fills you with a vague unsettling feeling. you know this to be 100% true, but what to do about it? nothing more is done
2. look, on the other end of the valley, that's a lion staring at us
your mind instantly begins to scheme, your hands are instantly filled with intent: build a trap, build a defense, run away, go and kill it, etc
its psychological. you have to see the threat/ treasure in front of you before you actually do anything about it. i'm not saying it is good, i'm not saying it is bad, i'm just saying it is 100% true of human nature, this psychology
of course, something like a planet-killing asteroid, looming at us with 3 days warning before armageddeon is not a scenario such a psychology is properly equipped to deal with. so it is my hope that mankind bridges, on serendipity, the time between now, and some hypothetical future state where dispatching planet-killing asteroids is an afterthought, or their long term detection is accurate and foolproof
until such a hypothetical time, we are riding on luck, because indeed, the threat is real, but too vague to actually compel mankind to do anything about it. no one is going to spend trillions on asteroid defense. just not going to happen right now
now another way we might be compelled to spend trillions: a hit by a major asteroid, but not a planet killer, that does debilitating damage to the biosphere, but nothing mortal to civilization. then you have nothing to worry about: we WILL prepare, we WILL spend quadrillions, we WILL focus a hell of a lot more on outer space at such a time
in fact, its almost in the best interest of mankind for the earth to be hit by a major, non-planet killing asteroid right now. that would burn into us the need to spend a lot on outer space, fix our attention and focus, and definitely kick space exploration into high gear. in fact, amongst the reasons to kick space exploration into high gear (aliens discovered, resources needed, etc.), it is the only nonhypothetical reason to get our asses focused and motivated: a valid real threat to mankind and the planet
in fact, in the name of furthering mankind's technological progress, maybe some evil mastermind billionaire today should redirect some perfectly sized asteroid our way. he will of course be consciously responsible for the death of thousands or even millions of people, as well as untold trillions in damage, but his motivation can also be excused: "hey, get off your ass now, before its too late"
mr. bill gates, are you listening? its time to blue screen a comet, or windows tunguska edition
you have to put the question in concrete direct and compelling terms, like: holy fucking shit, that planet we just found near regulus is showing clear signs of photosynthesis
then we have a deep and strong desire to get our asses to regulus. not some sort of vague idea to go "out there"
we need concrete goals, not nebulous ones (pun intended)
what i mean is, just going out there just to have a look-see isn't a valid reason to spend quadrillions. we need to
1. discover an alien race, or 2. be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, or 3. discover some fantastic energy source or resource out there (or drug... spice?) 4. more tribal chest thumping and grandstanding a la the cold war etc.
these are reasons that are easy to grasp and easily capture the attention and the imagination of all. this provides the political and cultural and popular compunction to spend large sums of cash on the endeavour
sure, there are lots of reasons to go out there right now. except they are all amorphous and ill-defined and longwinded. something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivated
there really is no motivation to go out there right now. again, i mean solid, clear, urgent, and earnest motivation
pharmaceutical companies make plenty fine income, with very short patents on the use of drugs, because of the clear and moral trepidation of life-saving drugs being bound in financial chicanery. the same holds true for cultural output, but since the consequences of artificially extended ownership are less obvious and onerous, the impoverishment of OUR culture is less clear, even though it is real and horrible
the same holds true for any book, movie, song, or anything else, created by anyone
after awhile, that piece is part of YOUR culture, and is owned by YOU
your grandad wrote a good pop song? good for him. you want money for it? fuck you
what creators will get, and will always get, is fame, and that has lots of avenues for capitalization
but i am fucking sick of this idea that you write a song, or a book, or a movie, and somehow you get to decide how it is used for all time
no: fuck you. we love you for what you made, but your control is artificially extended by greedy bastards and broken laws
there is no reason why have to pay someone to sing happy birthday. there is no reason i can't use the image of some stupid cartoon mouse created 70 years ago however i like if i want to. of course, there ARE reasons, but they are all morally broken and extended only by corporate greed
fuck the idea of intellectual property. the story of the 21st century will or should be about the downfall of the logical and philosophical and therefore legal assumptions that allow this malignant idea to persist
with mars, you're faced with the problem of making an atmosphere where there isn't any. that seems like a harder problem than getting a high oxygen atmosphere to behave. you talk about bombarding venus with alkali metals or calling up lando calrissian: these seems way harder to me
" Photosynthetic life might help maintain a livable environment after you've made it livable, but it's not going to get there by itself - no way no how"
