Totally agree. I've watched C-SPAN enough to see enough crocodile tears and grandstanding to win an emmy. One congressman was bold enough to suggest that a union panel that had 5 Republicans, 3 Dems and 1 Union member needed to have one new member to represent the taxpayer. I was waiting for a quip from someone about "So the Republicans are now admitting they don't represent taxpayers?" But the next just said their piece, which was probably from text written by an intern 3 days before.
I'm disappointed that Hillary is following the lead of senators like Biden or thumpers like Graham. But she knows how to play the game. It's too much to ask for a politician to be honorable and in power it seems. The DLC is following a race to the bottom, right behind the RNC. Let's hope that Dean or McCain can help splinter off the honorable folks from the corporate shills.
The bad teeth in humans is due to the mutation that created larger brains (my theory). The larger brain in humans requires more space and food in the skull. Our jaws have been getting smaller and more recessed over time -- but we still have pretty much the same teeth. Thus, I think that early hominids probably had, more often than not, straighter teeth than current humans.
Thus, we evolved to need dentists, and luckily enough, our evolved brains came up with a way to figure out how to straighten teeth thus allowing for more wisdom teeth pulling in the future since humans can now wear braces rather than die of malnutrition.
Intelligent Design seems even more blasphemous than evolution. For the "Designs" to make sense, either you have inscrutable purpose that goes against free will (explain the design of depression or retardation), or you the explanation is that the Designer wasn't perfect --just really brilliant. So that means God is demoted. And so as to appear to be a science, the designer could also be an alien.
Personally, I think the ultimate result of evolution is God-hood. But trying to figure out whether aliens tinkered with human genes is kind of pointless to trying to deal with the results. Science and evolution will help us figure things out. Aliens or Deities will be crutches to our understanding (i.e., if you don't understand its "God's will"). But accepting ID at face value means that people are what they are because of Alien interference.
Evolution at least ignores the hand of God. But to get us back to "infallibility" let me pile on another idea. Accepting that ID is a science, then let us postulate that a Perfect God, created Aliens, who then designed Humans. Of course, this idea is no less worthy than any other ID postulate, since none of them can be proven or disproved anyway.
Crap, can't we get onto the original topic of the Butterflies? I agree with an earlier post that said; "Cue long series of clueless ID discussions."
I'm all for the philosophy and meaning, but there is a lot of junk here that has been disproved many times over. There are clear theories for how complex systems that seem to need to function "whole cloth" can actually evolve -- usually by re-purposing complex systems used for something else-- like the mitochondria in DNA being first parasite, then symbiote, and finally a part of most cells.
And let's let the whole "better eye" discussion rest. I'm not perfect and I can tell from looking at people that they are at best an interim design-- a "hodge-podge". Human eyes are mostly inferior to birds eyes -- even if you try to throw in arguments towards different uses or "economy of design" -- these are all Evolutionary arguments anyway. We could talk about the poor design of the foot. Or, how come we have a bunch of delicate bones and a tail on our spine? As a designer, I would have piped the nerves through another series of bones like the legs and had two maybe three large joints --tops! People could have more flexibility and strength and less damage to a large-boned three jointed back. Human bodies make sense if you look at environment and circumstances forcing an animal out of one habitat into another. We could have come out of the trees into mangrove swamps, for a few millennia, then been forced to walk upright as the water dried to desert. Throwing rocks becomes a technique for defense and hunting that allows humans to be weaker per pound than almost all other animals. My personal theory is that hominids beat out neanderthals by being weaker, so as to preserve energy and better survive the food shortages of the ice ages. All these ideas are up for debate -- but they make more sense than a human built from scratch to live just as a human does today.
And why are there so many bones in the hands and feet? I could go on. The human body is a sacrifices functionality for brain power in a lot of places. We are weaker and slower and have poorer senses than many other animals. Was that because we have big brains or in order to have big brains? I don't know, but, we'll fix all that through genetic engineering. Religious groups will bitch about that plenty enough -- I can assure you.
ID is about theocratic power. Those in the pulpit who want to think for others need explanations. When discovering that evolution was helping too many people understand things, the pseudo-science of ID "evolved" from a more primitive form called "creationism". This is a discussion about evolution from those interested in science. Don't get religion in the argument unless you want me to show up at your church and talk about the Gospel according to Mary Magdalen. Which is tempting, really tempting. But, as I've matured, I've realized that having THE WHOLE TRUTH is kind of impossible -- so fighting about who has the better truth is extremely wasteful. The best we've managed so far is the scientific method. It is a process by which theories can compete and be proved or disproved. That was a pretty good accomplishment for flawed humans--leave it be!
Also, I'm too late for this post to make much impact--but I hope that future societies who excavate the internet stores will look kindly on this post.
Did any of this cover the speciation and diversity discovery? No. Distraction has been achieved.
I think the "Hops Flavor" in beer was designed as a replacement for Horse Piss. I actually prefer lighter ales and asian rice beers. And let's not forget how Jamaicans added a lime to their Beers -- how's that for "nothing new"? Hmm?
For me, beer got improved by wine coolers.
You can hate me now.
But really, a lot of you drinking those bitter, dark ales, are just pretending to like them. If you weren't, European beers would have come with twist off caps. Twist caps are a convenience. Forcing everyone to get a bottle opener on their Swiss Army Knife is just the peak of pretension. I'd probably have a different view of Dark Beer if it weren't pasteurized like it is in the US -- or if I liked horses in a more disturbing manner.
One persons Guarana is another persons Hops-- though I've never had "Guarana beer". You have to wonder how many people have made really bad attempts at making beer-- and how many of us are drinking said beers that we "acquired a taste for". I now drink beer due to a lot of peer pressure and time to "acquire a taste" -- which could be much like enjoying prison. The whole beer thing is suspect when someone yells; "Eureka -- it tastes less like piss!"
I actually even like Blue Cheese now. I may be irredeemable.
Try a little Prune Juice. More Prune and you get Dr. Pepper or Mr. Pibb. Don't use barbecue or soy sauce -- this could lead to zombism.
More than for competitive flavor advantages, the formula must remain secret to maintain consumer consumption levels. Because if anyone were to read; "Paint stripper, aluminum silicate [as an antiperspirant] , denatured cocaine and morphene products, humors of mercury, with a dash of newt eye" --well, you can just guess what would happen to sales. I'm sure they've replaced a few natural ingredients like "eye of newt" over the years. But as anyone knows, preservatives ruin most magical potions. So don't think coke will work in a love charm like it does in a Long Island Iced Tea.
