Does MSNBC give its reporters an explicit ultimatum to promote a particular point of view or risk your job?
Absolutely. Guess you don't watch much MSNBC...
Look at the treatment the "mainstream media" is giving Michelle 0's trip to Spain. If it had been a Republican, the 'Marie Antoinette" parallels would have been flying!
The real killer for mobile and embedded applications is probably the prohibition on subsetting. You don't want to have to include the entire.Net or Java API on a device with limited RAM...
My understanding always has been that Sun* didn't care about non-compliant implementations as long as they weren't billed as "Java", which Android's isn't.
This simply looks like a cash grab by Oracle, and it may very well work if Google decides it'll be cheaper and result in better PR if it just settles (possibly for a patent swap).
Well you felt the anger of the homogeneous mass of brainless apples.
anyway, this is serious bug that we are not used to experience from Apple.
Is it?
There at least three ways to completely avoid the problem while using an iPhone 4:
Use a case. I do with my iPhones, preferring the thin neoprene type. Good idea regardless.
Use a headset, and leave the phone in your pocket.
Don't hold it like that. (Yes, this is a solution and one with which most right-handers have no problem.)
CR mentions they haven't yet tested cases.
As long as the antenna isn't being interfered with, reception is at least as good as with the earlier iPhones, most likely better.
Since the iPhone 4 is in many ways the best smart phone available today except for this tempest in a teapot, I'd suggest getting one along with your case of preference. Good stuff!
To produce Pu-238 you produce a ton of weapons grade plutonium, do we really need more of that crap churned out?
In a word, yes.
The US is the only major nuclear power which can't produce new plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. Further, the breeder reactors that produce plutonium could also recycle spent fuel from conventional plants into new, useful fuel.
At some point sanity will prevail and we'll vastly expand our use of nuclear energy for both power generation and space travel. At the moment though, we're stuck in enviro-Luddite hell.
This November may mark a turning point towards rationality on a lot of levels.
LOL, "Insightful" for an obvious reading comprehension problem? Where did I say anyone was "brainwashed"? I merely advocate opening your eyes so you can see the truth, rather than blindly accepting the mainstream opinion.
Ah well, Slashdot is apparently not exactly the bastion of free thought I once thought it was...
People who think Obama is synonymous with "left-wing" are missing a lot of the picture.
Yep, that he's synonymous with '0'.
He's an outright anti-American with obvious love for Communism and Islamists. He despises the idea of American Exceptionalism, and is doing everything he can to end it. If you don't think so, you're a) not paying enough attention and b) probably getting all your information from the State Controlled Media.
Come November, I expect things will take quite a turn for the better. It can't happen too soon, as we're well along into Great Depression II.
So, CO2 is now (however wrongheadedly) officially a "pollutant". How is it that water vapor, a much stronger greenhouse gas, isn't considered such?
If you think human produced water vapor isn't an issue, I suggest you research the historical humidity record in erstwhile dry spots like Phoenix, AZ and inland southern CA.
The true answer is neither is a pollutant, and the human contribution to any warming of the Earth is negligible. The odds favor a cooling trend for a few decades regardless.
To put one's faith in a robot, is to put one's faith in the [ability/morality etc of the] human(s) who designed said robot.
Not really. It is to put one's faith in the folks doing the safety-critical testing of the system. Seriously.
We've fielded quite a few safety critical systems that perform well. In fact, large commercial aircraft are landing autonomously these days, a feat well beyond high speed parallel parking with a puny little car.:-)
"We the people".. The government is us. Not sure why people forget this..
There are a number of good reasons!
Many times, as at present, the "stupid majority" votes in a bunch of clowns.
Often, as at present, those running for office tell more lies than truths to get elected.
Coincident with the second point above, those elected fail to perform on their campaign promises, and in fact often do the exact opposite.
At times government acts in direct contravention of the laws of the land, in particular the Constitution.
There are many more reasons, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind in America today. They are also central to the unprecedented (yeah I stole 0's favorite word) level of public anger with government at the moment.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
- George Orwell
With each passing year, he becomes more the prophet.
The ironic thing in light of this article is that 0 and his bunch of merry men are much more tuned in to the Big Brother (or Goebbels) wavelength than the Tea Partiers or any other pro-Constitution group.
For instance, you'd think "net neutrality" was about giving content a level playing field rather than price controls...
Any of you that think having the Feds involved in and regulating every aspect of life is a good thing are in for a VERY rude awakening. Not least involving the tax bite out of your income! Also any economic recovery is being sabotaged by the cost of government.
Information is a very powerful tool, no matter how much you want to blame the method and frequency of delivery it's ultimately up to you what you do with it. I read transcript and honestly I thought it was closer to this dualism than the summary lets on.