absolutely opposite that statement: if we are ever going to make venus livable, photosynthetic life is pretty much probably going to be the only route that is arrived at. if we are ever going to terraform venus, we are going to genetically engineer some pretty amazing critters (again: EASIER than mars, not EASY). with all that sunlight, all that energy, enough of those critters can be on full time biochemical effort keeping that oxygen in check. as a case study, i offer you earth: the same problem, on a smaller scale
if you actually converted venus's atmosphere to something approximating earth's, it wouldn't be as hot anymore. right now, venus is the same temp, pole to equator, night to day. but reduced, the atmosphere would be like living in the desert, you'd have very cold nights, and very hot days. and since a day on venus is 100 days long, it means you'd have a siesta culture where everyone stays inside midday, and inside midnight. dawn and dusk would be pleasant in between, and dawn and dusk would last weeks. ecologically, you'd grow your crops like they do in northern climes on earth, except that winter/ summer would actually be night/ day seasons
as for your unstable balance of o2 and carbon, thats pretty much earth, right now. i can walk into most any nonwater environment on earth and start an inferno by myself if i wanted to. and yet our biosphere has lasted a plenty long time, mainly because the biosphere maintains the balance. it would be maintained biologically the same way on venus
however, you do allude to low amounts of hydrogen, which is an issue. and you don't mention the lack of geomagnetism, another serious constraint (constant bombardment of deadly high energy rays: so you stay indoors)
but those constraints in my mind are certainly no worse than the constraints of low atmosphere, low gravity, and low temperature (mars)
where the temperature is regularly 115 degrees. they do it by just not going outdoors that much and having good ac. so you live indoors on venus, and you have genetically engineered crops that can withstand the high temps and scorching rays (as well as cosmic rays and other nasty high energy rays, since venus has no geomagnetism). you could have some nice architecture with large bay windows, just no skylights;-P
now compare that limitation with mars, with the very low atmospheric pressure, the much lower gravity, and the bitter cold. you would need a moonsuit to go outside on mars, even a terraformed one, unless you figured out some magical way to bulk up the atmosphere. as opposed to the limitations that most GIs in iraq suffer under on their tour of duties. that would be like going outside on a hypothetical terraformed venus with an atmosphere you would need to precipate and reduce- a hard job, but easier than bulking up mars' atmosphere
furthermore, venus's day is something like 100 earth days long. currently, the temperature is uniform on venus, nightside to dayside, pole to equator, due to the crazy dense atmosphere. but a terraformed venus would definitely exhibit temperature differences like on earth. desert dwellers on earth are familiar with the very hot days and very cold nights. so you'd have a siesta-like culture, where no one would go out in the middle of the night or the the middle of the day (where the "day" is 100 days long), but at dusk and dawn, you would have weeks of pleasant temperatures in between
don't depend on temperature differences. the only difference between hypothetical terraforming bug #1, functioning at high temp, versus hypothetical terraforming bug #2, functioning at low temp, is that bug #1 will work orders of magnitude faster than bug #2. regardless, we're not going to be terraforming with industrial sized reactors that do depend upon temp differences, but with nanotech, or more likely, genetically engineered critters
furthermore, suncreen with high SPF is the least of your concerns. with no water, nothing on venus exists to lubricate plate tectonics. with no plate tectonics, there is convection in the core, and therefore, no geomagnetic field. meaning venus is being bombarded with cosmic rays and other nasty high energy rays from the sun. i think the order of the day for living on a terraformed venus would be: have a nice fashionable lead umbrella;-P
but i always thought venus was a better target for terraforming
its easier to subtract out of venus' atmosphere than put in mars' atmosphere what isn't there. i didn't say EASY, i said EASIER
some sort of genetically engineered bug that sequesters all of the CO2 and H2SO4, and permanently precipitates it out, preferably leaving O2 and H2O. something that could live on top of the clouds and in them. there's a lot of energy in that atmosphere, and you're closer to the sun... which is actually good: something to work with. rather than being far from the sun and feeble with resources, like mars
again, this is in no way easy, but if we ever reach the technological acumen and sustained effort needed to terraform one of our neighbors, i really think venus is a much better target than mars. more available energy to work with, almost identical gravity profile, and the need to subtract something out of the atmosphere, rather than to somehow create what isn't there, which is a lot easier to do, logically
mars has a long and sustained following and fan base, in science fiction as well as real science, but venus is the real future of mankind's first off-world colonization (besides the moon), if we ever get to that level of sophistication to even consider the possibility
now that everyone has abandoned traditional radio for iPods, Pandora, and last.fm for 10 years now, its perfect timing to swoop in and milk radio dry
they've waited 90 years for the perfect time to do this
and you're next satellite radio... as soon as you declare bankruptcy!
