I agree with your first point, but IMHO soldiers who committed torture do not deserve protection. They could and should have refused to execute their orders.
This is not about what those who commit atrocities are, but about what we are. Are we not better than that? Society extends the protection of the law even to scum, exactly because we aren't scum.
There is a discrepancy here - people always moan and whine about "too much government" and the terrible waste of having to pay taxes, which when you get right down to it is what pays for policing. But you find it unreasonable that the same public agencies don't want to be overcharged by private companies; if they pay more, then the state has to charge more in tax, so what do you want? Higher taxes, so ISPs can charge more? Or that CEOP tries to save money while still doing their job?
As far as I can see, they are complaining that they have to compensate ISPs for their actual work, only that it looks like they are overcharging.
Is it really unconstitutional? I don't know; but I do know that it is completely idiotic to try to criminalize something that people have no influence on. There is no practical way that a web-master could ensure that no child could reach "harmful content" via his web-site; or even that there would be no harmful content hosted on his web-site. Sometimes I suspect those in power imagine computers like some sort of magical device that could easily do anything, "if only somebody would get their act together". It would be nice if it was a requirement that you were qualified for the job before you could be elected for a public office; I mean, I'm all for democracy, but I would expect if you are bright enough to run for things like mayor, congress or president, then you are also bright enough to learn and understand a few basic facts about how things work in the real world.
If it was an easy thing to do, I would say that it was a very good idea to make sure that our children could not come into contact with things that were more dangerous than they would be able to handle well. But it isn't. The only people who stand a reasonable chance at protecting children are their parents - and possibly teachers - but even they can only do so much. Sad, but true.
People talk about this as if it was a major disappointment, but all it is, is that the ultra-rich.2% of the population or so have lost one of their toys. It's not going to bring my piss to the boil.
The purpose of the space station is research - it is nice to see that getting priority over making money on silly publicity stunts for once; I'd like to see more of that. And while the microgravity of that environment is a very valuable scientific resource, it is hardly out in space, actually. If you have a look at one of those photos of Earth, you can hardly see the atmosphere - it's that thin a layer - and the space station almost skims along the top of that; you wonder why it doesn't leave a wake in the Pacific. That doesn't count as "in spce", not in my book. The Moon, yes, Mars, definitely, but not something that close.
Only a paranoid totalitarian state would waste time penetrating Congress. There's not much there that isn't accessible via the news. Anyone who had half a brain would target the Executive branch, where there is data that is not publically accessible.
How about some of your own, homegrown extremists and quasi-terrorists? Or for that matter, other members of Congress? No other country in the world houses so many groups of people with extreme agendas as the US, sadly: ultra-rightwing Christians, anti-abortionists, this-or-that rights campaigners, neo-nazis etc. There is no need to go abroad to likely braindeads who would hack into Congress.
It seems more likely to me that people who do this are after finding personal information on the PCs of members of Congress, something that could be used for extortion.
Do nice engineers always finish last? Of course not - I think it is a sign of managerial incompetence if the management does not look more deeply at things than that. I think a more likely scenario is one where back-stabber does not so much benefit himself from his treason, but instead simply harms somebody else. Sensible managers will always look at the real requirements of a position; the higher the level of management, the more important are the "soft" skills of the person. The leader of a department does not need to be the one with the most technical expertise, but he does need to be able to manage his employees, which is something that requires good interpersonal skills. And in tough times, since the future of the company may well depend on the ability of management to mobilise the best in its employees, this is something that becomes more important exactly when it is tough.
However, being nice is not necessarily the same as being well qualified for a management position. A leader sometimes needs to do things that don't look or feel nice; it is actually possible to do those things in a way that avoid nastyness as much as possible while still being effective. It has a lot to do with things like respect, trust and openness; a good manager wouldn't listen to somebody's malicious gossip without checking out the facts - he would have a talk with the person being slandered at the very least, where he would be open about the issues and would show due respect and consideration for the employee.
As presented this is of course an obvious piece of idiot legislation - what else can one say about it? It's not worth wasting more breath than that.
But it should make people think a little about why the democratically elected government of any state would spend time - taxpayers' money IOW - on this kind of idle crap? Most of us are ordinary people - we don't agree with this kind of wasting time on formalized prudery; and neither do the majority of people in the world, whether they live in South Carolina or not, so it sholdn't be possible for this to happen. The reason, it seems to me, is that us ordinary people do not want to take part in democracy - why else do those in power only represent religious extremists and big money?
