There were other incidents several years ago, where people on the east coast of the US with antennas pointed down to the horizon, or people in Europe, could pick up the occasional unencrypted transmissions.
The gov't runs several different satellite systems. There are encrypted and unencrypted transmissions. As far as I know, none of them manipulate brain waves though (had to include that for the tinfoil hat crowd). I'd be sure that the control signals are sent over the encrypted channels. There are less encrypted channels available, so they are used for more sensitive data. Flying around on an average flight may not have constituted "sensitive" data, and could have been in the clear. If they knew it would be viewing a target of any value, it would have been on an encrypted channel.
Just like a computer though, you have to have a way to reach it. I kind of doubt they'll just give it an IP.:) You'll probably have an awful hard time gaining physical access too. I don't know much about hacking encrypted government satellites, but I'd have to guess it's a little more than trivial.
I do believe he is dead, and they did take a DNA sample, and then give him a burial at sea. But what are the other options?
His demise...
There were news reports of his capture a couple years ago. He could have been detained the whole time. No all Al-Qaeda members would know where he was, and not all have contact with him at the same time. He could have been captured for a significant period and only a handful of people would have known.
There were news reports of his failing health. He may have died of natural causes.
And finally the Obama assertions that we killed him, in his pajamas, unarmed, in a compound very close to a military base. That sounds funny.
Verification of his death...
Obama said DNA was taken. He said it was verified with a family member. We don't know when that sample was taken, or where it was taken. It could have been taken from his dead body after we executed him (the Obama story).
It could have been taken from a sample at a hospital (he was ill, and did receive hospital treatment).
It could have been taken from him in custody (if he was).
His body could have been transported *to* that house for collection. That's an added logistics headache though.
His burial..
Assuming the first two are true, which it seems we all agree to, he could have been buried anywhere. Burial at sea has the disadvantage that no one can go back and verify anything. But, burial at sea also means there is no grave for people to go to, pray over, piss on, or whatever they may want to do.
I'll stick with believing the provided facts, unless new evidence turns up at a later date. I kind of doubt much will. They couldn't have asked for a more controlled scene.
Well, there's a phrase you don't hear every day. Congratulations.
Remember, suicide is always a valid alternative.
Yes, it sure is. If you aren't feeling up to the task, we can have some folks come over to assist you. But, if you feel the solitary way is best, I'm sure we can dig up a copy of "Suicide for Dummies" and send it over.
I assume photos exist, or it really doesn't matter.
If we do release the photos immediately...
Part of the American public will be happy.
Part will be outraged. By American law, he has the right to due process. That should not be ignored regardless of the crimes.
Part will think it's just morbid to celebrate the death of anyone, and gratuitous violent pictures are not necessary.
Islamic extremists, especially Taliban members, will see the gratuitous display of violence against one of theirs as a motivating factor in reprisals.
If we wait a while (say a year or so), most likely the emotional responses are going to be lower. It will be a matter of historical record, rather than a current event.
As someone else said, it will probably be released "around campaign time". Well, that's probably true. An immediate release is in no one's best interest. A campaign-time release is going to be seen as a campaign ploy. The best thing he can do (IMHO) is to sign an executive order stating that the pictures will be released on a particular date in the future (about a year or so from now), possibly putting it in a 3rd party escrow, where it can't be seen until that date comes. That date would be best *after* the campaign season is done, and the election is finished. That way, it's not a campaign ploy. It doesn't add significant danger to the public, and we do know it will be released.
That's his point. You can move if it was such a hardship that you felt it necessary to correct.
Your Internet connection isn't usually such a hardship that you would move to resolve it. I have lived in places with horrible service. When practical, I moved. But if you lived somewhere that did not have cell phone nor land line service, you would move if your job required you to be able to answer the phone. If you no longer had access to food or drinking water, you would move. If your home was destroyed, as the homes all around it, you'd leave. If you lived in a place that was dangerous, you'd move to somewhere safer. Well, people don't. Last time I checked, people still lived in bad neighborhoods with gang warfare, and war zones around the world. They don't leave.
hmmm... How bad was that Internet capping again?/me starts polishing his AR-15 for the May 21, 2011 apocalypse.
I think you're a bit confused.. The most "successful" under what terms?
The most abundant creatures on earth are copepods or prokaryote SAR11. I'll leave it to a zoologist to give the correct answer.
The healthiest are sharks, with no known illnesses.
Humans aren't the most prolific. That would probably go to one of the first category. We're only fertile less than 25% of the time, and not every attempt causes reproduction. Even once we do manage to fertilize an egg, there's about a 10 month period before you can hope to start the process again. Our young spawn are not able to then reproduce for over a decade. The window of reproduction is generally about 40 years, but it is generally considered humans must be over 18, and doctors strongly suggest against reproduction over 35. So, a 17 year window of acceptability for reproduction. That's a very short period.
Our lifespan is trivial compared to some. The Arctica islandica can live over 400 years. Genus Hydra and Turritopsis nutricula are considered biologically immortal, due to the way they reproduce.
Wealth (as any monetary system) was a human invention, just as religion.
When's the last time you had a chance to lay out in the grass and enjoy the sunshine, before hunting for dinner, and never had to consider going "to work" for a "paycheck" to pay "rent", "mortgage", "taxes", or other "bills"?
We may have had it pretty good. We've have done a great job of screwing up a perfectly good thing. But we're humans, and that's what we do best.