You read and linked the wrong graduation speech, that one was at Michigan, the correct one was at Hampton. His remarks at Hampton were:
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation."
Please stop using the Internet to spread disinformation.;-)
(BTW I especially appreciated the "none of which I know how to work" comment, he is clearly the "smartest President ever"...)
The speed of light is only theoretically the speed limit, an absolute upper bound. In practice, nothing with enough mass and complexity to be alive, much less intelligent, can travel at anywhere near c and hope to survive.
My opinion is that either humans will become intelligent robots, or invent intelligent robots. Electronics based entities are much better suited for space exploration, and being essentially immortal the time scales become much less of a concern.
Interstellar travel is wildly impractical. It makes for interesting fiction, but unless our understanding of physics is TOTALLY messed up (*way* more flawed than we currently think pure Newtonian physics was), there's absolutely zero practical application, ever.
If there is a desire for biological colonization based on automated exploration as in my point above, the "generation ship" approach is entirely practical. It would not facilitate commerce, but it would permit biological humans to escape the "one basket" problem we have with Earth. As things stand, one large comet or asteroid strike could wipe us out.
Even interstellar *communication* is wildly impractical. I mean, come on, latency measured in *years*? What kind of conversation could you have, EVEN if you already spoke the same language? And if you don't, how are you going to learn it?
Sending grayscale images is almost trivial. The signal begins by counting, so that numbers may be identified. The next set of information contains the x,y dimensions of the first image, then the image is transmitted.
It's true that such images presume high resolution visual equipment, but I find it very hard to believe that won't be the most common feature of highly evolved creatures. They may not see in quite the same region of the spectrum, but solid objects would be quite recognizable regardless.
Cultural immersion is NOT possible. Back-and-forth dialog isn't even really possible. With no pre-existing linguistic information to help you bridge the gap, *and* no interaction, how would you characterize an alien language?
Here you're making some good points, except it's hard to say what an advanced alien society would transmit, or how well it would decode what it received. That's because we aren't yet one ourselves.;-)
You could spend centuries analyzing a single hour's worth of message and get nowhere. It'd be like trying to read the Voynich manuscript, only much worse (because the Voynich manuscript was written by a *human*, and furthermore by a human who was obviously familiar with a number of popular human writing conventions that we understand; an alien message wouldn't be so comprehensible). You almost certainly wouldn't be able to figure out for sure if the signals you were getting were language and represented actual meaning or not.
Here I think you're way off base, as I indicated above.
At any rate, just the radio emissions we're creating here on Earth are easily identifiable as emanating from an artificial source. In the radar frequencies, the equivalent black body temperatures are in the billions of degrees IIRC.
Personally, I just hope that the theory that other civilizations aren't emitting detectable radiation because they know they'll be detected and destroyed is incorrect.;-)
If there were any *intelligent* aliens, they would eventually figure this out and give up on the idea.
Your definition of "intelligent" varies quite a bit from mine. Also, it's the pinnacle of hubris to assume that we know all there is to know about physics and engineering at this point. The same idea was circulating at the beginning of the 20th Century, and we know how that worked out...
Of course, those with big ideas in those days didn't have environuts to deal with. Perhaps "back to nature" movements are the doom of all advanced societies...
The first one to do large scale asteroid mining will be a big winner. Imagine all those raw materials already up there rather than costing $thousands per pound from the ground.
Sure, when the decisions are actually good that's fine. On the other hand, when the decisions are as wrongheaded as many the current Congress and President favor, it's not so good.:-P
Define good.
There's the rub, isn't it? For me, I strongly believe in personal freedom and limited government. Those are the things that made America what it is, and to deviate much from them is to "remake America" as a much worse place to live and excel.
So, for me the 0 idiocracy is anathema.
There are a lot of things you will probably think good, that I would think to be terrible mistakes, and, obviously, visa versa.
Which doesn't recognize that the choices are not "equally good". This seems to be the concept with which you have trouble.
This is well and fine, and there is room for both.
Nope, this is a misconception on your part.
Often the choices are mutually exclusive and a decision must be made.
When someone claims that there is only room for their version of "good" then I worry.
Like I said, a misconception. For instance, if healthcare is in fact nationalized, it will drastically reduce the quality of healthcare in America.
You can't always have your cake and eat it too.
Good often follows subjective political ideologies.
No. You're forgetting that there is objective reality. For instance, millions of people starving to death or losing their homes is "bad". The opposite is "good".
It's quite possible to identify "good" versus "bad" in virtually all cases, if you look hard enough.
