The major difference is that when a Christian nutbag kills some people, in no part of the world is there a celebration in the streets. Whereas successful Islamic terrorism is in many places openly celebrated by whole communities passing out candy and cheering about how the murderers are heroes. It is intertwined with a culture of hatred and violence that is supported by communities.
You might ask yourself why that is. Why "those people" hate us so much. It's not a function of their religion.
Um. No. Remember that lady who named a teddy bear Mohammed and there were mass movements in the street calling for her death?
Or the cartoonist who was killed cause of one of his drawings?
As bad as westboro is, they are 1. Super Small, and 2. Haven't actually killed anyone yet.
Islam is a batshit religion, that happens to contain a decent number of sane people who happen to have been raised inside of that culture. The quicker we realize that it is anything BUT a religion of peace, and deal with it appropriately, the better.
Viewed with intellectual detachment, the term "batshit" (crazy) would apply to most religions, and without question it applies to every last one that uses it's version of "the word of god" to justify the mistreatment of "the other". The fact that Islam is the "word" of choice for the most crazy right now has nothing to do with the religion. Think harder
The drones America uses are piloted by humans. The other robot in use by the military is the one that disables bombs. It also is remote controlled by a human. I don't think the military has any non piloted robots deployed in combat. Even a turret would be too dangerous. An automated turret could kill our own troops. Closest thing we have is landmines.
Point is, yes, the man from the CIP, a group dedicated to the eradication of the world's militaries, but particularly the US military, thinks we should cut the military.
Shocking. I love how people for various things never call their organization by their true intentions, but always give it something normal and official sounding, to create a built in bias towards thinking they are legit when they call for things.
So..., you're saying that an organization that, "...promotes transparency and accountability in U.S. foreign policy, while advocating a foreign policy that promotes international cooperation, demilitarization and respect for human rights..." (taken directly from the CIP mission statement) should have no credibility? That it's not possible that one of the reasons that they support "demilitarization" is that they actually understand that the business of war is hugely profitable and the money that is spend on that might be better spent on better things? Riiiiiiight....
If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.
And that was her mistake. Acting on such an impulse was petty and unprofessional. Period. It should cost her.
This is what happens when a fearful and ignorant populace allows their rights to be ripped away from them in the name of "security". I am loathe to play the Nazi card, but the empowerment of previously powerless, disenfranchised, and yes, often stupid people was played out the same way in 1930's Germany. If we, as a citizenry, do not turn out every one of the bastards who brought this level absurdity to our lives, we deserve everything we get.
I'll be happy to let you ban violent video games if you and your peers are willing to lighten up about, oh... let's say bare breasts appearing on television. Frankly, I'm beyond tired of the dichotomy, wherein a person's insides, blown all over the place by gunfire/explosions, is fit for all ages, but the naked human form (the outside of it, at least) is not.
I am so tired of the 'Mankind's existence is valueless' bravado. We are a billion to one galactic coincidence that has risen to sentient thought and self-awareness. This astronomical concurrence alone is worthy of continuance.
Why, exactly? Seriously. By what cosmic scale do you propose to weigh the value of "sentient thought and self-awareness"? Stop fooling around on/. a start a religion. Pontification about the unique and central place of "mankind" in the universe will fly with the believers a lot better than it does here.
The patent office is populated by idiots. Tech patents are almost always overly broad, ignore prior art, obvious, etc. We...get...it. So how long will we continue to be subjected to the interminable stream of stories and the even more predictable stream of comments?
Because it is, and always has been, a gimmick for motion pictures. It brings nothing of significant value to the web. Indeed, as in many motion pictures, it would likely be an intrusive distraction, detracting from instead of enhancing the medium. Now, I will qualify my words with a nod toward possible future technologies that actually work. No stupid glasses. No headaches. I fully expect that we will see true stereo-optic 3D technology effectively coupled to already existing "gesture recognition" technology. The potential exists for a dramatically immersive experience, the utility of which can scarcely be imagined. But it is only potential, so the answers to questions about why it isn't "on the web" should be obvious.