how fucking pathetic. what, ran out of grandmothers and college kids to sue?
stupidity is a constant
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 1
it does not go up or down
nor are you immune to it yourself
the idea is indeed to technologically minimize the impact of typical human stupidity
the technology we are talking about here, ftp, the internet, etc, is very much still in its infancy
for you to suggest the technology need not change, and everyone else suddenly become highly technically qualified and proficient, AND become miraculously immune to basic human foibles is quite ridiculous. the article this thread lies under describes a highly knowledgeable user still becoming a victim. do you really wish to assert that the solution to these problems is everyone using a computer become a security expert somehow on the order of six figure technicians working for international banks?
its not even worth arguing with you, as that implies i can make some sort of impact. i dont think you have the mental capacities to be improved
so i'll just play your moronic game
you know, millions die in traffic accidents every year, so we shouldn't worry about tuberculosis
you know, millions die every year of malaria, so we shouldn't worry about bioterrorism
you know, millions die every year of heart attacks, so we shouldn't worry about murder
zzz
this is retarded
well then the answer is simple
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 1
get rid of the people
all joking aside, people are people. they are a known quantity. as such, they are the yardstick against which we judge securability, not to which we assign blame. and since this whole intarwebs thing is relatively new, then the obvious answer is we have a long way to go to fix the TECHNOLOGY so that the people in the equation can't cause as much damage as they are now doing
its very easy to blame the lusers. your post means nothing
but i wasn't really talking about the problem in general, i was talking pointedly at this self-loathing overrationalizing type for which it IS a lot simpler than they portray in their giant web of learned helplessness
you honestly believe all that matters in terms of importance is body count. you can't imagine, gee, i dunno, a couple of hundred other factors? like, gee, i dunno, PREVENTABILITY? or howabout NEWNESS?
you're autistic, or you have asperger's. you have a genuine deficiency in your reasoning abilities if you think simple body count is the only factor involved. on the edge of your imagination, you can't think of some other factors that might play into valid rationale for concern about one threat versus another?
dude, try to recognize that you have some mental shortcomings. your post above is embarrassing, that you should be so woefully out of touch with how your fellow human beings think (or that your way of thinking is somehow superior, by any measure)
assume you are correct: it is easy for me to lose weight, and hard for you
ok. where does that leave you? you still have to lose the weight. now all you have is the need to lose weight and a helping of victimhood, envy and whining. you've just made the job harder for yourself. how has the observation helped in anyway except a rationalization for you to give up and quit, which is obviously what you want to do?
furthermore, WHY is it harder for you to lose weight? well, if its easy for me, maybe its because i just go and do it. there's pain involved for me to, but i just charge through. what do you do? you blame, you rationalize, you suffer, you bloviate, you whine about your sad existence. in other words, its self-fulfilling prophecy, like so many other situations in life about hard work for gain
if you think you are loser, you become a loser. plenty of people who think of themselves as winners also still lose, but no one ever won, and thought themselves a loser in the first place
i appreciate that some people have different metabolisms, different biochemistry, different genes... BUT NOT ONE OF THEM IS WHINING AS MUCH AS YOU, thats a fact
furthermore THEY ARE IN THE MINORITY OF CASES (and probably still manage to lose weight anyways!)
