Wasn't it in The Next Generation? No tactile feedback on consoles, consistent UI everywhere even when it comes at the expense of usability, and no fuses anywhere (saves a bit of manufacturing cost and keeps the margins high). Sounds like an Apple design to me...
Speaking of future technology; this might be a little out there, but since Star Trek is huge again right now, I was thinking about future technology like "sensors" and the legal ramifications of that kind of tech.
Most progressives consider the Star Trek universe nearly perfect, as there's apparently no need for money (or at least, the concept of "wealth" is no longer), no greed, individual rights and freedoms are held in the highest esteem, etc.. but yet the Enterprise and probably any other substantial Federation vessel of the time can track virtually anyone without the need for any attached device.
How many times has the Enterprise tracked someone -human or alien- from orbit (and not of their own crew) with the ship's sensors, and gotten not only their location but all kinds of other personal data about that being as well? Did Picard (and thus the Federation by proxy) violate that individual's rights?
How will we (legally) deal with that when the day comes that we actually have the capability to do that?
It seems to be an inevitable eventuality.
Whats the larger issue, the fact that the police can track you, or that they stuck something on your property - your car?
No, default allow when say something like "you can do it even if it's not listed here." Default deny is where it says "reserved to the states, or the people." The federal government is specifically barred from something if it is not enumerated.
Falcon
I understand the meaning of default allow, and it's what I meant.
The question here falls to the exact meaning of "reserved to", then.
I guess it's just a case of semantics.
That sure sounded to me like the intention was to "reserve to (for) the people (to do and use as they see fit)", not "prohibit from".
If it had said "reserved from the states and people", then fine, that's pretty obvious, but to "reserve to" sounds like an exclusive granting, to me, not the opposite.
So "from" means the same as "to" in the 10th amendment?
seems like a lot of work for 50 bucks
I've taken machines from boxes-o'-shrinkwrapped-parts to running XP in under an hour or actual work (I wouldn't count the two
"click once then go away for half an hour" steps as billable work unless they failed for some reason on the first try and I
needed to babysit it). I'd feel bad about trying to charge a full hour for just that part...
And as for the file recovery, you generally have two situations - Either the old HDD works just fine (except for a broken Windows
install) and you just need to copy it over to the new one, or no one has any shot of recovering it. So another hour, tops.
Err... did you read the article? I think the parent poster was referring to the work of breaking into the realty office and removing the hard drive in the first place.
The thief didn't have to recover any data, all he needed to do was simply reinstall the hard drive he stole, but going to the trouble of breaking in and stealing it would be a lot of hassle for just $50. (of course, that was not the case - he charged $2000)
Actually, it means congress and state legislatures can't do anything they aren't explicitly allowed to. That doesn't mean a whole lot given the commerce clause, but the the constitution is mostly default-deny regarding government authority, not default-allow as you seem to believe. As far as court decisions expanding authority beyond what is actually allowed (Wickard for instance), remember that just because the court claims something is constitutional doesn't guarantee that it actually is.
How do you figure?
It read, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
That is, powers not specifically enumerated are reserved to the states or to it's people. That sounds like default allow to me.
To me, the most obvious and glaring evil in this bill is that, on the face of it, it talks of cyberbullying children, yet the actual text of the bill states nothing of age restrictions, but simply says "Whoever".
There are no restrictions of any kind, no context given. It is so overly broad it's downright scary.
As written, this is nothing less than criminal in it's own right, a very transparent grab for more governmental power and control over the people.
Even then, I don't understand how "cyberbullying" is any worse than the old fashioned bullying I sometimes endured in school when I was a kid.
How is cyberbullying so much worse? You can't hit someone over the Internet. Rumors and lies can still be spread about you by word of mouth as well as electronic media, and that's already covered by slander laws. For that matter, we already have existing libel laws too. There is absolutely no need for new, invasive and sweeping legislation like this.