I would if I could, but there isn't anywhere in the world to get far enough away from people like you. You do make an excellent case for postpartum abortions though. If they pass the law to allow it, I'm sure you'll be the poster child.
It seems he was saying that they enjoy the human lifestyle, where they aren't paying for it.
They weren't paid anything during their "career". Retired, they may like the house. Then again, they've been trained to like the human lifestyle. Since they're given the lifestyle and don't have to fight to get their retirement fund, social security, or hold down whatever jobs they can get for the rest of their lives, it's pretty easy.
We've seen this in humans too. Young offenders, who are later repeat offenders, sometimes see prison as the place that they belong, and they will commit new crimes just to end up back in prison. If it weren't for the shanking and shower rapes, it doesn't really seem so bad. You get 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep in, clothes to wear, and security 24/7 to protect you. You can watch TV, read books, play board games, etc.
I don't know about the quote (what dolphins have cable TV?), but if you think about it, the general premise is probably right.
Why would any wild animals want to be more like us? We build and grow, leaving massive destruction in the path. We toil away constantly at some goal of wealth and happiness, which drives us from birth to death.
Dolphins live happily in the ocean. They are free to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Occasionally, they take advantage of humans by riding on their mechanically produced waves (i.e., bow wave).
Why would they want to get any closer to us than they need to? We're already terrorists, killing dolphins, polluting their environment, and kidnapping their own for human entertainment. Nope, rather than wanting to be friendly, chat with us, and take treats from us, they'd likely want to get their revenge.
I worked for a company that had "free hosting" servers. They were honestly free for customers that used our payment system. Since anyone could sign up, anyone did. We had all kinda of neat root kits, PHP shells, back doors, and the like installed. I'd sweep on a regular basis looking for them. We were locked down tight enough so they never broke very much of anything The worse would be someone would exploit something a user installed, which would deface their site. IDS helped a lot there though.:) Once in a great while, I'd find a lingering CGI which would turn out to be a back door listening on a port that wasn't open on our firewall, so all they managed to do was start a back door that no one could access.
We'd investigate the "intrusion", make any necessary corrections so it wouldn't happen again (block the user and network who uploaded the malicious code, help the customer upgrade their software to current, and remind them that it's not safe to leave ancient packages running). I had a rather nice collection of malicious code. It was all dated, and tagged with incident notes.
Unfortunately, when I left the company anything related to the company stayed there, so I no longer had my "collection".
Some people never understood why I kept it. It wasn't ever to use against anyone. It did server two purposes. The first was, I could show new employees what people would try to do. Most thought such things were theoretical, so I would show them that they really happened. The second was to research methods used by the "bad guys". To effectively defend yourself, you have to be fully aware of their methods and capable of recreating them, and even improving on their attacks so we could stay ahead of them.
Too many people being and end their security with "my servers are patched when we put them online" and "I have a firewall". All fine and dandy until you find out that it really wasn't enough.
Bob, I told you to stay off of Slashdot while you're suppose to be "working". We all know you don't do much of anything, but referencing your coworkers as incompetent slackers really doesn't make you any new friends.
Now get back to work. You've been doing that "simple" change for 2 months now. Get it done with so we can present it to the customer.
I never did understand why the hell they ever did that wrestling crap? I always assumed it was some executive there liked wrestling, so he filled the end of the day with it. To me, it's worse than putting up the test pattern and tone. The test pattern would be more entertaining.
Both are coming back on July 11th, 2011. They're already pushing them on their web site.
I like Eureka, and to a degree Warehouse 13. Eureka is fun and campy. Warehouse 13, well, not so much. It's kind of predictable, almost like a Scooby Doo mystery.
SGU was really well on it's way to being a really good show. It had a rough start, which it looks like Syfy took into account (badly) in it's decision to ditch them.
Then again, since I gave my real email address, when I was renting frequently, I would get vouchers by email for free movies on a fairly regular basis, and they'd be given with food purchases at grocery stores that had a Redbox outside. So the total cost isn't necessarily even as high as $1/movie, unless you account for the storage space, power required to run your computer, and any blank DVDs you burn them to.:)
I think Redbox found the right price point for consumers. Then again, you'll still get scratched or otherwise damaged disks on occasion, which means that downloading it is more dependable than rental or online streaming.
They aren't paid per rental. Video stores (if they still exist) buy videos licensed for rental use. They're a bit more expensive, but the individual payments go to the store, not to the studio.
From what I understand, the licensing for a new-release DVD for rental is higher than a new-release DVD for retail. But companies who do bulk purchases also enjoy price breaks.
Then the math gets fuzzy. How much was lost between the pirates, purchase DVD's and rentals?
Say the movie cost $29.99 retail (I didn't bother to check the price). 23,000 * 29.99 = $689,770. Oohhh, over half a million dollars lost.
But what if they were all renters? We can assume not everyone watches the movie in the same night. Say 500 DVDs were purchased, at a rental-licensed rate of $35.00 (again, arbitrary number), and all the customers rented it over the next month and a half. 500 * $35.00 = $17,500. And then your number comes into play. Assuming $5/ea for video rentals, the rental companies took in $115,000, so after the cost of the DVDs, the rental companies made $97,500.
So exactly who lost out there? The MPAA, or the local rental stores? Well, the MPAA likely still made exactly what they would have before, as the stores still needed to stock their stores. If I was a rental store, and I lost $97,500 because of piracy, I may be a bit miffed.
But...