And, a little Off Topic; Couldn't national security considerations force companies to disclose "secret recipes"? I mean, in case we are getting mind altering fluids from alien glands -- you can't be too careful.
I am not a reactionary to all things not positive to Apple--but this seemed to be a total miss on what is usually technically astute reporting by Ars Technica.
One glaring issue that struck me (and I am not a CPU compiler professional; IANCCP), is that Apple was deliberately sacrificing speed for size by compiling for size. Wow. What kind of conspiracy would make that one profitable? More than likely, with the size of cache and the size of RISC instructions (and more so in 64 bit), size is more important to speed because it means you are less often having to read code from a disk. But, what, if anything has this to do with Steve Jobs moving from IBM because of a tantrum?
Why wouldn't Apple want to have leverage? And, if you can't have leverage, at least know that the company you are with is going the same direction. But now IBM is distracted by games and blades the way Motorola was distracted with cell phones and embedded system. I think Steve learns from his mistakes and he saw that after IBM had Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft-- Apple would not be getting as much service. So I totally agree with the previous post here from "amper". But I think that Steve's ego was less of an issue than what he thought was best for Apple's future (Steve is directed towards his legacy-- I think his poor temper towards fools gets mixed up with arrogance a bit). I would just like to add that it isn't just about costs or laptops or future performance--it's about all those things and probably about things that Ars Technica and the readers of Slashdot can only speculate about. Intel may not make the absolute best chip at every time of the year, but Apple will get to save so much in all the components that make up a motherboard. They can spend more time coming up with great software, and yes, a nice curvy case. From a marketing perspective, it gets rid of distracting issues of price versus performance (which most can't really understand anyway) and let's Apple compete based on a better computing experience.
But I don't think Intel is all a Panacea. There is a real issue with how Apple will make Windows applications compatible while still getting developers to make applications "Intel/Mac" compatible and not just "emulator" compatible.
But, I think that Jobs is smarter than that. He is looking at Cell phones and entertainment integration, and realizing that "Device compatible" will be more important to most home users than "Windows Compatible". So my guess is, that Steve will allow Windows applications to play, but only Mac compatible will get to work with iTunes, the set-top box and your cell phone. Steve has given up fighting for yesterday because he has confidence in innovation. I also think that is a win/win for people who stay with the Apple platform. I don't want to have headaches with Win/Tel just to ensure a profit margin.
IBM is not sitting still--I still think that their upcoming dual core will be a best of class CPU--but I'd be pretty worried if Apple were not involved in WiMax.I'd also like to know if the CELL chip will live up to hype and what it will be compatible with.
On a related note, did everyone know that Steve Jobs and Wozniak started by hacking set-top boxes? Follow the patents people.
Well, can anyone explain why we have to shell out so much for local phone service when taxpayer money created the telephone infrastructure?
And, what would it cost municipal governments to put up their own fiber? If it is so blessed expensive to rent, then doesn't it make sense for taxpayers to support an infra-structure that most everyone wants? If it weren't profitable, why are all the bandwidth companies trying to block at every turn, cheap or free municipal ISPs?
I'm all for profit. But it makes sense now to allow every citizen to have access to the NET --at least up to a good modem speed. Let the companies compete on BETTER service -- not as the only game in town. Information is vital to Democracy.
Please don't abuse the word "spinning lies". The parent post in no way "Lied" about supreme court decisions. The decisions were a synopsis with the posters own opinion.
Some of these laws by the Supremes have a little merit -- some none at all. I think the Gist is that the Supremes are coming out for Big business at every turn. It can be "spun" to appear harmless or threatening. But, since no one stands to gain anything on Slashdot, we are not actually "spinning". The person was a bit over the top because he is concerned about freedoms in America. You start out with a personal attack on the poster.
Spin is for people in power or supporting power. The parent may be guilty of hyperbole and balderdash. But, anyone thinking that these decisions are not going to be abused could be considered naive.
The SPOKEN intent of these laws is not the issue,.. but how they can be used/abused. We need more detail on the actual articles. The devil is in the details. And there seem to be more details these days.
That liberals are God hating anti good people, or that the labeling was propaganda?
Since reason is painted into a corner, I am now a Liberal. I am well aware of the destruction of language. I also know, that debate is pointless. I can only point out the massive amounts of sucking the Bush years have brought, and that the Republicans (or whatever now), have gotten 95% of what they wanted -- appointments, policies, budgets and wars. So, in the next year or two, lets not argue about "whos to blame" or "who gets credit". It is all the Republicans -- for good or ill.
If they had been smart, they'd have left a facade of power with the Dems. It seems to me the Supreme court in this decision is being pretty smart, rotating the bad votes.
Let's just get to the Downing Street Memos. We need some real punishments to discourage these abuses in the future. After we change the Gov, We need to start a new Supreme Court -- given their actions over the past few years I wouldn't let these creeps hand out parking tickets.
The 5 to 4 vote might as well been unanimous. The courts are taking turns now with "good guy / bad guy". This is right in line with Bush's policies so more Bush judges would not change anything.
When has a Bush appointee not been on the side of Corporate profits? Either you are joking or you have a very short memory. Democrats tend to come down on the side of individual citizens over corporate profits. Or are you following the spin that all bad things can be blamed on Dems? Let me repeat the overwhelmingly obvious; "the Republicans are in power". It is their show right now. The Dems can't even get a meeting room if the Reps don't want it.
Next week, Justice Thomas will have to do the "bad vote". Have you not been following the courts? Thomas and the lot have been flopping pro and con to Federal power grab issues. But the net result is that every week, something happens to increase federal power.
Last week, the Congress voted (mostly on a party-line vote), that the courts had no jurisdiction over deciding the constitutionality of congressional policy. If this passes the senate, then there won't be much point in the high courts anyway. Gee, I guess we need more "Bush" congressmen, so we can flush our liberties down the toilet quicker.
I think the purpose of this site is to set legal precedent. When this endeavor fails (and it will), they RIAA will point to a legal, non-infringing P2P that they say is as good or better than other P2P networks and will say that it failed BECAUSE it did not have illegal content. It will be hard to debate that.
So, if this thing fails, it will damage other P2P status. I recommend people join and just keep returning songs because you don't like the DRM or because it just sucks to have "frequent flyer miles" in exchange for being a server.
No Joke. There is a lot of centralization going on. If a few citizens are ruined by a hacker getting all their data -- it's the price our government is willing to pay.
A lot of this collected data for Homeland security is being shared with... drum roll please... PR Firms.