The Donors Trust exists to spread lies, lies that, "...help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," The only surprise is how many of the idiot Rand fan-boys here will insist that this is perfectly OK.
[citation needed]...and we mean one that demonstrates a statistically significant net improvement is caused by the creation of bicycle lanes. Take your time. We'll wait.
...the answer is no. Not that it isn't technically possible. It almost certainly is, but the collective will required for such a change, and to no small degree the collective will of those that oppose such a change, makes it virtually impossible.
A couple of points:
1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result.
That's not how we do things here, you, you... agitator. We socialize the expense and privatize the profit, and call it "free market". And we will thank you to not confuse our fanboys here who think that they are oh-so uber cool because the read Rand once. The sheep take what we give them and we give them what makes money for us, and we pay a lot of money to "the government" to make sure that it stays that way. So stop rocking the damned boat.
Isn't the whole point of medals to reward someone for putting their life on the line to protect their country?
In a word, no. There are lots medals. Some are awarded for the reasons you describe. Others, a great many others, for any number of things. 30 seconds with Google would have informed you of this.
But before we get to that, let us point out the obvious - we have no means, at all, to overcome the challenges that physics alone presents to anyone hoping to "harvest" this asteroid. No, we don't. Not even close. Oh, sure, I've seen lots of pie-in-the-sky conjecture on "what might work", but that's just conjecture. And conjecture doesn't come close enough make even a half-assed cost-benefit analysis. Nevertheless, the snake-oil salesmen are lining up the suckers, erm... investors. That $195 billion number is, of course, rubbish, because it does not factor in the cost of actually delivering the materials to someone who will buy them for that much. That cost is unknown, and given the physics challenges likely to be prohibitive absent some miraculous breakthrough in propulsion technology. That breakthrough might come, it's true, but it probably won't. Even if it does, such a dramatic breakthrough will change all kinds of things, possibly affecting the value proposition of asteroid mining in major ways. In other words, it's a sucker bet and the money that will be made off of "asteroid mining" will be by those who've convinced wealthy chumps to part with their money in the hopes of "getting in on the ground floor".
Our Dear Leader has spoken: spend spend spend and don't argue about how to pay for it. Just keep spending and everything will work out ok.
No..., that's the Republican approach. History is quite clear on who's been writing most of the rubber checks. What's really amazing is that they continue to insist that their drunken-sailor economics approach is viable, while obstructing every effort to produce revenue that might spare our children from national bankruptcy.
Our country has a very real interest in making sure that all children have access to quality education,
Yeah, how's that working out for you? Here on earth, American public schools are a ridiculously overfunded disaster. We've doubled spending per student since the 1970s, and we sure as hell aren't getting what we pay for.
-jcr
Well, duh. Now, let's talk about real solutions. No. Charter school's are not the answer. Taking public money and funneling it into what are effectively private schools for privileged kids is an anathema. How about some real reform, something that makes the fat administrations quake, the teacher's unions have fits, and gives our children what our tax money is supposed to deliver. There are ways to measure the effectiveness of a school system. Again, no, "standardized testing" isn't one of them. Get serious about fixing things or STFU.
Slashdot Mirror
The major difference is that when a Christian nutbag kills some people, in no part of the world is there a celebration in the streets. Whereas successful Islamic terrorism is in many places openly celebrated by whole communities passing out candy and cheering about how the murderers are heroes. It is intertwined with a culture of hatred and violence that is supported by communities.
You might ask yourself why that is. Why "those people" hate us so much. It's not a function of their religion.
Um. No. Remember that lady who named a teddy bear Mohammed and there were mass movements in the street calling for her death? Or the cartoonist who was killed cause of one of his drawings?
As bad as westboro is, they are 1. Super Small, and 2. Haven't actually killed anyone yet.