You should meditate on your tagline for a while... LOL
I have. Country doesn't mean people who subscribe to the same line as I do. Country doesn't mean only people who agree with me. Country does not mean only the rich, or only the poor. Country does not mean only bankers, or overseers of the military-industrial complex. Country does not mean tea party folk or progressives. Nor republican or democrat. It does not mean socialist or sociopathic free marketeer. Country means ALL of these, and the land, and the people, and the various cultures contained therein, and all of the resulting conflicts.
This is as much my country, and its destiny is as much mine, as it is yours.
Country far transcends whether or whether not you want government controlled health care.
Nice job missing the point. I was referring to the 'defend his country against his government' part. The (Federal) government is the issue, and the biggest danger to a sane existence.
Anything done to restrain 0's out of control spending is "good for America". His fiscal policies are literally insane.
And who isn't?
Me, and lots of other folk. What 0 is doing is qualitatively different than GWB or other earler Presidents. It absolutely won't work in the long run, and even in the short run America may lose its AAA credit rating for the first time ever.
And no, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or biting off your nose to spite your face, is NOT good for America.
Nice strawman.
The right wing of Congress sitting around with their fingers in their ears screaming "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you!" is not healthy for anything.
You should pay more attention, that's not what they're doing. It's just that 0 has given up on bipartisanship and he's getting what he deserves for doing so. Republicans had many constructive ideas for healthcare reform, such as tort reform, but the Dems would have none of it.
You spoke of compromise, but 0 seems to not be a fan.
Perhaps the people on the Right could promote cutting some of the biggest bloat in the budget, military spending, or subsidies for agriculture and fossil fuels. Pe
Yup, a its about as clever as calling Obama "0". Pot meet kettle.
Not at all. The "0" moniker fits Obama perfectly. Zero good ideas, zero patriotism, zero executive experience...the list goes on and on. Republicans, on the other hand, just aren't known for "thuggish" behavior. Look at how civil the tea party demonstrations have been, for instance. (Granted, they're not all Republicans at those, but the majority probably are.)
Your comprehension of English is abysmal. The "will of the people" is most directly what the majority of the people want. Of course, we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic, but I'm sure you knew that. THAT is why our "elected representatives" have power instead of it being straight majority rule.
This isn't actually true. There was some among the Founders who obviously thought that requiring a simple majority of citizens to pass laws and bills was a bad idea. This is why we're a representative democracy and not a straight democracy. Often times the electorate isn't informed or educated enough to make some decisions (treaties, wars, and such), and sometimes elected representatives are forced to make unpopular decisions for the common good , our system allows for this.
Sure, when the decisions are actually good that's fine. On the other hand, when the decisions are as wrongheaded as many the current Congress and President favor, it's not so good.:-P
To be clear, I wasn't advocating pure democracy. I was pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of the "Democrat" party in not respecting the will of the people.
At any rate, you are dead wrong once again. Check out this Gallup poll [newsweek.com], showing only 36% approve of 0's handling of healthcare. Even the most left leaning of "news" sources can't ignore the facts. Get yours straight next time.
I've seen several polls with widely varying numbers. I've seem single polls on the issue with wildly varing numbers depending on how the question is asked. Which poll do we go by? I know the answer, the one you like and that supports your political tilt. This is true for everyone. I haven't actually seen a well sampled bill (i.e. not on a blag, or news site) that has the opponents of the bill representing a meaningful majority over those that supported it. Generally the percentages work up around 42% in favor, and 46% against (which is about the same margin as most of our elections, incidentally). In these cases things become tricky, since can you really crap on the will of 42% of the electorate to make 46% happy? And of these, probably 90% of each camp don't care strongly, leaving 10% of the population who have very strong opinions and a deep love of waggling their tongues.
Nice job of pulling some statistics out of your nether regions. There's not been a single major poll that shows a majority favor 0care. Gallup, by the way, is particularly respected.
You're also off base as far as your estimate that only 10% have strong opinions. Rasmussen (who's been the most accurate on recent elections) finds that 73% of voters have strong opinions about the President for instance. 30% strongly approve, while 43% strongly disapprove.
. I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actually observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
You managed to make a nice fallacy, and completely ignore the point. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't make it right. If I get some democrats, and some republicans, to agree that we should burn the Constitution does it make it more r
Just as bad (or possibly even worse) the "Democrats", who're supposed to be the "party of the people" are ignoring the clear will of the people in many cases. For instance shoving healthcare "reform" down our throats which around 60% of the citizens don't want.
I thought the point of a "republic" was that it isn't just a tyranny of the majority. Maybe, just maybe, Healthcare reform is something that needs to be implemented over the objections of a majority?