I saw a special that talked about the use of PR firms in campaigns and marketing companies and seeding the News agencies with phony spots. Near the end of the documentary, they showed up at a government agency collecting data about citizens and admitted that some of this was given or sold to Marketing and PR groups. It helps make politicians more effective in convincing people. They also showed a lot of testing of language with focus groups so that politicians could "hone" their messages. You know, change "Estate Tax" to "Death Tax".
(don't remember if it was Frontline or something else--but due to the quality of reporting it was probably Frontline)
I don't think we will get current computers (binary) to simulate the human brain. It will take a new platform that allows for simultaneous and multi-spectrum data (like optical computers) to work. The human brain stores information 3 dimensionally--meaning in a network of neurons and not discretely, like one neuron holding a picture of the family dog. The human brain is also horrible at storing perfect data; like a series of 10 numbers, whereas any computer can easily store 10 million numbers and not forget.
In an optical computer, I foresee a Green pulse of 5 magnitude, a Blue of 7 magnitude and a Red of 2 magnitude and other frequencies measured by direction, frequency and hue all being processed simultaneously. In our brains, we continuously have simultaneous thoughts all the time -- we only can focus on one thought at a time. The one thought on our mind is decided by a region at the left frontal lobe (sensitive to certain drugs used for hyperactivity). Priority is given by strength of signal. So you could be looking at a sunset and not notice a mosquito bite until later -- but a bee would make you jump. Binary cannot process these values with "meaning".
Computers are absolutists while brains deal with relativity.
I can line the bird cage with the daily newspaper.
Any ideas of what I can do with a CNN video of Michael Jackson dodging reporters? I mean, as long as we are ignoring real news that is......perhaps I could add a soft focus blur and use it as a mood light? Or put it on a bit torrent as "Hot Hilton Action.avi" to frustrate about 10,000 broadband users.
***
I predict that, in response to Fox competition, CNN will also start putting a waving American flag behind every graphic that is appropriately patriotic. Wee!
They had to continue MS Office for the Mac because of a lawsuit settlement over Microsoft being caught stealing code from QuickTime for use in Video For Windows. Instead of just getting a bunch of money, Steve Jobs craftily forced them to support the Macs, share network information, and have options to all technology patents either had, and $500 million in stock (which is all the headlines focused on but at least it made Wall Street think Apple a good investment).
Now, Bill Gates continues Microsoft products on the Mac because it helps him with Monopoly issues and it makes him money. At 3% marketshare, Apple isn't really a competitor -- merely inexpensive R&D.
I like Bill Moyers definition of News; "Anything that someone doesn't want you to know."
This means, that by it's nature, News should be adversarial to power. Fox broadcasting is not news, because it merely pushes out what was told to it by the administration. A headline like; "Fox news tells truth and actually researches a statement" would be news, but only because it is unique and unexpected.
Current events and information you didn't know is good trivia. But real news is stuff that is hidden.
thanks, Perl-Pusher for making the point I was trying to make.
Just because they haven't succeeded in stopping fair-use, doesn't mean they aren't trying. GPS sounds like a good idea until you get into costs and reliability. But the ultimate goal in marketing is to segment markets so that you can price your product at just the level that people will buy in each and every market. Airlines do this by having businesses pay one price, and casual vacationers (who are more often flying on weekends or staying over) paying a bit less. People who get a ticket just before a trip pay the most, because they are desperate. In medicine, if you don't have insurance, you pay about 3 times what an insurance company pays. The larger the company you work for, the less it pays because it have leverage.
But the whole point in region codes is to prevent buyers in the marketplace finding the lowest price point. People in China, obviously won't pay $16.95 to listen to Celine Dion. But they might pay $1.99. The US market doesn't want the $1.99 CDs competing with local price (gouging), so they built into the devices a way to guarantee less competition. There is no legal standing to prevent you from listening to the Chinese CD, but now that the DMCA makes circumvention a crime, it is illegal to "crack" a CD even if you have legal rights to the content.
Don't even get me started about the constitutionality about scalping tickets. Suffice to say, a ticket is actually a lease of property to a seat--you don't own the ticket. You are leasing a space and it is not transferrable.
And the reason why a lot of big companies buy up loss-leaders like radio and newspaper, is so that they can make sure that everyone rolls their eyes when someone has a conspiracy theory.
You see, it is (used to be) the media's job to fact check when companies and politicians make pronouncements. But having two shills spin two versions of reality and act like they are arguing seems fair and balanced these days. Hence, the number of conspiracy theories proliferates, because there is no sorting out the wheat from the chaff by our media. We are in a storm of BS right now, and the corporations might lose control of things if everyone quits believing anything. Right now, if CNN, Fox or the president said the sky was blue -- I'd have to go outside and check.
My service costs about $80 per month. With a lot of channels.
I can even record shows--as many as I like. I could easily max out tapes and DVD-Rs with content. But since I'm going to have content for months to come, I only bother with one or two shows a month.
I don't bother with stealing movies that will show up on the broadcast. If I gave a friend a Seinfeld episode-- I don't think it would effect the revenue of the network.
How much do I spend buying music? About $0. Maybe in a year, I'll buy one CD as a present.
That is the business model of the DMCA for music.
Now, if they DRM'd all the movies on DishNetwork, I would probably cancel most if not all of my subscription and go with NetFlicks or something. I don't know how I could live without the Daily Show -- but we can adapt.
So, then they could guarantee 100% of the proceeds of the $0 I have budgeted to spend with protected networks. It could be a "win / win" situation. I'd probably read more books.
Oops, I didn't mean to say; "no tenure". I meant to say you NEED to have tenure. Now, I think that there should be some standards where a professor could lose tenure.
To make my point, I'd like to make and example of Albert Einstein. Dr. Einstein was followed around by a student aide, to pick up things that he forgot, or write down things he had on the chalk board. He was forgetful. Einstein also had trouble as a kid in school and did poorly in a traditional education system.
He was not driven by profit motives or ideas of greatness. He just wanted to pursue challenges of the mind.
Such a man would probably not even try to copyright his work.
The real world if full of such people. People who make bad accountants and aren't going to negotiate for the "best deal". Even while I make a good living, and can be fired at the drop of the hat, and have no guarantees for future security -- I want a place for the Einstein's of the world. If they had half the distractions I have just keeping up with my bills, we'd be lucky to make any advances in research at all.
The problem isn't that the Republican Ideal of "bootstrapping" oneself and competing for the best is wrong. Or that the Democrat ideal of having a contract between the people and the government that the US will look out for people in ways that they can't. The problem is, and I can't be fair about this, is that the NeoConservative have forgotten the true value of diversity. Diversity is now a word that brings to mind those "ethnic people" we are happy to see in our church. As long as they go to the same church and meet the same standards or work really hard to blow our leaves --diversity is OK.