Not all of those 23,000 are going to buy it, nor rent it.
[cue soothing music]
[In a Mr. Rogers-like voice]
Long ago, it was a simpler time... People had just discovered the wonders of indoor plumbing, microwave ovens, color television, and then the home video cassette player. This was long before most of you were born. A video cassette, in simple terms, was a box roughly twice the size of a netbook, which could hold up to 90 minutes of low quality analog video with two channel sound. This wonderful innovation allowed you to view movies in the pleasure of your own home.
This was before "The Internet", Netflix, Redbox, Hulu, YouTube, or BitTorrent ever existed, so what was this simple culture to do? They would get into their cars, and drive to local video stores to rent movies... But they cost approximately $5/day to rent. Lets not forget that this was during the era of Reagan Economics, so that was roughly equal to the monthly income for a family of 4 hard working Americans. Not everyone could afford a video cassette player, nor the cost of the rental of the video cassettes. Friends and family would get together to watch movies on home video cassette players, and promptly rewind and return the video cassette to the rental establishment.
Then the evils of piracy was invented by evil one eyed people who lived on ships and sang drinking songs before looting and pillaging.
ok, I'm making myself nauseous with the sarcasm now, so I'll stop.
23,000 people downloading does not equal 23,000 purchases, nor 23,000 rentals.. Assuming all 23,000 people were interested in viewing the movie if there was a cost associated with it, they may watch in groups of 2 to 10 (we'll say 5 for comfortable seating). That's 4,600 rentals or purchases. And lets not forget that those who purchase are likely to lend out movies to friends, which would lower the number even more. Say 75% of the original set would be willing to spend a few bucks on a rental or borrow it from a friend. That brings the number down to 17,250 people intending to watch. At an average of 5 viewers a session, that lowers the number down to 3,450, which could still be comfortably managed by movie rentals rather than movie purchases, which means the original price paid to the studios for rental movies is still $17,500, which is pretty close to breaking even for the video stores. Luckily,
Being a preacher of whatever level isn't only about indoctrinating the young before they learn to think for themselves. It helps those who have "lost their way" have something to believe in.
As much as I hate to say it, organizations like AA and NA work because they make people believe in something, where they've lost sight of believing anything more than getting their next fix (alcohol or drugs). It's moving the focus. They could do the same thing by teaching someone to paint rather than drink or take drugs. But the religious zealots get 'em where ever they can find 'em. Homeless shelters. Substance abuse groups. Even the grieving. I lost my step son a few years ago. I'm very analytical. I recognize what happened (he stopped breathing and died during a seizure). My ex (we were still married at the time) can't understand why something like that will "just happen", and now has been happily adopted into the ranks of the raving religious zealots.
Some religious people, such as the reverend I mentioned, are there just to help without pushing their agenda on anyone. Unfortunately, they are the minority.
When I was in school, a student died in an accident. He was one of those who offered to help the grieving. We talked to him, and he listened. He didn't even use the "well, it was God's will" line once with me or anyone that I heard him talking to. As I recall, he said that there are things that we don't understand, and have to learn to accept and move on. He was playing the role of a good psychiatrist. He listened and reflected, and pretty much let the individual give themselves advice, as long as it was safe.
I removed a few paragraphs from that before I posted, because I thought it to be irrelevant to the conversation.. But since you brought it up, I'll oblige you.:)
When I was a younger teenager (say 13 or 14), I started seriously questioning my religion (Catholic). I was Catholic because my parents took me to church on Sundays. I learned the rituals, the words, and the meaning that we were told was behind the words. I had friends who were of other Christian faiths, and would accompany them to their respective churches on occasion. Weekend sleep-over would sometimes include Sunday church services of the host families faith. Big deal, they're all Christian, they all read the bible, right? Nope, there are different bibles, and different interpretations of even the bible.
Around 1988, I started looking for which one was "right". Hello technology. BBS's were gaining widespread acceptance. You can safely ask (under the guise of your online alias) about anything. You wouldn't be caught checking out a copy of the Quran from the local library. Well, deep in god loving Southern Baptist country who barely tolerated the Catholics, there wouldn't even be a Quran at the library, and asking could result in a rather sudden death sentence.
I met some interesting people of various faiths through the local BBS's. Beyond the "traditional" faiths (Christian, Judaism, Hindu, Islamic), I met "neo-pagans" (Wiccan and Neo-Druidism), and some self-styled "pagans", who attempted to follow what they could find of the shreds of their respective religions that survived the test of time and various political and theological conquests (Never forget the Crusades!) I learned that while very respectable, the neo-pagans didn't have much of anything that survived from the earlier periods (pre-Christianity), so they winged it based on what they could find and figure out on their own.
In the next few years, over various networks, like FidoNet, WWIVnet, VirtualNet, (since there was no "Internet" out in the boondocks yet), you could talk to people of various faiths around the world. Of course, as a teenage boy, downloading porn was far more interesting, but it was interesting to fill the gaps in masturbation sessions.
And finally in the early 90's, we had that fledgling Internet thing, and the wonders of Usenet! Now I can talk to people around the world slightly more efficiently, and get more porn. (aw, come on, the only thing more important than porn to a teenage boy is getting laid, which I was doing a pretty good job of too.) I talked to people around the world about their religions, their beliefs, and the history of their theology.