People are wondering why anyone would even attempt such a bill, knowing it should fall flat on it's face, ultimtately. Perhaps party politics is at work. One party can often point the finger at the other for failing to support a bill which, devoid of all detail, overall sounds to constituents like a "good" thing, and then this is used to smear the opposition.
Since the Bill is graced with the name of a real child in order to evoke sympathy and a more powerful emotional response, I tend to think this is likely. Pass or not, for "Dirty Sanchez", it's win-win.
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
As I understand it, it is the inconsistency of the drug laws in Holland that is at fault here. While there are these licensed coffee shops for weed, the proprietors are forced to buy from illegal suppliers because there is no legal means of production. This drives an illegal industry where there clearly needs to be legal supply lines.
That's nuts. And confusing. They should just legalize and regulate it fully. What the hell, they're already 50% of the way there, or at least years ahead of where most other countries are.
That said, I can sort of understand why they'd currently want to monitor large farms, if it's fueling crime or posing fire hazards.
Other than that, I haven't much to add to the thread, I basically agree with all the sentiments here. Prohibtion of pot creates more problems than it "solves" (if any). Making pot illegal is the only thing that makes it a "gateway" drug. Make it legal and you remove users from that criminal environment. Plus, the economy would recover in record time. The income from taxation would go a long way towards reducing the deficit.
Legalization might not be as unrealistic as some people think: I know quite a few people in law enforcement, many of whom personally and confidentially believe it ought to to be legalized. They're not all narcs blindly hellbent on ridding the world of "herbal evils".
Researchers are also starting to acknowledge it's medicinal applications, where that was usually refuted before. It's slow going but progress is being made.
People also need better education in understanding that "hemp", as used for rope and textiles, has no THC in it at all. Basically, they just need to stop demonizing inanimate (or non-human)objects and make people accept a little more personal responsibility for their actions.
It will never be more acceptable than tobacco smoking. Look what's happening with that in the US. Even in the states that are "close" to legalizing marijuana.
If you're referring to the health issues associated with inhaling any kind of smoke, the current trend of vaporization, rather than actually burning the leaves, may be something of a boon to the decriminalize/legalize effort. Alternatively, pot can also be eaten/ingested. (Though, out of curiosity, I've never heard of anyone brewing a tea from it; I guess that doesn't work? Anyone care to brave an answer?)
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
As I stated earlier, this research was from cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The federal government under GWBush funded this type of research and only banned funding from embryonic stem cells coming from new lines.
You know that, and I know that, and you can say this until you're blue in the face, but the hard core Bush bashers probably aren't going to listen. They'll still believe and repeat the lie that Bush "banned" all "stem cell research" to the day they die, just as a good many of them actually believe Sarah Palin really said "I can see Russia from my house" - when in fact it was comedian Tina Fey who said that in a skit on SNL.
Vitriol flows better when truth doesn't get in it's way.
I'm not even a "pro-life" conservative, for that matter; I'm just sick and tired of hearing this disinformation repeated ad nasueum.
The truth is, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. Bush didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. He only banned federal level funding for it. The States and the private sector were free to do as they pleased.
Further, he didn't even ban federal funding for research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells, only on new lines.
And all other forms of stem cell research, and their funding (cord, adult) were not restricted whatsoever.
Did you mean "quantum" physics turns out to be involved in how the brain works?
I've been reading about Fritz Albert Popp's experiments, for example; how animal biology emits and uses coherent UV light, at the photon level, for cell intercommunication, and how microtubules in the cytoskeletons of cells (including neurons) might act as waveguides.
Interesting stuff. It appears (at this stage anyway) macro-biology and QM work together more than previously imagined.
I would think devices like these will help a lot of people to focus better and improve their concentration. With all the sensory overload and multitasking thrust on us these days, I think that's probably a good thing. The future applications are very promising, if not revolutionary.