NO. Diversity is Gays and hippies and even Klan members. People who think and act differently. People who are brilliant but poor planners, and people who get addicted to drugs or don't fit into the curriculum at school. Misfits and losers are a big part of what makes America great. Because all of us have something that we have to really work at to make us "fit in". Tolerance and social supports may make some people "get away with it" or lazy.
We need the force of traditional values and working hard for a living right alongside the concept of liberty and compassion (not the slogan). All people are valued and worthy of respect -- even when they don't deserve it. Or nobody is worthy. Let's just remember how lucky we all are. None of us actually deserve to have it as good as we do in America. The fact that I am arguing with other people who have a computer and are literate and have internet access means that I am arguing with an elite few that make up less than 1% of the planet. So, if we didn't teach ourselves and bring ourselves up from a mud hut -- then we have other people and fortune to thank for it.
Nobody deserves anything. But, so that we all can benefit, we should act like everyone is worthy of more than they have. The rest is just a matter of negotiation.
Studies backed by anyone with a personal stake in the outcome are not worth repeating on the news--legitimate or otherwise. It is called a "conflict of interest". A word recently forgotten from our vocabulary. This is why you have to have government paid research and no tenure -- you cannot have market forces or the desire to advance a career interfering with peoples duty to truth -- if not THE truth, then one that makes important points. All these bedrock systems are under siege right now and people are brainwashed into thinking everything that doesn't entail corporate profit or easily fired workers is Socialism.
President Carter's regulations towards air control actually helped the auto industry. A few years after Reagan relaxed the standards, the US auto industry was eclipsed by Japan -- which created more efficient vehicles and safer vehicles. By not imposing standards that every auto maker had to exceed (and thus NOT damaging the industry as a whole, because every car maker had to meet the same standards), the government, in the long term, was not actually helping US business.
Capitalism and Democracy are inherently flawed --but very useful. The flaw of our system is information and pooling of capitol (people who become so wealthy and powerful, they corrupt the normal utility of competition). I don't want to get into explaining that right now -- but if you don't see the merits in the absolute NEED for a PBS and an FDA, tenured professors and people who don't work in a business market -- then you don't understand how our system can become a tyranny of competition for the lowest bidder.
I don't assume that studies backed by corporations are flawed. I'm talking about the lack of non-corporate funded studies. This goes for Universities as well. The current administration is well know for firing dissenting researchers and hiring oil company lobbyists to "proof" the work. The media doesn't seem to think it important to discern the source of a report. You'll hear a lot of reports now on the news from "experts" or think tanks. Often these are fully packaged by some PR firm. The cash starved news room gets some free content, so as long as no one objects --it's a win win for them. Believe me, when you see a segment with someone in a lab coat talking about how orange juice is good for you, or how seniors enjoy the new healthcare plan -- it has nothing to do with objective research.
And, while MADD might be a little heavy-handed with the drunk driving issues --and I totally agree with anyone who says the blood alcohol level in most states for DWI is ridiculously low -- I wonder that the poster child for abuse on the media is, noticeably, is yet again a consumer advocacy group.
MADD is not making Billions of $ like Exxon. Exxon has paid good money for studies (the only ones in existence) that show that global warming is not happening. They also have hired the aforementioned Oil Company Lobbyist who was just caught fixing studies on global warming.
There should always be a reasonable balance between workers and companies. But we should always, always be MORE cynical about very wealthy and powerful organizations that seek to influence opinion in favor of their own profit margins. Follow the money. GM would be bankrupt right now if it weren't making money producing weapons again (it is close).
I used to listen to radio shows like Neal Bortz. But after a while, I just couldn't get worked up about the odd school teacher that did some stupid thought control punishment -- or the welfare mother who got an extra check for $500. Not when I knew for a fact that there were $Billions in corporate welfare that never got mentioned. The outrage for anecdotes of a few silly doctor lawsuits or the criminal who got off due to a technicality are always going to be with us, if we have a system that benefits people. As long as you have an open system of checks and balances and an educated populace, you can correct large systemic errors in Democracy. But there are always going to be error
I was considering New Zealand -- if only for the big creative film industry down there.
I liked the Australians attitude during the olympics (at least what I read). A lot of prudes and religious people were making a fuss about some indecent thing, so a bunch of Australians got naked and protested back. I always pictured Australia as being the Texas that Texas thought it was. Not a bunch of carpet baggers in pressed cowboy hats and no blisters that you see in Dallas. That Texas has moved from being tough and independent, to being the prudes that support the established is kind of sad (wide sweeping generalization based on personal experience).
Its just that the media moguls have gotten so good at making advocates for the people look like sissies and elitists. That you are either 100% pro business and pollute the sky or you are a Socialist bed wetter. Forget about pointing out what works and what doesn't. It ends up being a culture war more than a conversation.
So, I only hope that Australia bucks the current trend and goes back to being irreverent individuals.
My Social Security Number identifies me exactly to the government. The idea that it is also proof of my identity needs to be fixed. There needs to be a private and changeable pass code WITH the Social Security Number to make the system work.
A National ID Card does not help this situation. And I don't want to give the government any more power than it is already abusing.
Italy has a hopelessly corrupt government. So what if they protest? Their government isn't as efficient on PsyOps as our government --total amateurs.
I think you are right with respect to "what is going on" when you say that science and religion are in conflict -- but I disagree with it being necessarily so. Many of the best contributors to science have been deeply religious. The "search for truth" is also a way of appreciating this world we are blessed with.
The problem really comes when religious groups start to seek power. The "anti-science" drum seems to come from groups like the 700 Club and others. A lot of limos and hypocrites in those crowds. Religion in America is just being used as the tool. If you can get people to think in absolutes, then you can control them. Anything you don't want becomes part of the "not good" world. If you can create a lot of fear, of being in the "not good" group, then your grab for power can really take off. A perfect example is the anti-gay movement. I don't think many of these leaders care a rats ass about gayness-- a large percentage of the Moralists have a lot in their closet. It's just a good tool to radicalize and fictionalize people. It is the safest group at the moment to demonize. A "not good" group.
So, religion, patriotism, and what-not are tools. The goal is to get people to embrace absolutism, just so long as people can rationalize whatever they are told is "good". Its about removing intellectual curiosity and polarizing people. It will take a few more "emergencies" and real fear to make it truly work. Let's pray that there are no more 9/11 events. If there are, make sure we investigate the next "event", rather than go off and seek revenge at the first target we are "told" about.