I actually agree in principle with the idea of healthcare reform. It's just that real reform wouldn't look anything like the abortion that the Dem majority and President have conceived.
Even despite their constant lying about the cost, people have seen through them. The cost will in reality be enormous and force enormous direct and indirect taxes on the middle class. Yet another broken campaign promise.
Forcing Americans to buy insurance is flat-out unconstitutional and un-American.
Or would you like to argue that direct democracy is a better form of government?
Not at all, just that the "Democrats" are supposed to be more, not less, directly responsive to the people. Many of them have been famous for their changing positions based on polls. Clearly, 0 isn't in that category.
Or is it just that you're pissed that your will isn't followed by all around you?
That's probably a good idea, but I leave that as optional.;-)
0 is on a roll of ignoring the Constitution. It appears he views it as an outdated, inconvenient obstacle to be overcome.
You mean, he doesn't agree with your interpretation of the constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution (note capitalization) that the Federal Government is authorized to mandate that citizens buy goods or services. It's not a matter of "interpretation", the language is quite clear. Amazing that the Constitution accomplishes so much in just a few pages, so very unlike modern legislation that apparently requires thousands, and that legislators don't even bother reading or understanding before voting. It's ridiculous.
Or did you miss the parts of the constitution that were ignored in about, oh, a half-dozen major changes to the American Landscape in the last decade?
Not at all, nor did I like all of those changes. The thing I want least of all, though, is a change that vastly expands the Federal Government while very probably bankrupting the country.
The arguments you're making are nothing but hot air and empty rhetoric, that can be applied to any situation. Unfortunately, that means that even if Obama would do exactly what you want him to do, the US would just continue down its current path - because you don't have a problem with the system, just merely with the direction the system is heading in.
I would like to see the "system" revert to that described in the founding documents, with a limited government that mostly minds its own business and stays out of mine.
The country might even become prosperous again under such a system.;-)
How eloquent. Nice job hiding as an AC, too. Man up and post so we know who you are, loser.:-)
No, seriously. I'm sure you were cheering when Shrub forced a trillion dollars of wars down our throats, wiretapped American citizens in direct violation of the FISA regulations, and illegally ordered prisoners of war to be tortured.
Nice talking points, with oh so little substance though. I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actaully observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
I suppose you've also forgotten that 0, among his myriad broken campaign promises, has kept right on slogging both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And your claim regarding HCR isn't even accurate, not that it would matter given how many lies the Rethugs have put out there.
"Rethugs", how clever.
At any rate, you are dead wrong once again. Check out this Gallup poll, showing only 36% approve of 0's handling of healthcare. Even the most left leaning of "news" sources can't ignore the facts. Get yours straight next time.
How can an elected body pass legislation with a majority of the votes and NOT represent the will of the people? THAT'S HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.
Your comprehension of English is abysmal. The "will of the people" is most directly what the majority of the people want. Of course, we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic, but I'm sure you knew that. THAT is why our "elected representatives" have power instead of it being straight majority rule.
The idiocracy currently in power will find out about the true will of the people in November this year, and on election day 2012. That is if 0 doesn't ban elections in the name of some convenient crisis or another. I'd put very little past him given his narcissism, arrogance and hatred for America.
What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.
Exactly. 0 is on a roll of ignoring the Constitution. It appears he views it as an outdated, inconvenient obstacle to be overcome.
Just as bad (or possibly even worse) the "Democrats", who're supposed to be the "party of the people" are ignoring the clear will of the people in many cases. For instance shoving healthcare "reform" down our throats which around 60% of the citizens don't want.
0 is shaping up to be one of the worst Presidents ever, and almost certainly a one-term wonder. I'm hopeful that the Dems will lose a lot of their power this coming November.
Moving from the cold war state to full nuclear disarmament won't happen quickly, but any step in that direction should be encouraged and hopefully there will not be another generation who has to fear a nuclear war.
Well...that statement is a bit questionable.
The sad part of it is (although it's also the reality part) is that as our nuclear arsenal is drawn down, we're more vulnerable. It's an unavoidable thing. Furthermore, there's the fact that a "nuclear free world" would be more vulnerable to all kinds of atrocities like those that occurred during WWII.
So, it's best to realize that nuclear weapons are the most powerful force for actual peace, ever. Have a nice day. =)
Slashdot Mirror
2) Us "younger" readers know Rupert is a "douche".
You f'ed that up: 'We younger readers "know" Rupert is a douche.' You're welcome. Now, get off my lawn.
And does any other individual have the ability to spread his lies to 1/3 of the worldwide population?
Yes, 0bama does, sadly.
Rupert Murdoch is a fucking menace.
Not nearly as much as 0, Commander in Chief...