no, the ironclad truth is this, for the majority of people, if you are having trouble losing weight: your mouth is moving 100 mph on the issue, your rationalizing your own helplessness
the fault for you not losing weight, the majority of cases, is simple weak character. i didn't say this syndrome, or that disorder, or that lack of receptors in the brain, all fucking bullshit attempts at avoiding responsibility. i said the reason was: WEAK CHARACTER
shut the fuck up, buckle up, and lose the fucking weight
because its easy to come by. percent body fat is a lot harder to measure. the point is to get a meaningful number in front of people to help them control their weight as easily as possible. an overly anal retentive emphasis on a marginally more exact measurement, arrived at through a much harder measurement process, is obviously stupid
if you have the build of arnold schwarzenegger, of course BMI has no meaning. but if you have the build of arnold schwarzenegger, you are obviously way fucking more into your percent body fat and a proper measurement of such. no one muscular is going to see a high BMI and go "i'm fat", so please: stop being overly anal retentive for the sake of moronic grandstanding
neither you, nor i, nor the cdc, nor the who, really knows what will happen in the fall, or how many it will kill. could be a couple hundred, could be couple hundred thousand. if you find someone who can tell me for certain how many will be killed, i'll show you a liar. that kind of unknown makes it newsworthy and genuinely important
the flu always explodes in the late fall, and this is a new bug. its a significant unknown, and that matters
serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now
of course racist speech is heinous, because of what it inevitably results in
same with drawings of children in sexual situations
but you don't outlaw either
what you do is you allow all of it, and then you TRACK the fuckers
then when the pathetic fuckers take their retarded thoughts to their inevitable conclusion, and you take them down a lot easier, because you already know who and where the losers are
what, you think my attitude is wrong? let's remind you please exactly what (certainly not who) we are dealing with here:
you lose your right to be tolerated when you yourself do not tolerate
that observation trumps all other discussions on rights
what is the point of tolerating intolerance?
a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance is a short-lived society. you further tolerance in this world by fighting intolerance. tolerating intolerance merely allows it to spread
and no, this is not hypocrisy:
"i hate you because you are black": intolerance
"i fight you because you hate people for being black": intolerance of intolerance
you can't equate the two, they are logically separate
Slashdot Mirror
between the following situations:
1. there are lions out there who want to eat you
fills you with a vague unsettling feeling. you know this to be 100% true, but what to do about it? nothing more is done
2. look, on the other end of the valley, that's a lion staring at us
your mind instantly begins to scheme, your hands are instantly filled with intent: build a trap, build a defense, run away, go and kill it, etc
its psychological. you have to see the threat/ treasure in front of you before you actually do anything about it. i'm not saying it is good, i'm not saying it is bad, i'm just saying it is 100% true of human nature, this psychology
of course, something like a planet-killing asteroid, looming at us with 3 days warning before armageddeon is not a scenario such a psychology is properly equipped to deal with. so it is my hope that mankind bridges, on serendipity, the time between now, and some hypothetical future state where dispatching planet-killing asteroids is an afterthought, or their long term detection is accurate and foolproof
until such a hypothetical time, we are riding on luck, because indeed, the threat is real, but too vague to actually compel mankind to do anything about it. no one is going to spend trillions on asteroid defense. just not going to happen right now
now another way we might be compelled to spend trillions: a hit by a major asteroid, but not a planet killer, that does debilitating damage to the biosphere, but nothing mortal to civilization. then you have nothing to worry about: we WILL prepare, we WILL spend quadrillions, we WILL focus a hell of a lot more on outer space at such a time
in fact, its almost in the best interest of mankind for the earth to be hit by a major, non-planet killing asteroid right now. that would burn into us the need to spend a lot on outer space, fix our attention and focus, and definitely kick space exploration into high gear. in fact, amongst the reasons to kick space exploration into high gear (aliens discovered, resources needed, etc.), it is the only nonhypothetical reason to get our asses focused and motivated: a valid real threat to mankind and the planet
in fact, in the name of furthering mankind's technological progress, maybe some evil mastermind billionaire today should redirect some perfectly sized asteroid our way. he will of course be consciously responsible for the death of thousands or even millions of people, as well as untold trillions in damage, but his motivation can also be excused: "hey, get off your ass now, before its too late"
mr. bill gates, are you listening? its time to blue screen a comet, or windows tunguska edition
you have to put the question in concrete direct and compelling terms, like: holy fucking shit, that planet we just found near regulus is showing clear signs of photosynthesis
then we have a deep and strong desire to get our asses to regulus. not some sort of vague idea to go "out there"
we need concrete goals, not nebulous ones (pun intended)
what i mean is, just going out there just to have a look-see isn't a valid reason to spend quadrillions. we need to
1. discover an alien race, or
2. be faced with the definitive soon upcoming extinction of earth as a supportive biosphere for some reason, whether man made or cosmic or terrestrial in origin, or
3. discover some fantastic energy source or resource out there (or drug... spice?)