I saw an article on these gadgets about a month ago, I'm dying to try one or two out. I just wish the Neuroksy/Uncle Milton's Force Trainer gadget didn't have all those dorky Jedi sounds to distract you -hopefully you can turn them off. (The TFA didn't describe them in detail but other review sites have)
Breaking the law to enforce the law.. way to piss on justice."
Actually, when you think about it, the police regularly break the law to uphold it. Look at how they catch speeders: They usually have to speed themselves to catch up to the speeder in order to pull him over, or they even might just tail behind a speeder for a while and clock him with their own speedometer - thus breaking the law themselves by speeding themselves.
To a degree, in general, law enforcement has to operate a little outside the law, at times, to do the job. At times. I'm not saying give them carte blanche or anything stupid like that, but they require some slack, here and there, or the goal would likely be impossible to achieve.
Is the furor over this system they deployed, or over the matter of obtaining warrants to use it? Without such a system, they'd be relatively crippled in their ability to catch real net criminals and cyber-terrorists, and if they failed in that endeavor, everyone would just bitch about how useless they are, why aren't they doing something about crime, etc.
It seems lose-lose no matter what "they" do - either they're going to be accused of being ineffective at stopping crime/terrorism, or accused of stomping on everyone's rights, even when they follow the protocols and procedure.
If there are better alternatives, what are they?
Do you seriously think the vast majority of americans want the kind of insane spending that our government is doing?? That's exactly what we're complaining about - not just for lower taxes, but lower spending as well, because we're not benefiting all that much from it as it is. There's far too much pork.
--
*If* some researchers are right, (not saying they are) and the brain is actually something like a quantum holographic recorder, storing data and memory in the zero point field, (rather than chemically I suppose), I can see how quantum math would apply in this case - it sounds very similar.
The way that people parrot Quantum Theory at the moment (in an attempt to explain anything vaguely unexplained) has parallels with the Victorian reliance on the Luminiferous Aether.
Except ether was a strictly theoretical construct invented to explain gaps in knowledge, with absolutely no proof of it's existence. We have a better working knowledge of the quantum universe than that. Quarks, electrons, and photons are quantum bits that have been discovered and manipulated. Now there's even "virtual" particles (Zero Point Field).
You can't make applied science of natural science unless you have the natural science correct, or at least partially right -and quantum encryption is almost here, so we're way more on track than the Victorians were.
This is something that bugs me about people all over the world, not just Americans. You have no right whatsoever to be proud of the fact that you happened to be born in a particular country - if it's really so great then you should be humbled because it means that you had a lot of advantages that other people lacked. You do, however, have a right to be proud of how you have helped improve your country. By saying that it is perfect already, you immediately deny yourself the chance to be part of improving it.
Did it ever occur to you that what *most* people mean by "proud to be an American" is that they're proud of their country and fellow citizens, not proud of themselves, per se?
I think there's a fine semantic distinction at work here, but what most of those patriot types are saying (I believe) is that they're proud of their nation's history, and proud of the men (and women) who forged it's creation, those who made it even greater, and those who fought to keep it the way it is. I really don't think they're saying they're proud of themselves for merely being born. They are, in fact, saying they consider themselves very lucky to have been born in the US. There's a actually a touch of humility in what they say.
Now, there might be some loud mouthed bozos who really think they're the shit merely for being born in the US, but I don't think they're the majority of people who say "proud to be an American" - particularly among the older citizens.
I sincerely hope no one thinks their country is perfect, though, there is no such thing.
Oh you didn't get the memo? The Obama Administration is all about changing names! Speaking of which, I wonder what new, confusing name the Obama Administration is going to come up with for "Warrantless Wiretapping". Suggestions?
"Preapproved Telecommunication Intercepts"? I dunno, sounds "better" to me.;-)
Yeah but what cayenne8 is saying is that Saddam acted like he had weapons he was hiding, and because Saddam used stalling tactics on Blix's crew time and time again, giving the illusion (if not for real)that he was cleaning up areas and moving weapons before the UN could get there to inspect. IIRC, Saddam flatly denied access to many areas in some cases (even if he rescinded later) which still bought him time. How could Blix have known if there were weapons there or not with all that going on? Forensic testing? Is that 100% foolproof? So the UN report's credibility was questioned - whether it was right or wrong, there was too much uncertainty. When cops do a drug raid on a house they don't announce their intent 2 days prior - they'd never find anything either.