I'm not convinced that it is because people just don't care as long as they have what they want - I think it is because they have been made to feel hopeless about the whole thing. For a very long time it has looked as if it made no difference what ordinary people wanted - but what the election of Obama has shown, I think, is the power of the internet. The internet has given ordinary people the opportunity to have real influence on the debate; you can get heard if what you say appeals enough to people - you don't need to be rich or famous or know somebody.
And that is probably why so many of those in power want to limit what you can say in public; after all, what is "profanity"? There was a time where eg the word "cock" was an innocent, everyday word meaning "male bird" or "cockerel" - and so on. So who gets to define what is "profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent"? As it stands, it could well cover more or less everything people say if they don't agree with those in power, but I am pretty sure "indecent" won't mean lying to the electorate or being a pompous hypocrite.
If you're worried about impressionable children being taught violence you should look at parents teaching their children religion at a young age since those things do tend to contain a lot of bad things even if the parents don't emphasize them and there's no real question that religion has a strong tendency of affecting your behaviour when you grow up.
As I tried to say, read what I write; though perhaps I should have said "understand what I write". No I am not worried about that - it wouldn't make any difference if I were, anyway. What I am worried about is that this silly argument continues indefinitely without anybody actually knowing what they are talking about. We all know what the result of that is likely to be: the restrictive policies have their way, because the reactionaries always win when people don't make the effort to get the real, scientific facts.
Lets not be idiots about this - if you really believe that games are not harmful, you should not fear what proper research can turn up. And if they turned out to be bad for you, at least you would know the danger and be able to make an informed choice about it.
Now, before anybody starts howling simply because I don't join the howling chorus, please read what I write first, that's all I ask. The question of how games and cartoons influence children is complicated - far too complicated to settle with name calling, and of course way beyond the comprehension of the average teen-ager, let alone the average congress-man.
The real irony is that the violent cartoons our parents (read the 40-60 year old generation that are our world's decision makers today) watched as kids didn't seem to corrupt them too badly
Children learn primarily by playing - especially young children. They can watch something happening in a movie and if they don't understand it, they are likely to ask an adult. When they play games, they learn how to behave in the kind of situations they encounter in the game, just like when they play at making cakes out of mud, they practise certain aspects of life, like how to strive towards a goal ("I will make a cake") and how to interact socially when serving their "cakes". There is no doubt that children learn things from video games - this is one of the many benefits of video games - but it is largely unanswered what it is they learn from violent games; it is not necessarily true that what you learn is what seems to be the prevalent theme of the game. On the other hand, it is not something one can dismiss out of hand. The problem with much research into games is that it asks the wrong questions - "Does this game people more violent?" instead of "What does this game teach people?"
One of the things I think you are likely to learn from watching movies or playing games, is a moral attitude. In most of the best cartoons from several generations ago, you would watch the main character behave badly, but the conclusion would always be something along the lines of "it doesn't pay to be bad". Modern media are much more ambiguous - but the trend seems to be more about "the good guy can do whatever he pleases"; ie, killing is good if you are "the good guy", rape, theft, drug dealing, whatever are all "good" if done by "the good guy" and "bad" if done by "the bad guy". And isn't that what we have seen in society and politics in the last few decades? I think you can find lots and lots of examples of that. The big, unanswered question here, of course, is whether one is causing the other, or whether they are both symptoms of some underlying disease in society, which is what I think.
Finally, the big, very big, problem I have with the proposed scheme is that it is stupid. We have seen in the past how scare campaings fare; it's like that old, prudish lie, that "if you masturbate, you go blind". First you are scared by it, then you try anyway and find out that it isnt true, then you lose your respect for the source of the campaign. If you want people to think seriously about what they are doing, you have to start by respecting the intelligence of your target audience; the scary labels on tobacco don't work, because people don't enjoy being treated like idiots, but campaigns that inform people about how they can stop, what help they can get etc, actually work.
So instead of putting "scary" labels on video games, perhaps they should educate people a bit. And perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce a content labeling scheme for games and movies - which should be written by an independent body - so people can make up their own mind based on facts. It could say something about educational quality, the graphics, the level of challenge to your intellect or reflexes etc. To my mind that would be useful.
Strictly speaking they are not creating anything, but contructing it. Creation means "bringing into existence" from nothing; not something withing the boundaries of science, where preservation of energy, mass and what have you are the reality. Constructing a living entity, or one that is nearly living is still an impressive feat and an important step closer to discovering what life is.