Does MSNBC give its reporters an explicit ultimatum to promote a particular point of view or risk your job?
Absolutely. Guess you don't watch much MSNBC...
Look at the treatment the "mainstream media" is giving Michelle 0's trip to Spain. If it had been a Republican, the 'Marie Antoinette" parallels would have been flying!
The real killer for mobile and embedded applications is probably the prohibition on subsetting. You don't want to have to include the entire .Net or Java API on a device with limited RAM...
My understanding always has been that Sun* didn't care about non-compliant implementations as long as they weren't billed as "Java", which Android's isn't.
This simply looks like a cash grab by Oracle, and it may very well work if Google decides it'll be cheaper and result in better PR if it just settles (possibly for a patent swap).
*For some value of Sun. ;-)
Well you felt the anger of the homogeneous mass of brainless apples.
anyway, this is serious bug that we are not used to experience from Apple.
Is it?
There at least three ways to completely avoid the problem while using an iPhone 4:
Use a case. I do with my iPhones, preferring the thin neoprene type. Good idea regardless.
CR mentions they haven't yet tested cases.
As long as the antenna isn't being interfered with, reception is at least as good as with the earlier iPhones, most likely better.
Since the iPhone 4 is in many ways the best smart phone available today except for this tempest in a teapot, I'd suggest getting one along with your case of preference. Good stuff!
All of the Ultima games have massive plotholes and inconsistencies. Heck, in the early Ultima games, you could be a friggin' Hobbit.
I believe this was a direct result of the "hobbit/halfling" race in D&D.
It was nice having hobbits, rather than "gnomes". Those belong on a lawn someplace. ;-)
Frozo...right.
To produce Pu-238 you produce a ton of weapons grade plutonium, do we really need more of that crap churned out?
In a word, yes.
The US is the only major nuclear power which can't produce new plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. Further, the breeder reactors that produce plutonium could also recycle spent fuel from conventional plants into new, useful fuel.
At some point sanity will prevail and we'll vastly expand our use of nuclear energy for both power generation and space travel. At the moment though, we're stuck in enviro-Luddite hell.
This November may mark a turning point towards rationality on a lot of levels.
Do Not Look Into Laser with Remaining Eye!
(My favorite lab warning sign of all time...)
LOL, "Insightful" for an obvious reading comprehension problem? Where did I say anyone was "brainwashed"? I merely advocate opening your eyes so you can see the truth, rather than blindly accepting the mainstream opinion.
Ah well, Slashdot is apparently not exactly the bastion of free thought I once thought it was...
People who think Obama is synonymous with "left-wing" are missing a lot of the picture.
Yep, that he's synonymous with '0'.
He's an outright anti-American with obvious love for Communism and Islamists. He despises the idea of American Exceptionalism, and is doing everything he can to end it. If you don't think so, you're a) not paying enough attention and b) probably getting all your information from the State Controlled Media.
Come November, I expect things will take quite a turn for the better. It can't happen too soon, as we're well along into Great Depression II.
So, CO2 is now (however wrongheadedly) officially a "pollutant". How is it that water vapor, a much stronger greenhouse gas, isn't considered such?
If you think human produced water vapor isn't an issue, I suggest you research the historical humidity record in erstwhile dry spots like Phoenix, AZ and inland southern CA.
The true answer is neither is a pollutant, and the human contribution to any warming of the Earth is negligible. The odds favor a cooling trend for a few decades regardless.
To put one's faith in a robot, is to put one's faith in the [ability/morality etc of the] human(s) who designed said robot.
Not really. It is to put one's faith in the folks doing the safety-critical testing of the system. Seriously.
We've fielded quite a few safety critical systems that perform well. In fact, large commercial aircraft are landing autonomously these days, a feat well beyond high speed parallel parking with a puny little car. :-)
"We the people".. The government is us. Not sure why people forget this..
There are a number of good reasons!
There are many more reasons, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind in America today. They are also central to the unprecedented (yeah I stole 0's favorite word) level of public anger with government at the moment.
Live Free or Die!
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. - George Orwell
With each passing year, he becomes more the prophet.
The ironic thing in light of this article is that 0 and his bunch of merry men are much more tuned in to the Big Brother (or Goebbels) wavelength than the Tea Partiers or any other pro-Constitution group.
For instance, you'd think "net neutrality" was about giving content a level playing field rather than price controls...
Any of you that think having the Feds involved in and regulating every aspect of life is a good thing are in for a VERY rude awakening. Not least involving the tax bite out of your income! Also any economic recovery is being sabotaged by the cost of government.
Information is a very powerful tool, no matter how much you want to blame the method and frequency of delivery it's ultimately up to you what you do with it. I read transcript and honestly I thought it was closer to this dualism than the summary lets on.