Into my 20's I was still on the quest. I knew there had to be a truth out there. Something from the early times when God or the gods spoke to man, and guided us from simple tribes to our full fledged cultures. I learned about more theologies, such as old European, Native American, Eastern (i.e., middle east through China), and African traditions. There is a vast world of amazing stories. It's an amazing trip (and probably as mind bending as a good LSD trip, if I did such things). Still, I failed to find the "truth".
In my late 20's, I classified myself as non-denominational pagan with agnostic tendencies. That is, I believed that there may be god or gods who may or may not have created the universe, and there is a possibility that there may be multiple planes of existence which are beyond our perception. We can't see radio waves, but I can prove they exist. I can't see magnetism, but I can build something that creates a magnetic field, and move things with it (I made my first electromagnet with a coil of winding wires and a 9v battery when I was about 15). I can't prove that hydrogen or oxygen are floating around us, but I can break water down into two containers, and observe their expected interactions (a plastic 2 liter bottle ful
There isn't an atheist in America who hasn't been soaked in Christian idiocy their entire lives - moderate, fundamentalist, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, the whole whacked out ball 'o wax. We know exactly what you tools believe in. You NEVER SHUT UP ABOUT IT. You even have 24/7 television networks spewing the stupidity 365 days a year.
[/me ponders this statement]
I was born into a Catholic family. I have listen to, attended services of, asked questions of, and learned from Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Methodists, Pentecostals, non-denominational Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccians, Hare Krishnas, various non-denominational pagans, Scientologists, and those who follow no traditions at all. That's not an all inclusive list, as there are different dialects and flavors of each.
Most of that has been unsolicited. By far, in 30-some odd years, Christians have by far been the most influential, in being that they've pushed their beliefs on as many others as possible, as often as possible. You don't have to read the Christian bible, because people will be kind enough to quote (and misquote) it to you often enough that you will know ever passage almost verbatim. Well, as verbatim as you can be with multiple versions of the same book in circulation. Despite this, it's still worth giving their book a read. if for nothing else, so you see the whole book that they keep referencing.
It's like living in an insane asylum. Only without the access to good drugs.
Are you sure they aren't on drugs? Or is it that we'd be more comfortable with a lithium-thorazine cocktail?
I wonder about that constantly. Yes, I know your numbers are at least generally correct.
Most religious people consider any others to be less moral. I've heard so much xian noise saying that people who don't believe in god (more specifically, their god), have no morals.
"Morals" as we understand them (don't kill, don't steal, etc) are not handed down to us by an invisible sky being. They are pack mentality, and reinforcing traits of... well... evolution.
Those cultures that evolved in believing wholesale murder is ok don't exist too long. I know if my "pack" (family/community/culture/society) is to survive and thrive, we can't just go around killing each other off. We can't steal necessities from each other. If either was outright acceptable, it would result in a rather short lived "pack". Such actions would result in retaliation by other packs, not only reducing our numbers, bu the numbers within the packs that we initiate conflicts in.
It is impossible for any branch of human society to grow as a single person. That person will find it very difficult to survive on their own. They cannot reproduce on their own, and that line will terminate rather quickly.
So morals are nothing less than traits that we have learned are necessary for the continuation of our species. Just because they were written down in a religious or legal context.
I won't go and just kill someone. Why? It's not because a religious text demands it. It's not because laws were created to punish me for doing it. It's because I know it's "wrong", because it is not advantageous for the species. Any such action will likely result in retaliation.
Maybe that's one of the things that religion has horribly wrong. Most religions that I know of can grant forgiveness by their higher power(s) (i.e., god or gods) by asking for it. So a religion makes it ok to commit such crimes, because if you honestly ask for forgiveness, then your "sins" will be absolved, and you will live in the glory of the pleasant option of the afterlife.
Unfortunately, many religions state that non-believers will experience the unpleasant version of afterlife, and therefore are less worthy of many things including life as we know it.
Already have, my friend-of-a-friend. I use Bible.cc when looking up a lot of links. Seeing how people translate certain passages differently, and then reading literal translations, provides a lot of insight on problematic passages.
But you've already failed at what I suggested to do. You're using someone elses research, which you have not independently verified.... and...
Any bible written in English is not the word of God as passed down. It's rarely a literal translation. It's a meaning translation, as it was understood by the translator. Over... and over... and over...
We still can't manage to get translations right, even with so many people understanding multiple modern languages. For example, I was watching a movie with my ex-wife (well, when we were still together). One of the bonus tracks had an interview with the writer. It was done by a french television station, but the author spoke English. That was fine for her, but I was reading the french subtitles right along with him speaking. I busted out laughing a few times, and she asked why. I gave her the literal translation of the subtitles, or as close as I could. It gets annoying when you have to say multiple word translations that all change the meaning significantly. After I told her what it literally said, I told her the meaning as they had written it.
I knew people who knew several Eastern European languages and dialects. They'd do the same for me. They'd laugh, I'd ask why, and they'd tell me either what was said by the actor or what was wrong with the translation.:)
It's part of why I don't really enjoy foreign films that I don't at least partially understand the language. Even if I only know a small subset of the language, I can usually fill in the blanks of what the translator messed up.:)
Since I'm not a linguist by trade, learning more languages is aimed towards programming languages, rather than spoken languages.
"Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it."
It would have been nice if someone had some forethought a few centuries ago and said "It's ok to say I don't know, and wait for us to find out the facts before we write down some nonsense that will confuse people later on."
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think they would have known the solution a lot quicker the second time.