Slashdot Mirror
Totally agree. I've watched C-SPAN enough to see enough crocodile tears and grandstanding to win an emmy. One congressman was bold enough to suggest that a union panel that had 5 Republicans, 3 Dems and 1 Union member needed to have one new member to represent the taxpayer. I was waiting for a quip from someone about "So the Republicans are now admitting they don't represent taxpayers?" But the next just said their piece, which was probably from text written by an intern 3 days before.
I'm disappointed that Hillary is following the lead of senators like Biden or thumpers like Graham. But she knows how to play the game. It's too much to ask for a politician to be honorable and in power it seems. The DLC is following a race to the bottom, right behind the RNC. Let's hope that Dean or McCain can help splinter off the honorable folks from the corporate shills.
The bad teeth in humans is due to the mutation that created larger brains (my theory). The larger brain in humans requires more space and food in the skull. Our jaws have been getting smaller and more recessed over time -- but we still have pretty much the same teeth. Thus, I think that early hominids probably had, more often than not, straighter teeth than current humans.
Thus, we evolved to need dentists, and luckily enough, our evolved brains came up with a way to figure out how to straighten teeth thus allowing for more wisdom teeth pulling in the future since humans can now wear braces rather than die of malnutrition.
Intelligent Design seems even more blasphemous than evolution. For the "Designs" to make sense, either you have inscrutable purpose that goes against free will (explain the design of depression or retardation), or you the explanation is that the Designer wasn't perfect --just really brilliant. So that means God is demoted. And so as to appear to be a science, the designer could also be an alien.
Personally, I think the ultimate result of evolution is God-hood. But trying to figure out whether aliens tinkered with human genes is kind of pointless to trying to deal with the results. Science and evolution will help us figure things out. Aliens or Deities will be crutches to our understanding (i.e., if you don't understand its "God's will"). But accepting ID at face value means that people are what they are because of Alien interference.
Evolution at least ignores the hand of God. But to get us back to "infallibility" let me pile on another idea. Accepting that ID is a science, then let us postulate that a Perfect God, created Aliens, who then designed Humans. Of course, this idea is no less worthy than any other ID postulate, since none of them can be proven or disproved anyway.
Crap, can't we get onto the original topic of the Butterflies? I agree with an earlier post that said; "Cue long series of clueless ID discussions."
I'm all for the philosophy and meaning, but there is a lot of junk here that has been disproved many times over. There are clear theories for how complex systems that seem to need to function "whole cloth" can actually evolve -- usually by re-purposing complex systems used for something else-- like the mitochondria in DNA being first parasite, then symbiote, and finally a part of most cells.
And let's let the whole "better eye" discussion rest. I'm not perfect and I can tell from looking at people that they are at best an interim design-- a "hodge-podge". Human eyes are mostly inferior to birds eyes -- even if you try to throw in arguments towards different uses or "economy of design" -- these are all Evolutionary arguments anyway. We could talk about the poor design of the foot. Or, how come we have a bunch of delicate bones and a tail on our spine? As a designer, I would have piped the nerves through another series of bones like the legs and had two maybe three large joints --tops! People could have more flexibility and strength and less damage to a large-boned three jointed back. Human bodies make sense if you look at environment and circumstances forcing an animal out of one habitat into another. We could have come out of the trees into mangrove swamps, for a few millennia, then been forced to walk upright as the water dried to desert. Throwing rocks becomes a technique for defense and hunting that allows humans to be weaker per pound than almost all other animals. My personal theory is that hominids beat out neanderthals by being weaker, so as to preserve energy and better survive the food shortages of the ice ages. All these ideas are up for debate -- but they make more sense than a human built from scratch to live just as a human does today.
And why are there so many bones in the hands and feet? I could go on. The human body is a sacrifices functionality for brain power in a lot of places. We are weaker and slower and have poorer senses than many other animals. Was that because we have big brains or in order to have big brains? I don't know, but, we'll fix all that through genetic engineering. Religious groups will bitch about that plenty enough -- I can assure you.
ID is about theocratic power. Those in the pulpit who want to think for others need explanations. When discovering that evolution was helping too many people understand things, the pseudo-science of ID "evolved" from a more primitive form called "creationism". This is a discussion about evolution from those interested in science. Don't get religion in the argument unless you want me to show up at your church and talk about the Gospel according to Mary Magdalen. Which is tempting, really tempting. But, as I've matured, I've realized that having THE WHOLE TRUTH is kind of impossible -- so fighting about who has the better truth is extremely wasteful. The best we've managed so far is the scientific method. It is a process by which theories can compete and be proved or disproved. That was a pretty good accomplishment for flawed humans--leave it be!
Also, I'm too late for this post to make much impact--but I hope that future societies who excavate the internet stores will look kindly on this post.
Did any of this cover the speciation and diversity discovery? No. Distraction has been achieved.
I think the "Hops Flavor" in beer was designed as a replacement for Horse Piss. I actually prefer lighter ales and asian rice beers. And let's not forget how Jamaicans added a lime to their Beers -- how's that for "nothing new"? Hmm?
For me, beer got improved by wine coolers.
You can hate me now.
But really, a lot of you drinking those bitter, dark ales, are just pretending to like them. If you weren't, European beers would have come with twist off caps. Twist caps are a convenience. Forcing everyone to get a bottle opener on their Swiss Army Knife is just the peak of pretension. I'd probably have a different view of Dark Beer if it weren't pasteurized like it is in the US -- or if I liked horses in a more disturbing manner.
One persons Guarana is another persons Hops-- though I've never had "Guarana beer". You have to wonder how many people have made really bad attempts at making beer-- and how many of us are drinking said beers that we "acquired a taste for". I now drink beer due to a lot of peer pressure and time to "acquire a taste" -- which could be much like enjoying prison. The whole beer thing is suspect when someone yells; "Eureka -- it tastes less like piss!"
I actually even like Blue Cheese now. I may be irredeemable.
Try a little Prune Juice. More Prune and you get Dr. Pepper or Mr. Pibb. Don't use barbecue or soy sauce -- this could lead to zombism.
More than for competitive flavor advantages, the formula must remain secret to maintain consumer consumption levels. Because if anyone were to read; "Paint stripper, aluminum silicate [as an antiperspirant] , denatured cocaine and morphene products, humors of mercury, with a dash of newt eye" --well, you can just guess what would happen to sales. I'm sure they've replaced a few natural ingredients like "eye of newt" over the years. But as anyone knows, preservatives ruin most magical potions. So don't think coke will work in a love charm like it does in a Long Island Iced Tea.
And, a little Off Topic; Couldn't national security considerations force companies to disclose "secret recipes"? I mean, in case we are getting mind altering fluids from alien glands -- you can't be too careful.
Can we mod the previous post up to, like 10?