I guess the big question is, how many UN inspections did they manage to pull off without prior notice being given (or tipped) to the Iraqi government, and without the ever present Iraqi "minders"? We still don't know if any weapons were smuggled to Syria, but that's still a possibility too. We may never know.
There was good reason for suspicion; Saddam had bio weapons scant years earlier, so there was definitely a precedent there - it was not just a fairy tale made up out of thin air. The guy had made and used bio weapons before, that much was solid fact. Considering Saddam's behavior and actions during the inspections, even if just a bluff, he was sending the wrong signals.
Like you, FL, I also used to be a hard nose skeptic - no, scratch that, not a skeptic, more like a "cynic"; skepticism is healthy, cynicism is what we're dealing with here though. Over my 46 years, certain life experiences taught me to be more accepting of the possibilities (and claims of others) while at the same time, I came to fully realize that science is not so black & white, cut and dried, and nowhere near complete. It's not that I'm "anti-science" or anything (far far from it!) it's just that a cynical attitude is not very scientific.
What people seem to forget in every modern generation, is that science itself is a work in progress, subject to revision or even a total overhaul as new data permits. We make new discoveries everyday; we've detected new forms of matter or energy unknown to us before; we constantly learn that seeing is not necessary to believing, as there is a whole universe outside our 5 limited senses, one we're immersed in nonetheless.
Yet, history is full of "experts", (who in hindsight, should've known better) declaring this and that are "nonsense" on the basis of the current scientific knowledge at that time. Does anyone really believe that we know just about everything we're going to know, or even that our current view of how the universe is absolutely correct and infallible, and all that's left to do is build on the current foundation? Damn, that's just arrogant and hard headed. Those with such a rigid, inflexible, unforgivable worldview can hardly claim to be "scientific"; in fact that attitude is the very antithesis of the spirit of science.
Look how many people used to believe heavier than air flight was scientifically impossible. Pasteur's "germ theory" was rejected by a peer as "ridiculous fiction". There's a pretty good list of these poor judgements on the MIT website http://web.mit.edu/randy/www/words.html
People need to be less willing to make a kneejerk denial of something as "unscientific".
And besides the point, nothing is every truly "proven", scientifically or otherwise.
Who uses a "6" for a "B"? I always used an "8".
Plus, you're interchangeably using "1" for both "i" and "L", which is confusing. (I know, tricky when both letters are in the same word). That's why I prefer "|_" for "L">;-)
That should read:
101. 7#47'5 pR0848|_y 4 g00d 1d34;-) 83|_13v3/\/\3, u 5#0u1d 83 g|_4D 5|_45#d07 d035/\/'7 4|_|_0\/\/ un/c0d3 c#4R5 0r 7#15 c0u|_d g37 pr377y kR4zY, Y0u k/\/0\/\/
God. I can't believe I can read this stuff either. Scary.
Slashdot Mirror
An Enterprise bridge designed by Apple
Wasn't it in The Next Generation? No tactile feedback on consoles, consistent UI everywhere even when it comes at the expense of usability, and no fuses anywhere (saves a bit of manufacturing cost and keeps the margins high). Sounds like an Apple design to me...
Michael Okuda generally designs the LCARS environment on a Macintosh, running MacroMedia Director.
http://www.treknation.com/interviews/okuda_qa.shtml
The premise is that this is an alternate timeline for Star Trek. So in this version Kirk can act, doesn't wear a toupee or a girdle...
George Takei, you're on /. ?!
Speaking of future technology; this might be a little out there, but since Star Trek is huge again right now, I was thinking about future technology like "sensors" and the legal ramifications of that kind of tech.