I know, I know, horrible remake. Don't let that ruin a perfectly good joke. :)
I was about to say you were wrong, but you are correct.
There were other incidents several years ago, where people on the east coast of the US with antennas pointed down to the horizon, or people in Europe, could pick up the occasional unencrypted transmissions.
The gov't runs several different satellite systems. There are encrypted and unencrypted transmissions. As far as I know, none of them manipulate brain waves though (had to include that for the tinfoil hat crowd). I'd be sure that the control signals are sent over the encrypted channels. There are less encrypted channels available, so they are used for more sensitive data. Flying around on an average flight may not have constituted "sensitive" data, and could have been in the clear. If they knew it would be viewing a target of any value, it would have been on an encrypted channel.
Just like a computer though, you have to have a way to reach it. I kind of doubt they'll just give it an IP. :) You'll probably have an awful hard time gaining physical access too. I don't know much about hacking encrypted government satellites, but I'd have to guess it's a little more than trivial.
You know, I kind of question that one too...
I do believe he is dead, and they did take a DNA sample, and then give him a burial at sea. But what are the other options?
His demise...
There were news reports of his capture a couple years ago. He could have been detained the whole time. No all Al-Qaeda members would know where he was, and not all have contact with him at the same time. He could have been captured for a significant period and only a handful of people would have known.
There were news reports of his failing health. He may have died of natural causes.
And finally the Obama assertions that we killed him, in his pajamas, unarmed, in a compound very close to a military base. That sounds funny.
Verification of his death...
Obama said DNA was taken. He said it was verified with a family member. We don't know when that sample was taken, or where it was taken. It could have been taken from his dead body after we executed him (the Obama story).
It could have been taken from a sample at a hospital (he was ill, and did receive hospital treatment).
It could have been taken from him in custody (if he was).
His body could have been transported *to* that house for collection. That's an added logistics headache though.
His burial..
Assuming the first two are true, which it seems we all agree to, he could have been buried anywhere. Burial at sea has the disadvantage that no one can go back and verify anything. But, burial at sea also means there is no grave for people to go to, pray over, piss on, or whatever they may want to do.
I'll stick with believing the provided facts, unless new evidence turns up at a later date. I kind of doubt much will. They couldn't have asked for a more controlled scene.
Well, there's a phrase you don't hear every day. Congratulations.
Yes, it sure is. If you aren't feeling up to the task, we can have some folks come over to assist you. But, if you feel the solitary way is best, I'm sure we can dig up a copy of "Suicide for Dummies" and send it over.
I do understand the government's side.
I assume photos exist, or it really doesn't matter.
If we do release the photos immediately...
Part of the American public will be happy.
Part will be outraged. By American law, he has the right to due process. That should not be ignored regardless of the crimes.
Part will think it's just morbid to celebrate the death of anyone, and gratuitous violent pictures are not necessary.
Islamic extremists, especially Taliban members, will see the gratuitous display of violence against one of theirs as a motivating factor in reprisals.
If we wait a while (say a year or so), most likely the emotional responses are going to be lower. It will be a matter of historical record, rather than a current event.
As someone else said, it will probably be released "around campaign time". Well, that's probably true. An immediate release is in no one's best interest. A campaign-time release is going to be seen as a campaign ploy. The best thing he can do (IMHO) is to sign an executive order stating that the pictures will be released on a particular date in the future (about a year or so from now), possibly putting it in a 3rd party escrow, where it can't be seen until that date comes. That date would be best *after* the campaign season is done, and the election is finished. That way, it's not a campaign ploy. It doesn't add significant danger to the public, and we do know it will be released.
I'm getting visuals of a line of Cheerios(tm) being carried by ants from the front porch to the WYSE terminal in the front yard.
This cold medicine works wonders for the imagination. The doctor said take the cough syrup "as needed". I'm through three bottles just today.
That's his point. You can move if it was such a hardship that you felt it necessary to correct.
Your Internet connection isn't usually such a hardship that you would move to resolve it. I have lived in places with horrible service. When practical, I moved. But if you lived somewhere that did not have cell phone nor land line service, you would move if your job required you to be able to answer the phone. If you no longer had access to food or drinking water, you would move. If your home was destroyed, as the homes all around it, you'd leave. If you lived in a place that was dangerous, you'd move to somewhere safer. Well, people don't. Last time I checked, people still lived in bad neighborhoods with gang warfare, and war zones around the world. They don't leave.
hmmm... How bad was that Internet capping again? /me starts polishing his AR-15 for the May 21, 2011 apocalypse.
You have a terminal on your lawn? That's odd.
I think you're a bit confused.. The most "successful" under what terms?
The most abundant creatures on earth are copepods or prokaryote SAR11. I'll leave it to a zoologist to give the correct answer.
The healthiest are sharks, with no known illnesses.
Humans aren't the most prolific. That would probably go to one of the first category. We're only fertile less than 25% of the time, and not every attempt causes reproduction. Even once we do manage to fertilize an egg, there's about a 10 month period before you can hope to start the process again. Our young spawn are not able to then reproduce for over a decade. The window of reproduction is generally about 40 years, but it is generally considered humans must be over 18, and doctors strongly suggest against reproduction over 35. So, a 17 year window of acceptability for reproduction. That's a very short period.
Our lifespan is trivial compared to some. The Arctica islandica can live over 400 years. Genus Hydra and Turritopsis nutricula are considered biologically immortal, due to the way they reproduce.