I am not a reactionary to all things not positive to Apple--but this seemed to be a total miss on what is usually technically astute reporting by Ars Technica.
One glaring issue that struck me (and I am not a CPU compiler professional; IANCCP), is that Apple was deliberately sacrificing speed for size by compiling for size. Wow. What kind of conspiracy would make that one profitable? More than likely, with the size of cache and the size of RISC instructions (and more so in 64 bit), size is more important to speed because it means you are less often having to read code from a disk. But, what, if anything has this to do with Steve Jobs moving from IBM because of a tantrum?
Why wouldn't Apple want to have leverage? And, if you can't have leverage, at least know that the company you are with is going the same direction. But now IBM is distracted by games and blades the way Motorola was distracted with cell phones and embedded system. I think Steve learns from his mistakes and he saw that after IBM had Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft-- Apple would not be getting as much service. So I totally agree with the previous post here from "amper". But I think that Steve's ego was less of an issue than what he thought was best for Apple's future (Steve is directed towards his legacy-- I think his poor temper towards fools gets mixed up with arrogance a bit). I would just like to add that it isn't just about costs or laptops or future performance--it's about all those things and probably about things that Ars Technica and the readers of Slashdot can only speculate about. Intel may not make the absolute best chip at every time of the year, but Apple will get to save so much in all the components that make up a motherboard. They can spend more time coming up with great software, and yes, a nice curvy case. From a marketing perspective, it gets rid of distracting issues of price versus performance (which most can't really understand anyway) and let's Apple compete based on a better computing experience.
But I don't think Intel is all a Panacea. There is a real issue with how Apple will make Windows applications compatible while still getting developers to make applications "Intel/Mac" compatible and not just "emulator" compatible.
But, I think that Jobs is smarter than that. He is looking at Cell phones and entertainment integration, and realizing that "Device compatible" will be more important to most home users than "Windows Compatible". So my guess is, that Steve will allow Windows applications to play, but only Mac compatible will get to work with iTunes, the set-top box and your cell phone. Steve has given up fighting for yesterday because he has confidence in innovation. I also think that is a win/win for people who stay with the Apple platform. I don't want to have headaches with Win/Tel just to ensure a profit margin.
IBM is not sitting still--I still think that their upcoming dual core will be a best of class CPU--but I'd be pretty worried if Apple were not involved in WiMax.I'd also like to know if the CELL chip will live up to hype and what it will be compatible with.
On a related note, did everyone know that Steve Jobs and Wozniak started by hacking set-top boxes? Follow the patents people.
Well, can anyone explain why we have to shell out so much for local phone service when taxpayer money created the telephone infrastructure?
And, what would it cost municipal governments to put up their own fiber? If it is so blessed expensive to rent, then doesn't it make sense for taxpayers to support an infra-structure that most everyone wants? If it weren't profitable, why are all the bandwidth companies trying to block at every turn, cheap or free municipal ISPs?
I'm all for profit. But it makes sense now to allow every citizen to have access to the NET --at least up to a good modem speed. Let the companies compete on BETTER service -- not as the only game in town. Information is vital to Democracy.
Please don't abuse the word "spinning lies". The parent post in no way "Lied" about supreme court decisions. The decisions were a synopsis with the posters own opinion.
Some of these laws by the Supremes have a little merit -- some none at all. I think the Gist is that the Supremes are coming out for Big business at every turn. It can be "spun" to appear harmless or threatening. But, since no one stands to gain anything on Slashdot, we are not actually "spinning". The person was a bit over the top because he is concerned about freedoms in America. You start out with a personal attack on the poster.
Spin is for people in power or supporting power. The parent may be guilty of hyperbole and balderdash. But, anyone thinking that these decisions are not going to be abused could be considered naive.
The SPOKEN intent of these laws is not the issue,.. but how they can be used/abused. We need more detail on the actual articles. The devil is in the details. And there seem to be more details these days.
Um, what is this person trying to say?
That liberals are God hating anti good people, or that the labeling was propaganda?
Since reason is painted into a corner, I am now a Liberal. I am well aware of the destruction of language. I also know, that debate is pointless. I can only point out the massive amounts of sucking the Bush years have brought, and that the Republicans (or whatever now), have gotten 95% of what they wanted -- appointments, policies, budgets and wars. So, in the next year or two, lets not argue about "whos to blame" or "who gets credit". It is all the Republicans -- for good or ill.
If they had been smart, they'd have left a facade of power with the Dems. It seems to me the Supreme court in this decision is being pretty smart, rotating the bad votes.
Let's just get to the Downing Street Memos. We need some real punishments to discourage these abuses in the future. After we change the Gov, We need to start a new Supreme Court -- given their actions over the past few years I wouldn't let these creeps hand out parking tickets.
The 5 to 4 vote might as well been unanimous. The courts are taking turns now with "good guy / bad guy". This is right in line with Bush's policies so more Bush judges would not change anything.
When has a Bush appointee not been on the side of Corporate profits? Either you are joking or you have a very short memory. Democrats tend to come down on the side of individual citizens over corporate profits. Or are you following the spin that all bad things can be blamed on Dems? Let me repeat the overwhelmingly obvious; "the Republicans are in power". It is their show right now. The Dems can't even get a meeting room if the Reps don't want it.
Next week, Justice Thomas will have to do the "bad vote". Have you not been following the courts? Thomas and the lot have been flopping pro and con to Federal power grab issues. But the net result is that every week, something happens to increase federal power.
Last week, the Congress voted (mostly on a party-line vote), that the courts had no jurisdiction over deciding the constitutionality of congressional policy. If this passes the senate, then there won't be much point in the high courts anyway. Gee, I guess we need more "Bush" congressmen, so we can flush our liberties down the toilet quicker.
I think the purpose of this site is to set legal precedent. When this endeavor fails (and it will), they RIAA will point to a legal, non-infringing P2P that they say is as good or better than other P2P networks and will say that it failed BECAUSE it did not have illegal content. It will be hard to debate that.
So, if this thing fails, it will damage other P2P status. I recommend people join and just keep returning songs because you don't like the DRM or because it just sucks to have "frequent flyer miles" in exchange for being a server.
Whaddya think?
Obviously, if you knew he was trying to manipulate you, you weren't army material anyway.
;-)
You should go talk to a Special Forces recruiter. You are definitely made of superior material. Or are you frightened?
Something like that?
No Joke. There is a lot of centralization going on. If a few citizens are ruined by a hacker getting all their data -- it's the price our government is willing to pay.
A lot of this collected data for Homeland security is being shared with... drum roll please... PR Firms.