You read and linked the wrong graduation speech, that one was at Michigan, the correct one was at Hampton. His remarks at Hampton were:
"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation."
Please stop using the Internet to spread disinformation. ;-)
(BTW I especially appreciated the "none of which I know how to work" comment, he is clearly the "smartest President ever"...)
My preferred version:
299,792.5 km/s - it's not just a good idea, it's the law!
The speed of light is only theoretically the speed limit, an absolute upper bound. In practice, nothing with enough mass and complexity to be alive, much less intelligent, can travel at anywhere near c and hope to survive.
My opinion is that either humans will become intelligent robots, or invent intelligent robots. Electronics based entities are much better suited for space exploration, and being essentially immortal the time scales become much less of a concern.
Interstellar travel is wildly impractical. It makes for interesting fiction, but unless our understanding of physics is TOTALLY messed up (*way* more flawed than we currently think pure Newtonian physics was), there's absolutely zero practical application, ever.
If there is a desire for biological colonization based on automated exploration as in my point above, the "generation ship" approach is entirely practical. It would not facilitate commerce, but it would permit biological humans to escape the "one basket" problem we have with Earth. As things stand, one large comet or asteroid strike could wipe us out.
Even interstellar *communication* is wildly impractical. I mean, come on, latency measured in *years*? What kind of conversation could you have, EVEN if you already spoke the same language? And if you don't, how are you going to learn it?
Sending grayscale images is almost trivial. The signal begins by counting, so that numbers may be identified. The next set of information contains the x,y dimensions of the first image, then the image is transmitted.
It's true that such images presume high resolution visual equipment, but I find it very hard to believe that won't be the most common feature of highly evolved creatures. They may not see in quite the same region of the spectrum, but solid objects would be quite recognizable regardless.
Cultural immersion is NOT possible. Back-and-forth dialog isn't even really possible. With no pre-existing linguistic information to help you bridge the gap, *and* no interaction, how would you characterize an alien language?
Here you're making some good points, except it's hard to say what an advanced alien society would transmit, or how well it would decode what it received. That's because we aren't yet one ourselves. ;-)
You could spend centuries analyzing a single hour's worth of message and get nowhere. It'd be like trying to read the Voynich manuscript, only much worse (because the Voynich manuscript was written by a *human*, and furthermore by a human who was obviously familiar with a number of popular human writing conventions that we understand; an alien message wouldn't be so comprehensible). You almost certainly wouldn't be able to figure out for sure if the signals you were getting were language and represented actual meaning or not.
Here I think you're way off base, as I indicated above.
At any rate, just the radio emissions we're creating here on Earth are easily identifiable as emanating from an artificial source. In the radar frequencies, the equivalent black body temperatures are in the billions of degrees IIRC.
Personally, I just hope that the theory that other civilizations aren't emitting detectable radiation because they know they'll be detected and destroyed is incorrect. ;-)
If there were any *intelligent* aliens, they would eventually figure this out and give up on the idea.
Your definition of "intelligent" varies quite a bit from mine. Also, it's the pinnacle of hubris to assume that we know all there is to know about physics and engineering at this point. The same idea was circulating at the beginning of the 20th Century, and we know how that worked out...
Of course, those with big ideas in those days didn't have environuts to deal with. Perhaps "back to nature" movements are the doom of all advanced societies...
I double-dog-dare you to go make a buck in space
The first one to do large scale asteroid mining will be a big winner. Imagine all those raw materials already up there rather than costing $thousands per pound from the ground.
Exactly, I was just going to post about the same thing.
SpaceX looks to be doing exactly the right things, in contrast to the dinosaur aerospace companies.
Check here for more information including videos of their latest rockets and engines.
Sure, when the decisions are actually good that's fine. On the other hand, when the decisions are as wrongheaded as many the current Congress and President favor, it's not so good. :-P
Define good.
There's the rub, isn't it? For me, I strongly believe in personal freedom and limited government. Those are the things that made America what it is, and to deviate much from them is to "remake America" as a much worse place to live and excel.
So, for me the 0 idiocracy is anathema.
There are a lot of things you will probably think good, that I would think to be terrible mistakes, and, obviously, visa versa.
Which doesn't recognize that the choices are not "equally good". This seems to be the concept with which you have trouble.
This is well and fine, and there is room for both.
Nope, this is a misconception on your part.
Often the choices are mutually exclusive and a decision must be made.
When someone claims that there is only room for their version of "good" then I worry.
Like I said, a misconception. For instance, if healthcare is in fact nationalized, it will drastically reduce the quality of healthcare in America.
You can't always have your cake and eat it too.