Wealth (as any monetary system) was a human invention, just as religion.
When's the last time you had a chance to lay out in the grass and enjoy the sunshine, before hunting for dinner, and never had to consider going "to work" for a "paycheck" to pay "rent", "mortgage", "taxes", or other "bills"?
We may have had it pretty good. We've have done a great job of screwing up a perfectly good thing. But we're humans, and that's what we do best.
I would if I could, but there isn't anywhere in the world to get far enough away from people like you. You do make an excellent case for postpartum abortions though. If they pass the law to allow it, I'm sure you'll be the poster child.
It seems he was saying that they enjoy the human lifestyle, where they aren't paying for it.
They weren't paid anything during their "career". Retired, they may like the house. Then again, they've been trained to like the human lifestyle. Since they're given the lifestyle and don't have to fight to get their retirement fund, social security, or hold down whatever jobs they can get for the rest of their lives, it's pretty easy.
We've seen this in humans too. Young offenders, who are later repeat offenders, sometimes see prison as the place that they belong, and they will commit new crimes just to end up back in prison. If it weren't for the shanking and shower rapes, it doesn't really seem so bad. You get 3 meals a day, a bed to sleep in, clothes to wear, and security 24/7 to protect you. You can watch TV, read books, play board games, etc.
I don't know about the quote (what dolphins have cable TV?), but if you think about it, the general premise is probably right.
Why would any wild animals want to be more like us? We build and grow, leaving massive destruction in the path. We toil away constantly at some goal of wealth and happiness, which drives us from birth to death.
Dolphins live happily in the ocean. They are free to eat, sleep, and reproduce. Occasionally, they take advantage of humans by riding on their mechanically produced waves (i.e., bow wave).
Why would they want to get any closer to us than they need to? We're already terrorists, killing dolphins, polluting their environment, and kidnapping their own for human entertainment. Nope, rather than wanting to be friendly, chat with us, and take treats from us, they'd likely want to get their revenge.
I can up you on that one. Well, kinda.
I worked for a company that had "free hosting" servers. They were honestly free for customers that used our payment system. Since anyone could sign up, anyone did. We had all kinda of neat root kits, PHP shells, back doors, and the like installed. I'd sweep on a regular basis looking for them. We were locked down tight enough so they never broke very much of anything The worse would be someone would exploit something a user installed, which would deface their site. IDS helped a lot there though. :) Once in a great while, I'd find a lingering CGI which would turn out to be a back door listening on a port that wasn't open on our firewall, so all they managed to do was start a back door that no one could access.
We'd investigate the "intrusion", make any necessary corrections so it wouldn't happen again (block the user and network who uploaded the malicious code, help the customer upgrade their software to current, and remind them that it's not safe to leave ancient packages running). I had a rather nice collection of malicious code. It was all dated, and tagged with incident notes.
Unfortunately, when I left the company anything related to the company stayed there, so I no longer had my "collection".
Some people never understood why I kept it. It wasn't ever to use against anyone. It did server two purposes. The first was, I could show new employees what people would try to do. Most thought such things were theoretical, so I would show them that they really happened. The second was to research methods used by the "bad guys". To effectively defend yourself, you have to be fully aware of their methods and capable of recreating them, and even improving on their attacks so we could stay ahead of them.
Too many people being and end their security with "my servers are patched when we put them online" and "I have a firewall". All fine and dandy until you find out that it really wasn't enough.
Bob, I told you to stay off of Slashdot while you're suppose to be "working". We all know you don't do much of anything, but referencing your coworkers as incompetent slackers really doesn't make you any new friends.
Now get back to work. You've been doing that "simple" change for 2 months now. Get it done with so we can present it to the customer.
I never did understand why the hell they ever did that wrestling crap? I always assumed it was some executive there liked wrestling, so he filled the end of the day with it. To me, it's worse than putting up the test pattern and tone. The test pattern would be more entertaining.
Both are coming back on July 11th, 2011. They're already pushing them on their web site.
I like Eureka, and to a degree Warehouse 13. Eureka is fun and campy. Warehouse 13, well, not so much. It's kind of predictable, almost like a Scooby Doo mystery.
SGU was really well on it's way to being a really good show. It had a rough start, which it looks like Syfy took into account (badly) in it's decision to ditch them.
It's $1 + tax here, so it's $1.07.
Then again, since I gave my real email address, when I was renting frequently, I would get vouchers by email for free movies on a fairly regular basis, and they'd be given with food purchases at grocery stores that had a Redbox outside. So the total cost isn't necessarily even as high as $1/movie, unless you account for the storage space, power required to run your computer, and any blank DVDs you burn them to. :)
I think Redbox found the right price point for consumers. Then again, you'll still get scratched or otherwise damaged disks on occasion, which means that downloading it is more dependable than rental or online streaming.
But....
They aren't paid per rental. Video stores (if they still exist) buy videos licensed for rental use. They're a bit more expensive, but the individual payments go to the store, not to the studio.
From what I understand, the licensing for a new-release DVD for rental is higher than a new-release DVD for retail. But companies who do bulk purchases also enjoy price breaks.
Then the math gets fuzzy. How much was lost between the pirates, purchase DVD's and rentals?
Say the movie cost $29.99 retail (I didn't bother to check the price). 23,000 * 29.99 = $689,770. Oohhh, over half a million dollars lost.
