Yeah-- it is not literally nobody-- but statistically it is probably pretty close.
I'm like you. I dig on e-books. Shoot, I read the last first 5 harry potter books on my laptop. Then I went out last week-end and bought them all in paperback. There really is no comparison.
I don't think what Cory is doing is 'hollow' but it isn't the same yet. The parent has a pretty good point.
I use a slightly modified version of wordpress for my personal site. I didn't have time to write my own, tried a bunch and settled on wordpress for many of the points mentioned above.
I think humans can accomplish the most in large groups. These large groups will involve politics and will come into conflict with one another. I don't think humans will be able to get along well enough to form one single large group any time soon.
So one can label these sub-groups whatever they want. It is my opinion that they will fight for control of one another and that as technology improves this will include fighting for what the linked pdf calls the 'high ground'
Many other nations don't display aggressive nationalism as commonly seen in the 'Western world'.
I truly don't believe that this statement can be supported by facts - current or historical. But then again it is somewhat nebulous. What is many? What is 'aggressive' nationalism? What kind of time frame are we looking at? I can immediately think of some of the most ruthless empire building the world has seen and it did not take place in the west. Nor was it instigated by western nations. Again I propose that this is a human problem.
That's where the second part comes in. If for some reason Antartica was percieved as essential to the u.s. military, they already have the assets to take it.
In regards to space they are just trying to anticipate and prepare. Some of the airforce leadership apparently see the L points as having some significance that is worth their consideration.
This has been an interesting thread to me as you get to see pretty quickly how there are a lot of people who are very optomistic about humanity and those who take a less hopeful view. (Sorry that sentence seems kind of loaded -- but I'm just too tired to think on it too hard)
I personally think human beings are born pretty nasty and all in all stay that way. I think the folks sent to space thus far haven't been really representative of the group as a whole. And this whole article revolved around needing control of those points to be succesful in fighting on the ground. The two are tied together.
We'll see how it all works out, well somebody will. I am not opposed to your view point being correct, just doubtful.
Why isn't this a viable model for control of the LaGrange points?
Because antarctica does not share the same level of strategic significance. And the U.S. already has the tools to gain and maintain control over antarctica, were it to become strategically important. Not so with the L points.
I didn't get fp - wasn't really trying. Just didn't elaborate because tt seems so freaking obvious to me.
Some guy in Holland got killed for making a movie and the killer told the judge he would do it again given the chance and then was cruel to the victim's mother. Yeah-- but if he was in zero g it would all be love and happiness.
Another good response would have been simply - Wherever you go, there you are.
Humans in space are still humans just like the one on this blue ball.
Long held theory-- obviously can't be proved or disproved since nothing like it has ever happened. But I doubt it will work out that way. Humans will continue to compete with one another and will form 'teams' based on differences that help delineate who is who.
Though right at this moment I'd say there are few players at this level and they are all military in nature. But down the road everybody will join in.
Any group which intends to use physical force to impose its will on the surface of this planet, will need to be able to maintain assets in space. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. (har, har, har)
they're equivalent to saying that we shouldn't even be having these rivalries here on the ground
Which is a point made a couple posts down in this thread. But we all know about wishes. And you are right. Rather than look at it as space vs. earth -- think about it as human beings engaged in group activities. Then you realize that conflict is not just likely, it is inevitable.
Not to mention the paper linked here is talking about space dominance to insure dominance on the ground.
Everybody is 'biased'. In fact a better word might be that everyone has a perspective. (A little less pejorative) The creator and the player both bring things to the game, conciously or uncounciously. This is why interaction with others is so valuable. It allows you to gain access to other perspectives.
It is impossible to do almost anything without betraying some part of ones world view. This is true in every day life, doubly so in things that people create.
Novels, movies, music, painting.... They all reflect some of the creators presuppositions. In a simulation it is the same. A person or group of persons has complete control over what exists, what does not exist and how it interacts. How could it not reflect their view of reality?
I admire your regional pride. I thank you for the chuckle. The 'd' was a typo and I didn't preview. I'm still not gonna google it though. Just keep making fun of the name. I expect plenty of chuckles from co-workers tomorrow when I bring it up. sorry. (well not really sorry, but you know what I mean)
Point taken. I have no reply, I want to mull it over. But I did want to say 'thanks' for the comment. I had not considered that aspect and will now do so.
