for the marijuana party to even exist in the first place. and so it dries up. in this way, there is no room for a third party to ever gain traction in the minds of the public based on the issues: the dominant two coopt all of the relevant issues in a
crackpots on teh intarwebs, who have identified a vast conspiracy to pass flagrantly unconstitutional laws in the senate and the house
fight on, retards!
if this is the best you pathetic morons can muster against healthcare reform in this country, the legislation is obviously a winner. but its good to know there's low iq assholes out there bravely defending the constitution, as they pathetically understand it, from dire threats in this country. dire threats like common sense legislation in the full glare of everyone's attention. ah! but you see the real threat to constitutional liberties! hilarious. retarded.
"You are a moderate? Could have fooled me. You are behaving exactly as the partisan hacks that you just claimed to hate so much."
yes, i am a moderate, not a liberal. of course, from the perspective of the crackpot fringe right, i'm certain moderate america looks liberal. but i have just as much disdain for the morons on the far left as i do for morons on the far right like yourself
if you like, you can consider me a partisan moderate. because i do have a strong emotional hatred for the far left AND the far right. you assholes are the source of so much stupidity on the airwaves and in the so-called "debates", aka zero iq propaganda flinging contests. we in moderate middle are sick of you, you on the far left, you on the far right. you assholes are what is wrong with this country. so fucking loud, so fucking stupid
if he's some sort of partisan hack, liberal or conservative, i am proud not to know who he is, as all these loud ignorant vindictive partisan assholes is the problem with our country, not a solution. i am a moderate. if you hadn't noticed, the issue of healthcare overhaul is not some sort of liberal agenda, its a squarely moderate concern
furthermore, thanks for the links. what exactly are your links suppose to tell me? that there are more morons than you out there? ok, you win, i admit defeat. i was wrong to say you alone believe the constitution is being defiled by the healthcare overhaul. i humbly accept your assertion of the existence of many more morons out there
meanwhile, i look forward to the supreme court taking up this highly egregious defiling of the constitution in the immediate future! what a hot potato!
(crickets)
and executive branches is embroiled in the healthcare overhaul
the entirety of the media and all of the partisan hacks are out in full force
do you honestly believe that the common fucking sense legislation currently being passed, in the full blinding light of everyone's attention, is something only you have discovered to be an abrogation of some sort of basic constitutional principles?
you're a middle school teenager or a complete moron if you do believe that
if you honestly think the constitution is somehow arranged against universal healthcare, you simply don't understand the constitution. i see a whole bunch of broad concepts out of context up there, a gordian knot of confused misunderstandings. good luck in your intellectual growth kid, you'll get it someday
"If you are passed out on the ground, I can simply choose to walk by without caring. Police officers or other public servants may be required to offer assistance as part of their job, but as a member of the public no such obligations exist for me."
this is the part where those who oppose something as simple and obvious as universal health insurance show their true colors: selfish self-centered irresponsible unethical assholes
thank you for going on record and showing to the world exactly what you are
in addition, i am wary of individuals who treat it like fundamentalists treat their religious documents, that it is without question. everything should be questioned: this is the philosophical spirit in which the founding fathers wrote the fucking thing!
the constitution is a living breathing document, it describes a pact between a people and their government. naturally and inescapably, it changes over time. to not understand this is the frightening part
furthermore, to say any part of the constitution somehow stands against healthcare reform is the egregious lack of understanding of constitution in play here, friend
i have an ethical duty to make sure you get care
i do not say "do you have health insurance or $200K in an emergency health fund?" and if you say no, i walk away and let you die
if you understand why it is impossible for anyone with even a rudimentary human conscience to do that, then you understand the "twisted context" in play here as you call it
Only in the twisted context where we have made "society"(i.e. government) responsible for the well being of the individual
incredible. amazing. you are simply retarded beyond belief or have less sense of morality than a kindergartener if you actually believe those words
the "twisted context" you refer to asshole is called simple morality according to any definition of morality by any culture that has ever existed: you render aid to the sick and fallen
let me repeat: you render aid to the sick and fallen
are you willing to argue that? are you willing to call this simple obvious unavoidable morality a "twisted context"?
if yes, you are an amoral asshole who has no place in the debate
if no, you agree with me
decide, motherfucker