Islam is a batshit religion, that happens to contain a decent number of sane people who happen to have been raised inside of that culture. The quicker we realize that it is anything BUT a religion of peace, and deal with it appropriately, the better.
Viewed with intellectual detachment, the term "batshit" (crazy) would apply to most religions, and without question it applies to every last one that uses it's version of "the word of god" to justify the mistreatment of "the other". The fact that Islam is the "word" of choice for the most crazy right now has nothing to do with the religion. Think harder
The drones America uses are piloted by humans. The other robot in use by the military is the one that disables bombs. It also is remote controlled by a human. I don't think the military has any non piloted robots deployed in combat. Even a turret would be too dangerous. An automated turret could kill our own troops. Closest thing we have is landmines.
Are you sure about that?
Mongo no loose words Mongo fast and smart. Mongo future.
But Mongo sad, because Mongo not know how to spell the word "lose".
Point is, yes, the man from the CIP, a group dedicated to the eradication of the world's militaries, but particularly the US military, thinks we should cut the military. Shocking. I love how people for various things never call their organization by their true intentions, but always give it something normal and official sounding, to create a built in bias towards thinking they are legit when they call for things.
So..., you're saying that an organization that, "...promotes transparency and accountability in U.S. foreign policy, while advocating a foreign policy that promotes international cooperation, demilitarization and respect for human rights..." (taken directly from the CIP mission statement) should have no credibility? That it's not possible that one of the reasons that they support "demilitarization" is that they actually understand that the business of war is hugely profitable and the money that is spend on that might be better spent on better things? Riiiiiiight....
If he was being an incredible dick toward the agent, I'm sure she was excited to seize property from an asshole who thinks his money makes him the coolest thing since the last ice age.
And that was her mistake. Acting on such an impulse was petty and unprofessional. Period. It should cost her.
This is what happens when a fearful and ignorant populace allows their rights to be ripped away from them in the name of "security". I am loathe to play the Nazi card, but the empowerment of previously powerless, disenfranchised, and yes, often stupid people was played out the same way in 1930's Germany. If we, as a citizenry, do not turn out every one of the bastards who brought this level absurdity to our lives, we deserve everything we get.
I'll be happy to let you ban violent video games if you and your peers are willing to lighten up about, oh... let's say bare breasts appearing on television. Frankly, I'm beyond tired of the dichotomy, wherein a person's insides, blown all over the place by gunfire/explosions, is fit for all ages, but the naked human form (the outside of it, at least) is not.
I am so tired of the 'Mankind's existence is valueless' bravado. We are a billion to one galactic coincidence that has risen to sentient thought and self-awareness. This astronomical concurrence alone is worthy of continuance.
Why, exactly? Seriously. By what cosmic scale do you propose to weigh the value of "sentient thought and self-awareness"? Stop fooling around on /. a start a religion. Pontification about the unique and central place of "mankind" in the universe will fly with the believers a lot better than it does here.
The patent office is populated by idiots. Tech patents are almost always overly broad, ignore prior art, obvious, etc. We...get...it. So how long will we continue to be subjected to the interminable stream of stories and the even more predictable stream of comments?
Because it is, and always has been, a gimmick for motion pictures. It brings nothing of significant value to the web. Indeed, as in many motion pictures, it would likely be an intrusive distraction, detracting from instead of enhancing the medium. Now, I will qualify my words with a nod toward possible future technologies that actually work. No stupid glasses. No headaches. I fully expect that we will see true stereo-optic 3D technology effectively coupled to already existing "gesture recognition" technology. The potential exists for a dramatically immersive experience, the utility of which can scarcely be imagined. But it is only potential, so the answers to questions about why it isn't "on the web" should be obvious.
So what?
People are funding client skeptics, and people are finding Climate Change studies.
Are you really that fucking stupid? That you actually believe that what's being funded by "The Donors Trust" is research? Damn...