My point was more along the lines of I can't get to the bottom of it. It's not really apathy-- it is just way too complicated a matter to be settled reading what is posted on the web and my life doesn't allow me time to go beyond that. Not to mention I probably will just not have access to all the information - whether I want it or not.
I see what you are saying, but I think a wrong action can be worse than no action and I don't feel informed enough to move. If you are right-- I'm so apathetic I don't even know it. (that strikes me as a bit funny)
The thing is-- it is quite possible that nobody knows he was doing something wrong except for him.
I don't doubt the depiction of verifiable events (law suit, search warrant, letter sent) and they lead me to lean towards thinking he did nothing wrong. But I don't know. And I'm not dishing up my cash until I do.
The fact that he is well known just doesn't have much to do with it. I've been shocked by what people I know personally have done. I've never met this guy before in my life. That he is a skilled programmer tells me nothing about what is really going on.
There will be public documents for his arrest and the lawsuit that will allow one to know if those things really happened. But as for who is truly the guilty party, I doubt that will be so easy to decide.
But the parent post is right regardless of where the guilt lies. The more that comes to light, the more likely the truth will prevail. The more attention this gets, the greater the odds that people will get to what really happened. If the company is jacking him over, we'll find out. If he's a weasel that really stole stuff, this will motivate the company to provide real proof that goes beyond vague allegations.
because all I know about the case is what I read on slashdot and a site set up by this guys friends. I have no idea what is going on and I don't have time to fly to Kind of Prussia (wtf?) and look into it. Even if I did, I don't think the suits at his former employer are going to take the time to go through interviews with me so I can decide whether or not I should contribute to his legal fund.
Sucks for him if he didn't do anything wrong. If so I hope it works out. If it goes to court and he is found innocent-- then giving to the fund would be a lot easier.
we get to see him actually grow as he processes the siutation live on the dot.
i'm more interested in the top response where the guy ordered internet and gets cable t.v. through the wire...... where'd i put that little combo wrench?....
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah-- it is not literally nobody-- but statistically it is probably pretty close.
I'm like you. I dig on e-books. Shoot, I read the last first 5 harry potter books on my laptop. Then I went out last week-end and bought them all in paperback. There really is no comparison.
I don't think what Cory is doing is 'hollow' but it isn't the same yet. The parent has a pretty good point.
This is the site I used to pick out software for myself. Very convenient being able to try so many out in one place.
I use a slightly modified version of wordpress for my personal site. I didn't have time to write my own, tried a bunch and settled on wordpress for many of the points mentioned above.
It has worked nicely for me.
Always a good possibility. Especially at that level where politics is the name of the game.
I think humans can accomplish the most in large groups. These large groups will involve politics and will come into conflict with one another. I don't think humans will be able to get along well enough to form one single large group any time soon.
So one can label these sub-groups whatever they want. It is my opinion that they will fight for control of one another and that as technology improves this will include fighting for what the linked pdf calls the 'high ground'
Many other nations don't display aggressive nationalism as commonly seen in the 'Western world'.
I truly don't believe that this statement can be supported by facts - current or historical. But then again it is somewhat nebulous. What is many? What is 'aggressive' nationalism? What kind of time frame are we looking at? I can immediately think of some of the most ruthless empire building the world has seen and it did not take place in the west. Nor was it instigated by western nations. Again I propose that this is a human problem.
nada -- put in a bunch of numbers, no movement. Of course soon the site itself will be completely down if it isn't already.
That's where the second part comes in. If for some reason Antartica was percieved as essential to the u.s. military, they already have the assets to take it.
In regards to space they are just trying to anticipate and prepare. Some of the airforce leadership apparently see the L points as having some significance that is worth their consideration.
This has been an interesting thread to me as you get to see pretty quickly how there are a lot of people who are very optomistic about humanity and those who take a less hopeful view. (Sorry that sentence seems kind of loaded -- but I'm just too tired to think on it too hard)
I personally think human beings are born pretty nasty and all in all stay that way. I think the folks sent to space thus far haven't been really representative of the group as a whole. And this whole article revolved around needing control of those points to be succesful in fighting on the ground. The two are tied together.
We'll see how it all works out, well somebody will. I am not opposed to your view point being correct, just doubtful.
very good. threw me for a second (I can be slow) but I appreciate your humor. Give me something to smile about on the commute home.
Why isn't this a viable model for control of the LaGrange points?
Because antarctica does not share the same level of strategic significance. And the U.S. already has the tools to gain and maintain control over antarctica, were it to become strategically important. Not so with the L points.