But what if they were all renters? We can assume not everyone watches the movie in the same night. Say 500 DVDs were purchased, at a rental-licensed rate of $35.00 (again, arbitrary number), and all the customers rented it over the next month and a half. 500 * $35.00 = $17,500. And then your number comes into play. Assuming $5/ea for video rentals, the rental companies took in $115,000, so after the cost of the DVDs, the rental companies made $97,500.
So exactly who lost out there? The MPAA, or the local rental stores? Well, the MPAA likely still made exactly what they would have before, as the stores still needed to stock their stores. If I was a rental store, and I lost $97,500 because of piracy, I may be a bit miffed.
But...
Not all of those 23,000 are going to buy it, nor rent it.
[cue soothing music]
[In a Mr. Rogers-like voice]
Long ago, it was a simpler time... People had just discovered the wonders of indoor plumbing, microwave ovens, color television, and then the home video cassette player. This was long before most of you were born. A video cassette, in simple terms, was a box roughly twice the size of a netbook, which could hold up to 90 minutes of low quality analog video with two channel sound. This wonderful innovation allowed you to view movies in the pleasure of your own home.
This was before "The Internet", Netflix, Redbox, Hulu, YouTube, or BitTorrent ever existed, so what was this simple culture to do? They would get into their cars, and drive to local video stores to rent movies... But they cost approximately $5/day to rent. Lets not forget that this was during the era of Reagan Economics, so that was roughly equal to the monthly income for a family of 4 hard working Americans. Not everyone could afford a video cassette player, nor the cost of the rental of the video cassettes. Friends and family would get together to watch movies on home video cassette players, and promptly rewind and return the video cassette to the rental establishment.
Then the evils of piracy was invented by evil one eyed people who lived on ships and sang drinking songs before looting and pillaging.
ok, I'm making myself nauseous with the sarcasm now, so I'll stop.
23,000 people downloading does not equal 23,000 purchases, nor 23,000 rentals.. Assuming all 23,000 people were interested in viewing the movie if there was a cost associated with it, they may watch in groups of 2 to 10 (we'll say 5 for comfortable seating). That's 4,600 rentals or purchases. And lets not forget that those who purchase are likely to lend out movies to friends, which would lower the number even more. Say 75% of the original set would be willing to spend a few bucks on a rental or borrow it from a friend. That brings the number down to 17,250 people intending to watch. At an average of 5 viewers a session, that lowers the number down to 3,450, which could still be comfortably managed by movie rentals rather than movie purchases, which means the original price paid to the studios for rental movies is still $17,500, which is pretty close to breaking even for the video stores. Luckily,
Being a preacher of whatever level isn't only about indoctrinating the young before they learn to think for themselves. It helps those who have "lost their way" have something to believe in.
As much as I hate to say it, organizations like AA and NA work because they make people believe in something, where they've lost sight of believing anything more than getting their next fix (alcohol or drugs). It's moving the focus. They could do the same thing by teaching someone to paint rather than drink or take drugs. But the religious zealots get 'em where ever they can find 'em. Homeless shelters. Substance abuse groups. Even the grieving. I lost my step son a few years ago. I'm very analytical. I recognize what happened (he stopped breathing and died during a seizure). My ex (we were still married at the time) can't understand why something like that will "just happen", and now has been happily adopted into the ranks of the raving religious zealots.
Some religious people, such as the reverend I mentioned, are there just to help without pushing their agenda on anyone. Unfortunately, they are the minority.
When I was in school, a student died in an accident. He was one of those who offered to help the grieving. We talked to him, and he listened. He didn't even use the "well, it was God's will" line once with me or anyone that I heard him talking to. As I recall, he said that there are things that we don't understand, and have to learn to accept and move on. He was playing the role of a good psychiatrist. He listened and reflected, and pretty much let the individual give themselves advice, as long as it was safe.
I removed a few paragraphs from that before I posted, because I thought it to be irrelevant to the conversation.. But since you brought it up, I'll oblige you. :)
When I was a younger teenager (say 13 or 14), I started seriously questioning my religion (Catholic). I was Catholic because my parents took me to church on Sundays. I learned the rituals, the words, and the meaning that we were told was behind the words. I had friends who were of other Christian faiths, and would accompany them to their respective churches on occasion. Weekend sleep-over would sometimes include Sunday church services of the host families faith. Big deal, they're all Christian, they all read the bible, right? Nope, there are different bibles, and different interpretations of even the bible.
Around 1988, I started looking for which one was "right". Hello technology. BBS's were gaining widespread acceptance. You can safely ask (under the guise of your online alias) about anything. You wouldn't be caught checking out a copy of the Quran from the local library. Well, deep in god loving Southern Baptist country who barely tolerated the Catholics, there wouldn't even be a Quran at the library, and asking could result in a rather sudden death sentence.
I met some interesting people of various faiths through the local BBS's. Beyond the "traditional" faiths (Christian, Judaism, Hindu, Islamic), I met "neo-pagans" (Wiccan and Neo-Druidism), and some self-styled "pagans", who attempted to follow what they could find of the shreds of their respective religions that survived the test of time and various political and theological conquests (Never forget the Crusades!) I learned that while very respectable, the neo-pagans didn't have much of anything that survived from the earlier periods (pre-Christianity), so they winged it based on what they could find and figure out on their own.
In the next few years, over various networks, like FidoNet, WWIVnet, VirtualNet, (since there was no "Internet" out in the boondocks yet), you could talk to people of various faiths around the world. Of course, as a teenage boy, downloading porn was far more interesting, but it was interesting to fill the gaps in masturbation sessions.