Good often follows subjective political ideologies.
No. You're forgetting that there is objective reality. For instance, millions of people starving to death or losing their homes is "bad". The opposite is "good".
It's quite possible to identify "good" versus "bad" in virtually all cases, if you look hard enough.
You should meditate on your tagline for a while... LOL
I have. Country doesn't mean people who subscribe to the same line as I do. Country doesn't mean only people who agree with me. Country does not mean only the rich, or only the poor. Country does not mean only bankers, or overseers of the military-industrial complex. Country does not mean tea party folk or progressives. Nor republican or democrat. It does not mean socialist or sociopathic free marketeer. Country means ALL of these, and the land, and the people, and the various cultures contained therein, and all of the resulting conflicts.
This is as much my country, and its destiny is as much mine, as it is yours.
Country far transcends whether or whether not you want government controlled health care.
Nice job missing the point. I was referring to the 'defend his country against his government' part. The (Federal) government is the issue, and the biggest danger to a sane existence.
Anything done to restrain 0's out of control spending is "good for America". His fiscal policies are literally insane.
And who isn't?
Me, and lots of other folk. What 0 is doing is qualitatively different than GWB or other earler Presidents. It absolutely won't work in the long run, and even in the short run America may lose its AAA credit rating for the first time ever.
And no, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or biting off your nose to spite your face, is NOT good for America.
Nice strawman.
The right wing of Congress sitting around with their fingers in their ears screaming "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you!" is not healthy for anything.
You should pay more attention, that's not what they're doing. It's just that 0 has given up on bipartisanship and he's getting what he deserves for doing so. Republicans had many constructive ideas for healthcare reform, such as tort reform, but the Dems would have none of it.
You spoke of compromise, but 0 seems to not be a fan.
Perhaps the people on the Right could promote cutting some of the biggest bloat in the budget, military spending, or subsidies for agriculture and fossil fuels. Pe
Not the AC.
"Rethugs", how clever.
Yup, a its about as clever as calling Obama "0". Pot meet kettle.
Not at all. The "0" moniker fits Obama perfectly. Zero good ideas, zero patriotism, zero executive experience...the list goes on and on. Republicans, on the other hand, just aren't known for "thuggish" behavior. Look at how civil the tea party demonstrations have been, for instance. (Granted, they're not all Republicans at those, but the majority probably are.)
Your comprehension of English is abysmal. The "will of the people" is most directly what the majority of the people want. Of course, we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic, but I'm sure you knew that. THAT is why our "elected representatives" have power instead of it being straight majority rule.
This isn't actually true. There was some among the Founders who obviously thought that requiring a simple majority of citizens to pass laws and bills was a bad idea. This is why we're a representative democracy and not a straight democracy. Often times the electorate isn't informed or educated enough to make some decisions (treaties, wars, and such), and sometimes elected representatives are forced to make unpopular decisions for the common good , our system allows for this.
Sure, when the decisions are actually good that's fine. On the other hand, when the decisions are as wrongheaded as many the current Congress and President favor, it's not so good. :-P
To be clear, I wasn't advocating pure democracy. I was pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of the "Democrat" party in not respecting the will of the people.
At any rate, you are dead wrong once again. Check out this Gallup poll [newsweek.com], showing only 36% approve of 0's handling of healthcare. Even the most left leaning of "news" sources can't ignore the facts. Get yours straight next time.
I've seen several polls with widely varying numbers. I've seem single polls on the issue with wildly varing numbers depending on how the question is asked. Which poll do we go by? I know the answer, the one you like and that supports your political tilt. This is true for everyone. I haven't actually seen a well sampled bill (i.e. not on a blag, or news site) that has the opponents of the bill representing a meaningful majority over those that supported it. Generally the percentages work up around 42% in favor, and 46% against (which is about the same margin as most of our elections, incidentally). In these cases things become tricky, since can you really crap on the will of 42% of the electorate to make 46% happy? And of these, probably 90% of each camp don't care strongly, leaving 10% of the population who have very strong opinions and a deep love of waggling their tongues.
Nice job of pulling some statistics out of your nether regions. There's not been a single major poll that shows a majority favor 0care. Gallup, by the way, is particularly respected.
You're also off base as far as your estimate that only 10% have strong opinions. Rasmussen (who's been the most accurate on recent elections) finds that 73% of voters have strong opinions about the President for instance. 30% strongly approve, while 43% strongly disapprove.
. I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actually observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
You managed to make a nice fallacy, and completely ignore the point. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't make it right. If I get some democrats, and some republicans, to agree that we should burn the Constitution does it make it more r
Just as bad (or possibly even worse) the "Democrats", who're supposed to be the "party of the people" are ignoring the clear will of the people in many cases. For instance shoving healthcare "reform" down our throats which around 60% of the citizens don't want.