Most progressives consider the Star Trek universe nearly perfect, as there's apparently no need for money (or at least, the concept of "wealth" is no longer), no greed, individual rights and freedoms are held in the highest esteem, etc.. but yet the Enterprise and probably any other substantial Federation vessel of the time can track virtually anyone without the need for any attached device.
How many times has the Enterprise tracked someone -human or alien- from orbit (and not of their own crew) with the ship's sensors, and gotten not only their location but all kinds of other personal data about that being as well? Did Picard (and thus the Federation by proxy) violate that individual's rights?
How will we (legally) deal with that when the day comes that we actually have the capability to do that? It seems to be an inevitable eventuality.
Whats the larger issue, the fact that the police can track you, or that they stuck something on your property - your car?
No, default allow when say something like "you can do it even if it's not listed here." Default deny is where it says "reserved to the states, or the people." The federal government is specifically barred from something if it is not enumerated.
Falcon
I understand the meaning of default allow, and it's what I meant.
The question here falls to the exact meaning of "reserved to", then.
I guess it's just a case of semantics.
That sure sounded to me like the intention was to "reserve to (for) the people (to do and use as they see fit)", not "prohibit from".
If it had said "reserved from the states and people", then fine, that's pretty obvious, but to "reserve to" sounds like an exclusive granting, to me, not the opposite.
So "from" means the same as "to" in the 10th amendment?
Freakin' legalspeak!
seems like a lot of work for 50 bucks I've taken machines from boxes-o'-shrinkwrapped-parts to running XP in under an hour or actual work (I wouldn't count the two "click once then go away for half an hour" steps as billable work unless they failed for some reason on the first try and I needed to babysit it). I'd feel bad about trying to charge a full hour for just that part... And as for the file recovery, you generally have two situations - Either the old HDD works just fine (except for a broken Windows install) and you just need to copy it over to the new one, or no one has any shot of recovering it. So another hour, tops.
Err... did you read the article? I think the parent poster was referring to the work of breaking into the realty office and removing the hard drive in the first place.
The thief didn't have to recover any data, all he needed to do was simply reinstall the hard drive he stole, but going to the trouble of breaking in and stealing it would be a lot of hassle for just $50. (of course, that was not the case - he charged $2000)
Actually, it means congress and state legislatures can't do anything they aren't explicitly allowed to. That doesn't mean a whole lot given the commerce clause, but the the constitution is mostly default-deny regarding government authority, not default-allow as you seem to believe. As far as court decisions expanding authority beyond what is actually allowed (Wickard for instance), remember that just because the court claims something is constitutional doesn't guarantee that it actually is.
How do you figure?
It read, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "
That is, powers not specifically enumerated are reserved to the states or to it's people. That sounds like default allow to me.
The Japanese version of waterboarding killed people, or injured them for life. Ours does neither.
Interesting. Can you provide a citation for this?
To me, the most obvious and glaring evil in this bill is that, on the face of it, it talks of cyberbullying children, yet the actual text of the bill states nothing of age restrictions, but simply says "Whoever". There are no restrictions of any kind, no context given. It is so overly broad it's downright scary.
As written, this is nothing less than criminal in it's own right, a very transparent grab for more governmental power and control over the people.
Even then, I don't understand how "cyberbullying" is any worse than the old fashioned bullying I sometimes endured in school when I was a kid.
How is cyberbullying so much worse? You can't hit someone over the Internet. Rumors and lies can still be spread about you by word of mouth as well as electronic media, and that's already covered by slander laws. For that matter, we already have existing libel laws too. There is absolutely no need for new, invasive and sweeping legislation like this.
People are wondering why anyone would even attempt such a bill, knowing it should fall flat on it's face, ultimtately. Perhaps party politics is at work. One party can often point the finger at the other for failing to support a bill which, devoid of all detail, overall sounds to constituents like a "good" thing, and then this is used to smear the opposition. Since the Bill is graced with the name of a real child in order to evoke sympathy and a more powerful emotional response, I tend to think this is likely. Pass or not, for "Dirty Sanchez", it's win-win.
Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
As I understand it, it is the inconsistency of the drug laws in Holland that is at fault here. While there are these licensed coffee shops for weed, the proprietors are forced to buy from illegal suppliers because there is no legal means of production. This drives an illegal industry where there clearly needs to be legal supply lines.
That's nuts. And confusing. They should just legalize and regulate it fully. What the hell, they're already 50% of the way there, or at least years ahead of where most other countries are.
That said, I can sort of understand why they'd currently want to monitor large farms, if it's fueling crime or posing fire hazards.
Other than that, I haven't much to add to the thread, I basically agree with all the sentiments here. Prohibtion of pot creates more problems than it "solves" (if any). Making pot illegal is the only thing that makes it a "gateway" drug. Make it legal and you remove users from that criminal environment. Plus, the economy would recover in record time. The income from taxation would go a long way towards reducing the deficit.
Legalization might not be as unrealistic as some people think: I know quite a few people in law enforcement, many of whom personally and confidentially believe it ought to to be legalized. They're not all narcs blindly hellbent on ridding the world of "herbal evils".
Researchers are also starting to acknowledge it's medicinal applications, where that was usually refuted before. It's slow going but progress is being made. People also need better education in understanding that "hemp", as used for rope and textiles, has no THC in it at all.
Basically, they just need to stop demonizing inanimate (or non-human)objects and make people accept a little more personal responsibility for their actions.
It will never be more acceptable than tobacco smoking. Look what's happening with that in the US. Even in the states that are "close" to legalizing marijuana.
If you're referring to the health issues associated with inhaling any kind of smoke, the current trend of vaporization, rather than actually burning the leaves, may be something of a boon to the decriminalize/legalize effort. Alternatively, pot can also be eaten/ingested. (Though, out of curiosity, I've never heard of anyone brewing a tea from it; I guess that doesn't work? Anyone care to brave an answer?)
China just beat us there. Regardless of your personal morals, you can't deny that we jumped on the brake, China didn't, and now we're sending them our professors.
As I stated earlier, this research was from cord blood stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. The federal government under GWBush funded this type of research and only banned funding from embryonic stem cells coming from new lines.
You know that, and I know that, and you can say this until you're blue in the face, but the hard core Bush bashers probably aren't going to listen. They'll still believe and repeat the lie that Bush "banned" all "stem cell research" to the day they die, just as a good many of them actually believe Sarah Palin really said "I can see Russia from my house" - when in fact it was comedian Tina Fey who said that in a skit on SNL.
Vitriol flows better when truth doesn't get in it's way.
I'm not even a "pro-life" conservative, for that matter; I'm just sick and tired of hearing this disinformation repeated ad nasueum.
The truth is, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. Bush didn't even ban embryonic stem cell research. He only banned federal level funding for it. The States and the private sector were free to do as they pleased.
Further, he didn't even ban federal funding for research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells, only on new lines.
And all other forms of stem cell research, and their funding (cord, adult) were not restricted whatsoever.
Did you mean "quantum" physics turns out to be involved in how the brain works?
I've been reading about Fritz Albert Popp's experiments, for example; how animal biology emits and uses coherent UV light, at the photon level, for cell intercommunication, and how microtubules in the cytoskeletons of cells (including neurons) might act as waveguides.
Interesting stuff. It appears (at this stage anyway) macro-biology and QM work together more than previously imagined.
I would think devices like these will help a lot of people to focus better and improve their concentration. With all the sensory overload and multitasking thrust on us these days, I think that's probably a good thing. The future applications are very promising, if not revolutionary.
I saw an article on these gadgets about a month ago, I'm dying to try one or two out. I just wish the Neuroksy/Uncle Milton's Force Trainer gadget didn't have all those dorky Jedi sounds to distract you -hopefully you can turn them off. (The TFA didn't describe them in detail but other review sites have)
"How is this not breaking the law?