I saw a special that talked about the use of PR firms in campaigns and marketing companies and seeding the News agencies with phony spots. Near the end of the documentary, they showed up at a government agency collecting data about citizens and admitted that some of this was given or sold to Marketing and PR groups. It helps make politicians more effective in convincing people. They also showed a lot of testing of language with focus groups so that politicians could "hone" their messages. You know, change "Estate Tax" to "Death Tax".
(don't remember if it was Frontline or something else--but due to the quality of reporting it was probably Frontline)
I don't think we will get current computers (binary) to simulate the human brain. It will take a new platform that allows for simultaneous and multi-spectrum data (like optical computers) to work. The human brain stores information 3 dimensionally--meaning in a network of neurons and not discretely, like one neuron holding a picture of the family dog. The human brain is also horrible at storing perfect data; like a series of 10 numbers, whereas any computer can easily store 10 million numbers and not forget.
In an optical computer, I foresee a Green pulse of 5 magnitude, a Blue of 7 magnitude and a Red of 2 magnitude and other frequencies measured by direction, frequency and hue all being processed simultaneously. In our brains, we continuously have simultaneous thoughts all the time -- we only can focus on one thought at a time. The one thought on our mind is decided by a region at the left frontal lobe (sensitive to certain drugs used for hyperactivity). Priority is given by strength of signal. So you could be looking at a sunset and not notice a mosquito bite until later -- but a bee would make you jump. Binary cannot process these values with "meaning".
Computers are absolutists while brains deal with relativity.
I can line the bird cage with the daily newspaper.
...perhaps I could add a soft focus blur and use it as a mood light? Or put it on a bit torrent as "Hot Hilton Action.avi" to frustrate about 10,000 broadband users.
Any ideas of what I can do with a CNN video of Michael Jackson dodging reporters? I mean, as long as we are ignoring real news that is...
***
I predict that, in response to Fox competition, CNN will also start putting a waving American flag behind every graphic that is appropriately patriotic. Wee!
They had to continue MS Office for the Mac because of a lawsuit settlement over Microsoft being caught stealing code from QuickTime for use in Video For Windows. Instead of just getting a bunch of money, Steve Jobs craftily forced them to support the Macs, share network information, and have options to all technology patents either had, and $500 million in stock (which is all the headlines focused on but at least it made Wall Street think Apple a good investment).
Now, Bill Gates continues Microsoft products on the Mac because it helps him with Monopoly issues and it makes him money. At 3% marketshare, Apple isn't really a competitor -- merely inexpensive R&D.
I like Bill Moyers definition of News; "Anything that someone doesn't want you to know."
This means, that by it's nature, News should be adversarial to power. Fox broadcasting is not news, because it merely pushes out what was told to it by the administration. A headline like; "Fox news tells truth and actually researches a statement" would be news, but only because it is unique and unexpected.
Current events and information you didn't know is good trivia. But real news is stuff that is hidden.
thanks, Perl-Pusher for making the point I was trying to make.
Just because they haven't succeeded in stopping fair-use, doesn't mean they aren't trying. GPS sounds like a good idea until you get into costs and reliability. But the ultimate goal in marketing is to segment markets so that you can price your product at just the level that people will buy in each and every market. Airlines do this by having businesses pay one price, and casual vacationers (who are more often flying on weekends or staying over) paying a bit less. People who get a ticket just before a trip pay the most, because they are desperate. In medicine, if you don't have insurance, you pay about 3 times what an insurance company pays. The larger the company you work for, the less it pays because it have leverage.
But the whole point in region codes is to prevent buyers in the marketplace finding the lowest price point. People in China, obviously won't pay $16.95 to listen to Celine Dion. But they might pay $1.99. The US market doesn't want the $1.99 CDs competing with local price (gouging), so they built into the devices a way to guarantee less competition. There is no legal standing to prevent you from listening to the Chinese CD, but now that the DMCA makes circumvention a crime, it is illegal to "crack" a CD even if you have legal rights to the content.
Don't even get me started about the constitutionality about scalping tickets. Suffice to say, a ticket is actually a lease of property to a seat--you don't own the ticket. You are leasing a space and it is not transferrable.
And the reason why a lot of big companies buy up loss-leaders like radio and newspaper, is so that they can make sure that everyone rolls their eyes when someone has a conspiracy theory.
You see, it is (used to be) the media's job to fact check when companies and politicians make pronouncements. But having two shills spin two versions of reality and act like they are arguing seems fair and balanced these days. Hence, the number of conspiracy theories proliferates, because there is no sorting out the wheat from the chaff by our media. We are in a storm of BS right now, and the corporations might lose control of things if everyone quits believing anything. Right now, if CNN, Fox or the president said the sky was blue -- I'd have to go outside and check.
I get DishNetwork.
My service costs about $80 per month. With a lot of channels.
I can even record shows--as many as I like. I could easily max out tapes and DVD-Rs with content. But since I'm going to have content for months to come, I only bother with one or two shows a month.
I don't bother with stealing movies that will show up on the broadcast. If I gave a friend a Seinfeld episode-- I don't think it would effect the revenue of the network.
How much do I spend buying music? About $0. Maybe in a year, I'll buy one CD as a present.
That is the business model of the DMCA for music.
Now, if they DRM'd all the movies on DishNetwork, I would probably cancel most if not all of my subscription and go with NetFlicks or something. I don't know how I could live without the Daily Show -- but we can adapt.
So, then they could guarantee 100% of the proceeds of the $0 I have budgeted to spend with protected networks. It could be a "win / win" situation. I'd probably read more books.
Oops, I didn't mean to say; "no tenure". I meant to say you NEED to have tenure. Now, I think that there should be some standards where a professor could lose tenure.
To make my point, I'd like to make and example of Albert Einstein. Dr. Einstein was followed around by a student aide, to pick up things that he forgot, or write down things he had on the chalk board. He was forgetful. Einstein also had trouble as a kid in school and did poorly in a traditional education system.
He was not driven by profit motives or ideas of greatness. He just wanted to pursue challenges of the mind.
Such a man would probably not even try to copyright his work.
The real world if full of such people. People who make bad accountants and aren't going to negotiate for the "best deal". Even while I make a good living, and can be fired at the drop of the hat, and have no guarantees for future security -- I want a place for the Einstein's of the world. If they had half the distractions I have just keeping up with my bills, we'd be lucky to make any advances in research at all.
The problem isn't that the Republican Ideal of "bootstrapping" oneself and competing for the best is wrong. Or that the Democrat ideal of having a contract between the people and the government that the US will look out for people in ways that they can't. The problem is, and I can't be fair about this, is that the NeoConservative have forgotten the true value of diversity. Diversity is now a word that brings to mind those "ethnic people" we are happy to see in our church. As long as they go to the same church and meet the same standards or work really hard to blow our leaves --diversity is OK.