4. more tribal chest thumping and grandstanding a la the cold war
etc.
these are reasons that are easy to grasp and easily capture the attention and the imagination of all. this provides the political and cultural and popular compunction to spend large sums of cash on the endeavour
sure, there are lots of reasons to go out there right now. except they are all amorphous and ill-defined and longwinded. something pressing and urgent and/ or clear and easy to grasp is what is needed to get us motivated
there really is no motivation to go out there right now. again, i mean solid, clear, urgent, and earnest motivation
pharmaceutical companies make plenty fine income, with very short patents on the use of drugs, because of the clear and moral trepidation of life-saving drugs being bound in financial chicanery. the same holds true for cultural output, but since the consequences of artificially extended ownership are less obvious and onerous, the impoverishment of OUR culture is less clear, even though it is real and horrible
the same holds true for any book, movie, song, or anything else, created by anyone
after awhile, that piece is part of YOUR culture, and is owned by YOU
your grandad wrote a good pop song? good for him. you want money for it? fuck you
what creators will get, and will always get, is fame, and that has lots of avenues for capitalization
but i am fucking sick of this idea that you write a song, or a book, or a movie, and somehow you get to decide how it is used for all time
no: fuck you. we love you for what you made, but your control is artificially extended by greedy bastards and broken laws
there is no reason why have to pay someone to sing happy birthday. there is no reason i can't use the image of some stupid cartoon mouse created 70 years ago however i like if i want to. of course, there ARE reasons, but they are all morally broken and extended only by corporate greed
fuck the idea of intellectual property. the story of the 21st century will or should be about the downfall of the logical and philosophical and therefore legal assumptions that allow this malignant idea to persist
to: Commander Bob
fr: Commander Tom
subj: Your leg
Hi Bob, could you move your leg? It's blocking my mouth.
Thanks, Tom
i said it would EASIER than terraforming mars
with mars, you're faced with the problem of making an atmosphere where there isn't any. that seems like a harder problem than getting a high oxygen atmosphere to behave. you talk about bombarding venus with alkali metals or calling up lando calrissian: these seems way harder to me
" Photosynthetic life might help maintain a livable environment after you've made it livable, but it's not going to get there by itself - no way no how"
absolutely opposite that statement: if we are ever going to make venus livable, photosynthetic life is pretty much probably going to be the only route that is arrived at. if we are ever going to terraform venus, we are going to genetically engineer some pretty amazing critters (again: EASIER than mars, not EASY). with all that sunlight, all that energy, enough of those critters can be on full time biochemical effort keeping that oxygen in check. as a case study, i offer you earth: the same problem, on a smaller scale
if you actually converted venus's atmosphere to something approximating earth's, it wouldn't be as hot anymore. right now, venus is the same temp, pole to equator, night to day. but reduced, the atmosphere would be like living in the desert, you'd have very cold nights, and very hot days. and since a day on venus is 100 days long, it means you'd have a siesta culture where everyone stays inside midday, and inside midnight. dawn and dusk would be pleasant in between, and dawn and dusk would last weeks. ecologically, you'd grow your crops like they do in northern climes on earth, except that winter/ summer would actually be night/ day seasons
as for your unstable balance of o2 and carbon, thats pretty much earth, right now. i can walk into most any nonwater environment on earth and start an inferno by myself if i wanted to. and yet our biosphere has lasted a plenty long time, mainly because the biosphere maintains the balance. it would be maintained biologically the same way on venus
however, you do allude to low amounts of hydrogen, which is an issue. and you don't mention the lack of geomagnetism, another serious constraint (constant bombardment of deadly high energy rays: so you stay indoors)
but those constraints in my mind are certainly no worse than the constraints of low atmosphere, low gravity, and low temperature (mars)
where the temperature is regularly 115 degrees. they do it by just not going outdoors that much and having good ac. so you live indoors on venus, and you have genetically engineered crops that can withstand the high temps and scorching rays (as well as cosmic rays and other nasty high energy rays, since venus has no geomagnetism). you could have some nice architecture with large bay windows, just no skylights ;-P
now compare that limitation with mars, with the very low atmospheric pressure, the much lower gravity, and the bitter cold. you would need a moonsuit to go outside on mars, even a terraformed one, unless you figured out some magical way to bulk up the atmosphere. as opposed to the limitations that most GIs in iraq suffer under on their tour of duties. that would be like going outside on a hypothetical terraformed venus with an atmosphere you would need to precipate and reduce- a hard job, but easier than bulking up mars' atmosphere