I thought the point of a "republic" was that it isn't just a tyranny of the majority. Maybe, just maybe, Healthcare reform is something that needs to be implemented over the objections of a majority?
I actually agree in principle with the idea of healthcare reform. It's just that real reform wouldn't look anything like the abortion that the Dem majority and President have conceived.
Even despite their constant lying about the cost, people have seen through them. The cost will in reality be enormous and force enormous direct and indirect taxes on the middle class. Yet another broken campaign promise.
Forcing Americans to buy insurance is flat-out unconstitutional and un-American.
Or would you like to argue that direct democracy is a better form of government?
Not at all, just that the "Democrats" are supposed to be more, not less, directly responsive to the people. Many of them have been famous for their changing positions based on polls. Clearly, 0 isn't in that category.
Or is it just that you're pissed that your will isn't followed by all around you?
That's probably a good idea, but I leave that as optional. ;-)
0 is on a roll of ignoring the Constitution. It appears he views it as an outdated, inconvenient obstacle to be overcome.
You mean, he doesn't agree with your interpretation of the constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution (note capitalization) that the Federal Government is authorized to mandate that citizens buy goods or services. It's not a matter of "interpretation", the language is quite clear. Amazing that the Constitution accomplishes so much in just a few pages, so very unlike modern legislation that apparently requires thousands, and that legislators don't even bother reading or understanding before voting. It's ridiculous.
Or did you miss the parts of the constitution that were ignored in about, oh, a half-dozen major changes to the American Landscape in the last decade?
Not at all, nor did I like all of those changes. The thing I want least of all, though, is a change that vastly expands the Federal Government while very probably bankrupting the country.
The arguments you're making are nothing but hot air and empty rhetoric, that can be applied to any situation. Unfortunately, that means that even if Obama would do exactly what you want him to do, the US would just continue down its current path - because you don't have a problem with the system, just merely with the direction the system is heading in.
I would like to see the "system" revert to that described in the founding documents, with a limited government that mostly minds its own business and stays out of mine.
The country might even become prosperous again under such a system. ;-)
Eat a dick.
How eloquent. Nice job hiding as an AC, too. Man up and post so we know who you are, loser. :-)
No, seriously. I'm sure you were cheering when Shrub forced a trillion dollars of wars down our throats, wiretapped American citizens in direct violation of the FISA regulations, and illegally ordered prisoners of war to be tortured.
Nice talking points, with oh so little substance though. I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actaully observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
I suppose you've also forgotten that 0, among his myriad broken campaign promises, has kept right on slogging both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And your claim regarding HCR isn't even accurate, not that it would matter given how many lies the Rethugs have put out there.
"Rethugs", how clever.
At any rate, you are dead wrong once again. Check out this Gallup poll, showing only 36% approve of 0's handling of healthcare. Even the most left leaning of "news" sources can't ignore the facts. Get yours straight next time.
How can an elected body pass legislation with a majority of the votes and NOT represent the will of the people? THAT'S HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.
Your comprehension of English is abysmal. The "will of the people" is most directly what the majority of the people want. Of course, we don't live in a pure democracy, we live in a republic, but I'm sure you knew that. THAT is why our "elected representatives" have power instead of it being straight majority rule.
The idiocracy currently in power will find out about the true will of the people in November this year, and on election day 2012. That is if 0 doesn't ban elections in the name of some convenient crisis or another. I'd put very little past him given his narcissism, arrogance and hatred for America.
What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.
Exactly. 0 is on a roll of ignoring the Constitution. It appears he views it as an outdated, inconvenient obstacle to be overcome.
Just as bad (or possibly even worse) the "Democrats", who're supposed to be the "party of the people" are ignoring the clear will of the people in many cases. For instance shoving healthcare "reform" down our throats which around 60% of the citizens don't want.
0 is shaping up to be one of the worst Presidents ever, and almost certainly a one-term wonder. I'm hopeful that the Dems will lose a lot of their power this coming November.
Moving from the cold war state to full nuclear disarmament won't happen quickly, but any step in that direction should be encouraged and hopefully there will not be another generation who has to fear a nuclear war.
Well...that statement is a bit questionable.
The sad part of it is (although it's also the reality part) is that as our nuclear arsenal is drawn down, we're more vulnerable. It's an unavoidable thing. Furthermore, there's the fact that a "nuclear free world" would be more vulnerable to all kinds of atrocities like those that occurred during WWII.
So, it's best to realize that nuclear weapons are the most powerful force for actual peace, ever. Have a nice day. =)