NO. Diversity is Gays and hippies and even Klan members. People who think and act differently. People who are brilliant but poor planners, and people who get addicted to drugs or don't fit into the curriculum at school. Misfits and losers are a big part of what makes America great. Because all of us have something that we have to really work at to make us "fit in". Tolerance and social supports may make some people "get away with it" or lazy.
We need the force of traditional values and working hard for a living right alongside the concept of liberty and compassion (not the slogan). All people are valued and worthy of respect -- even when they don't deserve it. Or nobody is worthy. Let's just remember how lucky we all are. None of us actually deserve to have it as good as we do in America. The fact that I am arguing with other people who have a computer and are literate and have internet access means that I am arguing with an elite few that make up less than 1% of the planet. So, if we didn't teach ourselves and bring ourselves up from a mud hut -- then we have other people and fortune to thank for it.
Nobody deserves anything. But, so that we all can benefit, we should act like everyone is worthy of more than they have. The rest is just a matter of negotiation.
Studies backed by anyone with a personal stake in the outcome are not worth repeating on the news--legitimate or otherwise. It is called a "conflict of interest". A word recently forgotten from our vocabulary. This is why you have to have government paid research and no tenure -- you cannot have market forces or the desire to advance a career interfering with peoples duty to truth -- if not THE truth, then one that makes important points. All these bedrock systems are under siege right now and people are brainwashed into thinking everything that doesn't entail corporate profit or easily fired workers is Socialism.
President Carter's regulations towards air control actually helped the auto industry. A few years after Reagan relaxed the standards, the US auto industry was eclipsed by Japan -- which created more efficient vehicles and safer vehicles. By not imposing standards that every auto maker had to exceed (and thus NOT damaging the industry as a whole, because every car maker had to meet the same standards), the government, in the long term, was not actually helping US business.
Capitalism and Democracy are inherently flawed --but very useful. The flaw of our system is information and pooling of capitol (people who become so wealthy and powerful, they corrupt the normal utility of competition). I don't want to get into explaining that right now -- but if you don't see the merits in the absolute NEED for a PBS and an FDA, tenured professors and people who don't work in a business market -- then you don't understand how our system can become a tyranny of competition for the lowest bidder.
I don't assume that studies backed by corporations are flawed. I'm talking about the lack of non-corporate funded studies. This goes for Universities as well. The current administration is well know for firing dissenting researchers and hiring oil company lobbyists to "proof" the work. The media doesn't seem to think it important to discern the source of a report. You'll hear a lot of reports now on the news from "experts" or think tanks. Often these are fully packaged by some PR firm. The cash starved news room gets some free content, so as long as no one objects --it's a win win for them. Believe me, when you see a segment with someone in a lab coat talking about how orange juice is good for you, or how seniors enjoy the new healthcare plan -- it has nothing to do with objective research.
And, while MADD might be a little heavy-handed with the drunk driving issues --and I totally agree with anyone who says the blood alcohol level in most states for DWI is ridiculously low -- I wonder that the poster child for abuse on the media is, noticeably, is yet again a consumer advocacy group.
MADD is not making Billions of $ like Exxon. Exxon has paid good money for studies (the only ones in existence) that show that global warming is not happening. They also have hired the aforementioned Oil Company Lobbyist who was just caught fixing studies on global warming.
There should always be a reasonable balance between workers and companies. But we should always, always be MORE cynical about very wealthy and powerful organizations that seek to influence opinion in favor of their own profit margins. Follow the money. GM would be bankrupt right now if it weren't making money producing weapons again (it is close).
I used to listen to radio shows like Neal Bortz. But after a while, I just couldn't get worked up about the odd school teacher that did some stupid thought control punishment -- or the welfare mother who got an extra check for $500. Not when I knew for a fact that there were $Billions in corporate welfare that never got mentioned. The outrage for anecdotes of a few silly doctor lawsuits or the criminal who got off due to a technicality are always going to be with us, if we have a system that benefits people. As long as you have an open system of checks and balances and an educated populace, you can correct large systemic errors in Democracy. But there are always going to be error
I was considering New Zealand -- if only for the big creative film industry down there.
I liked the Australians attitude during the olympics (at least what I read). A lot of prudes and religious people were making a fuss about some indecent thing, so a bunch of Australians got naked and protested back. I always pictured Australia as being the Texas that Texas thought it was. Not a bunch of carpet baggers in pressed cowboy hats and no blisters that you see in Dallas. That Texas has moved from being tough and independent, to being the prudes that support the established is kind of sad (wide sweeping generalization based on personal experience).
Its just that the media moguls have gotten so good at making advocates for the people look like sissies and elitists. That you are either 100% pro business and pollute the sky or you are a Socialist bed wetter. Forget about pointing out what works and what doesn't. It ends up being a culture war more than a conversation.
So, I only hope that Australia bucks the current trend and goes back to being irreverent individuals.
My Social Security Number identifies me exactly to the government. The idea that it is also proof of my identity needs to be fixed. There needs to be a private and changeable pass code WITH the Social Security Number to make the system work.
A National ID Card does not help this situation. And I don't want to give the government any more power than it is already abusing.
Italy has a hopelessly corrupt government. So what if they protest? Their government isn't as efficient on PsyOps as our government --total amateurs.
I think you are right with respect to "what is going on" when you say that science and religion are in conflict -- but I disagree with it being necessarily so. Many of the best contributors to science have been deeply religious. The "search for truth" is also a way of appreciating this world we are blessed with.
The problem really comes when religious groups start to seek power. The "anti-science" drum seems to come from groups like the 700 Club and others. A lot of limos and hypocrites in those crowds. Religion in America is just being used as the tool. If you can get people to think in absolutes, then you can control them. Anything you don't want becomes part of the "not good" world. If you can create a lot of fear, of being in the "not good" group, then your grab for power can really take off. A perfect example is the anti-gay movement. I don't think many of these leaders care a rats ass about gayness-- a large percentage of the Moralists have a lot in their closet. It's just a good tool to radicalize and fictionalize people. It is the safest group at the moment to demonize. A "not good" group.
So, religion, patriotism, and what-not are tools. The goal is to get people to embrace absolutism, just so long as people can rationalize whatever they are told is "good". Its about removing intellectual curiosity and polarizing people. It will take a few more "emergencies" and real fear to make it truly work. Let's pray that there are no more 9/11 events. If there are, make sure we investigate the next "event", rather than go off and seek revenge at the first target we are "told" about.