Breaking the law to enforce the law.. way to piss on justice."
Actually, when you think about it, the police regularly break the law to uphold it. Look at how they catch speeders: They usually have to speed themselves to catch up to the speeder in order to pull him over, or they even might just tail behind a speeder for a while and clock him with their own speedometer - thus breaking the law themselves by speeding themselves.
To a degree, in general, law enforcement has to operate a little outside the law, at times, to do the job. At times. I'm not saying give them carte blanche or anything stupid like that, but they require some slack, here and there, or the goal would likely be impossible to achieve.
Is the furor over this system they deployed, or over the matter of obtaining warrants to use it? Without such a system, they'd be relatively crippled in their ability to catch real net criminals and cyber-terrorists, and if they failed in that endeavor, everyone would just bitch about how useless they are, why aren't they doing something about crime, etc.
It seems lose-lose no matter what "they" do - either they're going to be accused of being ineffective at stopping crime/terrorism, or accused of stomping on everyone's rights, even when they follow the protocols and procedure.
If there are better alternatives, what are they?
Do you seriously think the vast majority of americans want the kind of insane spending that our government is doing?? That's exactly what we're complaining about - not just for lower taxes, but lower spending as well, because we're not benefiting all that much from it as it is. There's far too much pork. --
*If* some researchers are right, (not saying they are) and the brain is actually something like a quantum holographic recorder, storing data and memory in the zero point field, (rather than chemically I suppose), I can see how quantum math would apply in this case - it sounds very similar.
Okay, cue the hate for quantum mysticism..
The way that people parrot Quantum Theory at the moment (in an attempt to explain anything vaguely unexplained) has parallels with the Victorian reliance on the Luminiferous Aether.
Except ether was a strictly theoretical construct invented to explain gaps in knowledge, with absolutely no proof of it's existence. We have a better working knowledge of the quantum universe than that. Quarks, electrons, and photons are quantum bits that have been discovered and manipulated. Now there's even "virtual" particles (Zero Point Field).
You can't make applied science of natural science unless you have the natural science correct, or at least partially right -and quantum encryption is almost here, so we're way more on track than the Victorians were.
This is something that bugs me about people all over the world, not just Americans. You have no right whatsoever to be proud of the fact that you happened to be born in a particular country - if it's really so great then you should be humbled because it means that you had a lot of advantages that other people lacked. You do, however, have a right to be proud of how you have helped improve your country. By saying that it is perfect already, you immediately deny yourself the chance to be part of improving it.
Did it ever occur to you that what *most* people mean by "proud to be an American" is that they're proud of their country and fellow citizens, not proud of themselves, per se?
I think there's a fine semantic distinction at work here, but what most of those patriot types are saying (I believe) is that they're proud of their nation's history, and proud of the men (and women) who forged it's creation, those who made it even greater, and those who fought to keep it the way it is. I really don't think they're saying they're proud of themselves for merely being born. They are, in fact, saying they consider themselves very lucky to have been born in the US. There's a actually a touch of humility in what they say.
Now, there might be some loud mouthed bozos who really think they're the shit merely for being born in the US, but I don't think they're the majority of people who say "proud to be an American" - particularly among the older citizens.
I sincerely hope no one thinks their country is perfect, though, there is no such thing.
And how much squatting is this going to generate? People buying up "google.search" and whatnot?
Sounds like the Bad Idea of the year to me.
Oh you didn't get the memo? The Obama Administration is all about changing names! Speaking of which, I wonder what new, confusing name the Obama Administration is going to come up with for "Warrantless Wiretapping". Suggestions?