Yea--we all know the Gore/Soros groups did unblemished "research".
Never said they did, but then I am not stupid enough to throw their product up against academically credible research. Big difference.
So what?
People are funding client skeptics, and people are finding Climate Change studies.
Are you really that fucking stupid? That you actually believe that what's being funded by "The Donors Trust" is research? Damn...
The Donors Trust exists to spread lies, lies that, "...help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," The only surprise is how many of the idiot Rand fan-boys here will insist that this is perfectly OK.
You can just look at many cities in Europe.
OK. Did that. I didn't see anything even remotely resembling credible numbers that prove the assertion. Next?
Another energy saver is bicycle lanes.
[citation needed] ...and we mean one that demonstrates a statistically significant net improvement is caused by the creation of bicycle lanes. Take your time. We'll wait.
...the answer is no. Not that it isn't technically possible. It almost certainly is, but the collective will required for such a change, and to no small degree the collective will of those that oppose such a change, makes it virtually impossible.
A couple of points: 1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result.
That's not how we do things here, you, you... agitator. We socialize the expense and privatize the profit, and call it "free market". And we will thank you to not confuse our fanboys here who think that they are oh-so uber cool because the read Rand once. The sheep take what we give them and we give them what makes money for us, and we pay a lot of money to "the government" to make sure that it stays that way. So stop rocking the damned boat.
Better question: "Why are you trying to pound nails with a crescent wrench?"
Isn't the whole point of medals to reward someone for putting their life on the line to protect their country?
In a word, no. There are lots medals. Some are awarded for the reasons you describe. Others, a great many others, for any number of things. 30 seconds with Google would have informed you of this.
But before we get to that, let us point out the obvious - we have no means, at all, to overcome the challenges that physics alone presents to anyone hoping to "harvest" this asteroid. No, we don't. Not even close. Oh, sure, I've seen lots of pie-in-the-sky conjecture on "what might work", but that's just conjecture. And conjecture doesn't come close enough make even a half-assed cost-benefit analysis. Nevertheless, the snake-oil salesmen are lining up the suckers, erm... investors. That $195 billion number is, of course, rubbish, because it does not factor in the cost of actually delivering the materials to someone who will buy them for that much. That cost is unknown, and given the physics challenges likely to be prohibitive absent some miraculous breakthrough in propulsion technology. That breakthrough might come, it's true, but it probably won't. Even if it does, such a dramatic breakthrough will change all kinds of things, possibly affecting the value proposition of asteroid mining in major ways. In other words, it's a sucker bet and the money that will be made off of "asteroid mining" will be by those who've convinced wealthy chumps to part with their money in the hopes of "getting in on the ground floor".
Our Dear Leader has spoken: spend spend spend and don't argue about how to pay for it. Just keep spending and everything will work out ok.
No..., that's the Republican approach. History is quite clear on who's been writing most of the rubber checks. What's really amazing is that they continue to insist that their drunken-sailor economics approach is viable, while obstructing every effort to produce revenue that might spare our children from national bankruptcy.
These people will become the 'federal government' of the internet.
Don't be daft. There's already no difference between a company of that size and "the government".
FTA, it appears to "people who aren't, you know, old." Between the lines, that message came through loud and clear.
Our country has a very real interest in making sure that all children have access to quality education,
Yeah, how's that working out for you? Here on earth, American public schools are a ridiculously overfunded disaster. We've doubled spending per student since the 1970s, and we sure as hell aren't getting what we pay for.
-jcr
Well, duh. Now, let's talk about real solutions. No. Charter school's are not the answer. Taking public money and funneling it into what are effectively private schools for privileged kids is an anathema. How about some real reform, something that makes the fat administrations quake, the teacher's unions have fits, and gives our children what our tax money is supposed to deliver. There are ways to measure the effectiveness of a school system. Again, no, "standardized testing" isn't one of them. Get serious about fixing things or STFU.