furthermore, venus's day is something like 100 earth days long. currently, the temperature is uniform on venus, nightside to dayside, pole to equator, due to the crazy dense atmosphere. but a terraformed venus would definitely exhibit temperature differences like on earth. desert dwellers on earth are familiar with the very hot days and very cold nights. so you'd have a siesta-like culture, where no one would go out in the middle of the night or the the middle of the day (where the "day" is 100 days long), but at dusk and dawn, you would have weeks of pleasant temperatures in between
don't depend on temperature differences. the only difference between hypothetical terraforming bug #1, functioning at high temp, versus hypothetical terraforming bug #2, functioning at low temp, is that bug #1 will work orders of magnitude faster than bug #2. regardless, we're not going to be terraforming with industrial sized reactors that do depend upon temp differences, but with nanotech, or more likely, genetically engineered critters
furthermore, suncreen with high SPF is the least of your concerns. with no water, nothing on venus exists to lubricate plate tectonics. with no plate tectonics, there is convection in the core, and therefore, no geomagnetic field. meaning venus is being bombarded with cosmic rays and other nasty high energy rays from the sun. i think the order of the day for living on a terraformed venus would be: have a nice fashionable lead umbrella ;-P
but i always thought venus was a better target for terraforming
its easier to subtract out of venus' atmosphere than put in mars' atmosphere what isn't there. i didn't say EASY, i said EASIER
some sort of genetically engineered bug that sequesters all of the CO2 and H2SO4, and permanently precipitates it out, preferably leaving O2 and H2O. something that could live on top of the clouds and in them. there's a lot of energy in that atmosphere, and you're closer to the sun... which is actually good: something to work with. rather than being far from the sun and feeble with resources, like mars
again, this is in no way easy, but if we ever reach the technological acumen and sustained effort needed to terraform one of our neighbors, i really think venus is a much better target than mars. more available energy to work with, almost identical gravity profile, and the need to subtract something out of the atmosphere, rather than to somehow create what isn't there, which is a lot easier to do, logically
mars has a long and sustained following and fan base, in science fiction as well as real science, but venus is the real future of mankind's first off-world colonization (besides the moon), if we ever get to that level of sophistication to even consider the possibility
now that everyone has abandoned traditional radio for iPods, Pandora, and last.fm for 10 years now, its perfect timing to swoop in and milk radio dry
they've waited 90 years for the perfect time to do this
and you're next satellite radio... as soon as you declare bankruptcy!
how fucking pathetic. what, ran out of grandmothers and college kids to sue?
it does not go up or down
nor are you immune to it yourself
the idea is indeed to technologically minimize the impact of typical human stupidity
the technology we are talking about here, ftp, the internet, etc, is very much still in its infancy
for you to suggest the technology need not change, and everyone else suddenly become highly technically qualified and proficient, AND become miraculously immune to basic human foibles is quite ridiculous. the article this thread lies under describes a highly knowledgeable user still becoming a victim. do you really wish to assert that the solution to these problems is everyone using a computer become a security expert somehow on the order of six figure technicians working for international banks?
please, get real
its not even worth arguing with you, as that implies i can make some sort of impact. i dont think you have the mental capacities to be improved
so i'll just play your moronic game
you know, millions die in traffic accidents every year, so we shouldn't worry about tuberculosis
you know, millions die every year of malaria, so we shouldn't worry about bioterrorism
you know, millions die every year of heart attacks, so we shouldn't worry about murder
zzz
this is retarded
get rid of the people
all joking aside, people are people. they are a known quantity. as such, they are the yardstick against which we judge securability, not to which we assign blame. and since this whole intarwebs thing is relatively new, then the obvious answer is we have a long way to go to fix the TECHNOLOGY so that the people in the equation can't cause as much damage as they are now doing
its very easy to blame the lusers. your post means nothing
but i wasn't really talking about the problem in general, i was talking pointedly at this self-loathing overrationalizing type for which it IS a lot simpler than they portray in their giant web of learned helplessness
you honestly believe all that matters in terms of importance is body count. you can't imagine, gee, i dunno, a couple of hundred other factors? like, gee, i dunno, PREVENTABILITY? or howabout NEWNESS?