"Preapproved Telecommunication Intercepts"? I dunno, sounds "better" to me. ;-)
Yeah but what cayenne8 is saying is that Saddam acted like he had weapons he was hiding, and because Saddam used stalling tactics on Blix's crew time and time again, giving the illusion (if not for real)that he was cleaning up areas and moving weapons before the UN could get there to inspect. IIRC, Saddam flatly denied access to many areas in some cases (even if he rescinded later) which still bought him time. How could Blix have known if there were weapons there or not with all that going on? Forensic testing? Is that 100% foolproof? So the UN report's credibility was questioned - whether it was right or wrong, there was too much uncertainty. When cops do a drug raid on a house they don't announce their intent 2 days prior - they'd never find anything either.
I guess the big question is, how many UN inspections did they manage to pull off without prior notice being given (or tipped) to the Iraqi government, and without the ever present Iraqi "minders"? We still don't know if any weapons were smuggled to Syria, but that's still a possibility too. We may never know.
There was good reason for suspicion; Saddam had bio weapons scant years earlier, so there was definitely a precedent there - it was not just a fairy tale made up out of thin air. The guy had made and used bio weapons before, that much was solid fact. Considering Saddam's behavior and actions during the inspections, even if just a bluff, he was sending the wrong signals.
Depends - will it pass the taste test?
..
Blood is mostly rusty salt water anyway
WOW. Someone truly open minded on /. - can it be?
Like you, FL, I also used to be a hard nose skeptic - no, scratch that, not a skeptic, more like a "cynic"; skepticism is healthy, cynicism is what we're dealing with here though. Over my 46 years, certain life experiences taught me to be more accepting of the possibilities (and claims of others) while at the same time, I came to fully realize that science is not so black & white, cut and dried, and nowhere near complete. It's not that I'm "anti-science" or anything (far far from it!) it's just that a cynical attitude is not very scientific.
What people seem to forget in every modern generation, is that science itself is a work in progress, subject to revision or even a total overhaul as new data permits. We make new discoveries everyday; we've detected new forms of matter or energy unknown to us before; we constantly learn that seeing is not necessary to believing, as there is a whole universe outside our 5 limited senses, one we're immersed in nonetheless.
Yet, history is full of "experts", (who in hindsight, should've known better) declaring this and that are "nonsense" on the basis of the current scientific knowledge at that time. Does anyone really believe that we know just about everything we're going to know, or even that our current view of how the universe is absolutely correct and infallible, and all that's left to do is build on the current foundation? Damn, that's just arrogant and hard headed. Those with such a rigid, inflexible, unforgivable worldview can hardly claim to be "scientific"; in fact that attitude is the very antithesis of the spirit of science.
Look how many people used to believe heavier than air flight was scientifically impossible. Pasteur's "germ theory" was rejected by a peer as "ridiculous fiction". There's a pretty good list of these poor judgements on the MIT website
http://web.mit.edu/randy/www/words.html
People need to be less willing to make a kneejerk denial of something as "unscientific".
And besides the point, nothing is every truly "proven", scientifically or otherwise.
1'11 74|3 7#47 1/\/70 (0/\/51|)3r4710/\/ ;-)
"I"ll take that into consideration" - LMAO !!! ;-)
Ooops, I mean, |_|\/|40 !
101. 7#47'5 pR06461y 4 g00d 1d34 ;-) 631/3v3 /\/\3, u 5#0u1d 63 g14D 5145#d07 d035/\/'7 4110\/\/ un/c0d3 c#4R5 0r 7#15 c0u1d g37 pr377y kR4zY, Y0u k/\/0\/\/?
Who uses a "6" for a "B"? I always used an "8". ;-)
;-) 83|_13v3 /\/\3, u 5#0u1d 83 g|_4D 5|_45#d07 d035/\/'7 4|_|_0\/\/ un/c0d3 c#4R5 0r 7#15 c0u|_d g37 pr377y kR4zY, Y0u k/\/0\/\/
Plus, you're interchangeably using "1" for both "i" and "L", which is confusing. (I know, tricky when both letters are in the same word). That's why I prefer "|_" for "L">
That should read:
101. 7#47'5 pR0848|_y 4 g00d 1d34
God. I can't believe I can read this stuff either. Scary.