I didn't get fp - wasn't really trying. Just didn't elaborate because tt seems so freaking obvious to me.
Some guy in Holland got killed for making a movie and the killer told the judge he would do it again given the chance and then was cruel to the victim's mother. Yeah-- but if he was in zero g it would all be love and happiness.
Another good response would have been simply - Wherever you go, there you are.
Humans in space are still humans just like the one on this blue ball.
Long held theory-- obviously can't be proved or disproved since nothing like it has ever happened. But I doubt it will work out that way. Humans will continue to compete with one another and will form 'teams' based on differences that help delineate who is who.
Though right at this moment I'd say there are few players at this level and they are all military in nature. But down the road everybody will join in.
Any group which intends to use physical force to impose its will on the surface of this planet, will need to be able to maintain assets in space. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. (har, har, har)
they're equivalent to saying that we shouldn't even be having these rivalries here on the ground
Which is a point made a couple posts down in this thread. But we all know about wishes. And you are right. Rather than look at it as space vs. earth -- think about it as human beings engaged in group activities. Then you realize that conflict is not just likely, it is inevitable.
Not to mention the paper linked here is talking about space dominance to insure dominance on the ground.
Or should we prepare for the fact that such rivalries are inevitable, even in space?
Everybody is 'biased'. In fact a better word might be that everyone has a perspective. (A little less pejorative) The creator and the player both bring things to the game, conciously or uncounciously. This is why interaction with others is so valuable. It allows you to gain access to other perspectives.
It is impossible to do almost anything without betraying some part of ones world view. This is true in every day life, doubly so in things that people create.
Novels, movies, music, painting.... They all reflect some of the creators presuppositions. In a simulation it is the same. A person or group of persons has complete control over what exists, what does not exist and how it interacts. How could it not reflect their view of reality?
I admire your regional pride. I thank you for the chuckle. The 'd' was a typo and I didn't preview. I'm still not gonna google it though. Just keep making fun of the name. I expect plenty of chuckles from co-workers tomorrow when I bring it up. sorry. (well not really sorry, but you know what I mean)
Point taken. I have no reply, I want to mull it over. But I did want to say 'thanks' for the comment. I had not considered that aspect and will now do so.
My point was more along the lines of I can't get to the bottom of it. It's not really apathy-- it is just way too complicated a matter to be settled reading what is posted on the web and my life doesn't allow me time to go beyond that. Not to mention I probably will just not have access to all the information - whether I want it or not.
I see what you are saying, but I think a wrong action can be worse than no action and I don't feel informed enough to move. If you are right-- I'm so apathetic I don't even know it. (that strikes me as a bit funny)
The thing is-- it is quite possible that nobody knows he was doing something wrong except for him.
I don't doubt the depiction of verifiable events (law suit, search warrant, letter sent) and they lead me to lean towards thinking he did nothing wrong. But I don't know. And I'm not dishing up my cash until I do.
The fact that he is well known just doesn't have much to do with it. I've been shocked by what people I know personally have done. I've never met this guy before in my life. That he is a skilled programmer tells me nothing about what is really going on.
There will be public documents for his arrest and the lawsuit that will allow one to know if those things really happened. But as for who is truly the guilty party, I doubt that will be so easy to decide.
But the parent post is right regardless of where the guilt lies. The more that comes to light, the more likely the truth will prevail. The more attention this gets, the greater the odds that people will get to what really happened. If the company is jacking him over, we'll find out. If he's a weasel that really stole stuff, this will motivate the company to provide real proof that goes beyond vague allegations.
because all I know about the case is what I read on slashdot and a site set up by this guys friends. I have no idea what is going on and I don't have time to fly to Kind of Prussia (wtf?) and look into it. Even if I did, I don't think the suits at his former employer are going to take the time to go through interviews with me so I can decide whether or not I should contribute to his legal fund.
Sucks for him if he didn't do anything wrong. If so I hope it works out. If it goes to court and he is found innocent-- then giving to the fund would be a lot easier.
we get to see him actually grow as he processes the siutation live on the dot.
i'm more interested in the top response where the guy ordered internet and gets cable t.v. through the wire...... where'd i put that little combo wrench?....
the whole thing looks to be some kind of joke based on the end
But if they killed analog broadcasts and my bunny ears bringing t.v. into my home, they would probably be doing me a favor more than anything else.
Last week I ordered cox for internet and phone service but I see no point in getting t.v. from them.