And finally in the early 90's, we had that fledgling Internet thing, and the wonders of Usenet! Now I can talk to people around the world slightly more efficiently, and get more porn. (aw, come on, the only thing more important than porn to a teenage boy is getting laid, which I was doing a pretty good job of too.) I talked to people around the world about their religions, their beliefs, and the history of their theology.
Into my 20's I was still on the quest. I knew there had to be a truth out there. Something from the early times when God or the gods spoke to man, and guided us from simple tribes to our full fledged cultures. I learned about more theologies, such as old European, Native American, Eastern (i.e., middle east through China), and African traditions. There is a vast world of amazing stories. It's an amazing trip (and probably as mind bending as a good LSD trip, if I did such things). Still, I failed to find the "truth".
In my late 20's, I classified myself as non-denominational pagan with agnostic tendencies. That is, I believed that there may be god or gods who may or may not have created the universe, and there is a possibility that there may be multiple planes of existence which are beyond our perception. We can't see radio waves, but I can prove they exist. I can't see magnetism, but I can build something that creates a magnetic field, and move things with it (I made my first electromagnet with a coil of winding wires and a 9v battery when I was about 15). I can't prove that hydrogen or oxygen are floating around us, but I can break water down into two containers, and observe their expected interactions (a plastic 2 liter bottle ful
[/me ponders this statement]
I was born into a Catholic family. I have listen to, attended services of, asked questions of, and learned from Catholics, Baptists, Protestants, Methodists, Pentecostals, non-denominational Christians, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccians, Hare Krishnas, various non-denominational pagans, Scientologists, and those who follow no traditions at all. That's not an all inclusive list, as there are different dialects and flavors of each.
Most of that has been unsolicited. By far, in 30-some odd years, Christians have by far been the most influential, in being that they've pushed their beliefs on as many others as possible, as often as possible. You don't have to read the Christian bible, because people will be kind enough to quote (and misquote) it to you often enough that you will know ever passage almost verbatim. Well, as verbatim as you can be with multiple versions of the same book in circulation. Despite this, it's still worth giving their book a read. if for nothing else, so you see the whole book that they keep referencing.
Are you sure they aren't on drugs? Or is it that we'd be more comfortable with a lithium-thorazine cocktail?
I wonder about that constantly. Yes, I know your numbers are at least generally correct.
Most religious people consider any others to be less moral. I've heard so much xian noise saying that people who don't believe in god (more specifically, their god), have no morals.
"Morals" as we understand them (don't kill, don't steal, etc) are not handed down to us by an invisible sky being. They are pack mentality, and reinforcing traits of ... well ... evolution.
Those cultures that evolved in believing wholesale murder is ok don't exist too long. I know if my "pack" (family/community/culture/society) is to survive and thrive, we can't just go around killing each other off. We can't steal necessities from each other. If either was outright acceptable, it would result in a rather short lived "pack". Such actions would result in retaliation by other packs, not only reducing our numbers, bu the numbers within the packs that we initiate conflicts in.
It is impossible for any branch of human society to grow as a single person. That person will find it very difficult to survive on their own. They cannot reproduce on their own, and that line will terminate rather quickly.
So morals are nothing less than traits that we have learned are necessary for the continuation of our species. Just because they were written down in a religious or legal context.
I won't go and just kill someone. Why? It's not because a religious text demands it. It's not because laws were created to punish me for doing it. It's because I know it's "wrong", because it is not advantageous for the species. Any such action will likely result in retaliation.
Maybe that's one of the things that religion has horribly wrong. Most religions that I know of can grant forgiveness by their higher power(s) (i.e., god or gods) by asking for it. So a religion makes it ok to commit such crimes, because if you honestly ask for forgiveness, then your "sins" will be absolved, and you will live in the glory of the pleasant option of the afterlife.
Unfortunately, many religions state that non-believers will experience the unpleasant version of afterlife, and therefore are less worthy of many things including life as we know it.
But you've already failed at what I suggested to do. You're using someone elses research, which you have not independently verified. ... and ...
Any bible written in English is not the word of God as passed down. It's rarely a literal translation. It's a meaning translation, as it was understood by the translator. Over ... and over ... and over...
We still can't manage to get translations right, even with so many people understanding multiple modern languages. For example, I was watching a movie with my ex-wife (well, when we were still together). One of the bonus tracks had an interview with the writer. It was done by a french television station, but the author spoke English. That was fine for her, but I was reading the french subtitles right along with him speaking. I busted out laughing a few times, and she asked why. I gave her the literal translation of the subtitles, or as close as I could. It gets annoying when you have to say multiple word translations that all change the meaning significantly. After I told her what it literally said, I told her the meaning as they had written it.
I knew people who knew several Eastern European languages and dialects. They'd do the same for me. They'd laugh, I'd ask why, and they'd tell me either what was said by the actor or what was wrong with the translation. :)
It's part of why I don't really enjoy foreign films that I don't at least partially understand the language. Even if I only know a small subset of the language, I can usually fill in the blanks of what the translator messed up. :)
Since I'm not a linguist by trade, learning more languages is aimed towards programming languages, rather than spoken languages.
I'm sure you've seen this, right?
"Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it."
It would have been nice if someone had some forethought a few centuries ago and said "It's ok to say I don't know, and wait for us to find out the facts before we write down some nonsense that will confuse people later on."