you're autistic, or you have asperger's. you have a genuine deficiency in your reasoning abilities if you think simple body count is the only factor involved. on the edge of your imagination, you can't think of some other factors that might play into valid rationale for concern about one threat versus another?
dude, try to recognize that you have some mental shortcomings. your post above is embarrassing, that you should be so woefully out of touch with how your fellow human beings think (or that your way of thinking is somehow superior, by any measure)
that makes it important and interesting
it really isn't any more complicated than that
paranoid schizophrenia is not a valid replacement for critical thought
assume you are correct: it is easy for me to lose weight, and hard for you
ok. where does that leave you? you still have to lose the weight. now all you have is the need to lose weight and a helping of victimhood, envy and whining. you've just made the job harder for yourself. how has the observation helped in anyway except a rationalization for you to give up and quit, which is obviously what you want to do?
furthermore, WHY is it harder for you to lose weight? well, if its easy for me, maybe its because i just go and do it. there's pain involved for me to, but i just charge through. what do you do? you blame, you rationalize, you suffer, you bloviate, you whine about your sad existence. in other words, its self-fulfilling prophecy, like so many other situations in life about hard work for gain
if you think you are loser, you become a loser. plenty of people who think of themselves as winners also still lose, but no one ever won, and thought themselves a loser in the first place
i appreciate that some people have different metabolisms, different biochemistry, different genes... BUT NOT ONE OF THEM IS WHINING AS MUCH AS YOU, thats a fact
furthermore THEY ARE IN THE MINORITY OF CASES (and probably still manage to lose weight anyways!)
no, the ironclad truth is this, for the majority of people, if you are having trouble losing weight: your mouth is moving 100 mph on the issue, your rationalizing your own helplessness
the fault for you not losing weight, the majority of cases, is simple weak character. i didn't say this syndrome, or that disorder, or that lack of receptors in the brain, all fucking bullshit attempts at avoiding responsibility. i said the reason was: WEAK CHARACTER
shut the fuck up, buckle up, and lose the fucking weight
eat less
exercise more
that's it. that's the magic. everything else is bloviating
everything else is a giant game of rationalization, victimization, and other psychological manipulations, internal and external
again: eat less, exercise more. end of story
cut the fat, in your thinking as well as on your body
because its easy to come by. percent body fat is a lot harder to measure. the point is to get a meaningful number in front of people to help them control their weight as easily as possible. an overly anal retentive emphasis on a marginally more exact measurement, arrived at through a much harder measurement process, is obviously stupid
if you have the build of arnold schwarzenegger, of course BMI has no meaning. but if you have the build of arnold schwarzenegger, you are obviously way fucking more into your percent body fat and a proper measurement of such. no one muscular is going to see a high BMI and go "i'm fat", so please: stop being overly anal retentive for the sake of moronic grandstanding
swine flu is the perfect thing to call it
swine as in human oinkers
that makes it important
neither you, nor i, nor the cdc, nor the who, really knows what will happen in the fall, or how many it will kill. could be a couple hundred, could be couple hundred thousand. if you find someone who can tell me for certain how many will be killed, i'll show you a liar. that kind of unknown makes it newsworthy and genuinely important
the flu always explodes in the late fall, and this is a new bug. its a significant unknown, and that matters
its not hype, its a genuine concern
baby got barack
http://blog.beliefnet.com/everydayethics/2009/07/obama-ogles-ass-nah-but-sleazy-sarkozy-sure-did.html
serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now serenity now
hmmm
test #2:
FUCK!
no... same relief, just faster
of course racist speech is heinous, because of what it inevitably results in
same with drawings of children in sexual situations
but you don't outlaw either
what you do is you allow all of it, and then you TRACK the fuckers
then when the pathetic fuckers take their retarded thoughts to their inevitable conclusion, and you take them down a lot easier, because you already know who and where the losers are
what, you think my attitude is wrong? let's remind you please exactly what (certainly not who) we are dealing with here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_von_Brunn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawna_Forde
you want to talk rights?
you lose your right to be tolerated when you yourself do not tolerate
that observation trumps all other discussions on rights
what is the point of tolerating intolerance?
a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance is a short-lived society. you further tolerance in this world by fighting intolerance. tolerating intolerance merely allows it to spread
and no, this is not hypocrisy:
"i hate you because you are black": intolerance
"i fight you because you hate people for being black": intolerance of intolerance
you can't equate the two, they are logically separate