Because that is one other thing we don't actually know; we know a lot of living organisms, and a lot of dead things, and they seem to be fundamentally different in some way, but we don't quite know where the boundary goes.
The article, of course, makes no mention of hippies, but perhaps to the submitter of this bit of tripe, if you are of another faith, you are either a hippie or a terrorist.
In the rest of the world you don't have to be a "hippie" in order to believe in chakras (a Hindu term), yoga (another one), druidism, ley-lines or any other such things. All this submission actually tells us is that the right honourable tosser, his grace Samzenpus, is a narrow minded bigot who hasn't got a clue and enjoys advertising that very fact to the global community.
I'd love to compare the current U.S. to the faltering Roman empire but there's a football game on. Has anyone seen my welfare check?
Yes, very witty and all that. So you're implying the critics of modern USA are lazy and uneducated? Just to give you a historical point of view, which you apparently have been conveniently too lazy to educate yourself about, most prominent critics of society have been well-educated people from an affluent background. And being able to compare the US with the Roman empire does, as a matter of fact, require a measure of education, if you think about it.
I hear people screaming themselves to an early grave - again - over this issue, and I am beginning to feel that it is hardly worth the effort.
I feel quite convinced that if we can imagine asking all Palestinians, Israelis, Syrians, etc whether they want peace, even if it means giving up the claims to land and other tangible item all sides have, there would overwhelming support for it. So the question is - who is, on all sides, that keep this atrocity going on and on? If we could capture them and get rid of them, peace would happen naturally. more or less. That's the theory, at least.
Only idiots keep holding on to old grudges - and yes, that includes grudges over who massacred innocents last. I'm not saying it would be easy to put these thigns aside, only that it is possible; and I think a majority on both sides want that. The real criminals are the leaders on both sides, who don't have the greatness to let go of their pet hates and grudges; they live their lives far from the pain and horror they put their own peoples through in the name of "justice" or whatever lie they live behind.
Is it a good idea to deposit a number of potential nuclear catastrophes around in the communities? The risk that one goes wrong is quite small - on the other hand, the damage if it does, could be quite significant. But I think this sidesteps the much more pressing issue: there are far too many people on the planet, and we are insisting on living a lifestyle far beyond our means, in terms of limited resources, break-down of ecosystems and the general viability of basing your future on continued, unlimited growth.
It is not that we lack examples to teach us about these things: no species has ever survived long without finding a balance between growth and die-off. It can't be done, no matter how we twist and turn. It is not just a question about limited mineral resources or energy; life only teems, if one can actually say that, because of its diversity. Whether we know realize it or not, we are not going to be able to survive in such great numbers if we eradicate all the species that are not relevant to us as food. Or look to the current financial crisis - if ever there was a striking example of why we shouldn't live beyond our means, that is it.
The way forward - the ONLY way, in fact - is to first live within our means, and then reduce our numbers. The reduction in number will come, of course; but we still have the time to decide to do it as gently as possible. All this musing about using nuclear-, solar-, wind-, wave- or whatever power must be more than just a quest to extend our wasteful lifestyle a bit longer; otherwise it is simply another way of hiding our heads in the sand.
These viewpoints have never been popular, of course. It's all doom and gloom, people say; well, if it was "doom and gloom" that I was preaching, I would hardly say that we could still make the necessary changes, would I?
First, let me say that I don't like this at all - it is not right, simply. Never mind civil liberties - this is about respect for people and of course the self-respect of our authorities; you just don't sneak around like that, that's something criminals do.
But let us not lose our heads over this. The state already have the power to do far more than anybody would like, if they were to abuse it; this has always been the case, and I suspect it always will. Living in a society means trusting each other, including the ones in power; and of course, if the government breaches that trust, public order will break down.
What makes this move feel so wrong is the fact that they sneak it in; there is no need to do it that way. I am sure most people will be far more able to accept things like this if they are introduced openly and discussed in public. It's a bit like asking for permission - like, if my neighbor asks if he can borrow my lawn mower, I would probably say yes; but I would be seriously pissed off if he just sneaks in and takes it in the night.
I can see why it is tempting to try and save some money - although when has the military ever had savings and synergy in their target? But it is always a very bad idea to mix military and civilian institutions. The military WILL try to take over, claiming that it is now all state secrets, and that will not benefit the people, or space science - proper science can't be conducted in secret, there must be free exchange of theory, regardless of national interests.
But this was human civilization from 75,000 years ago, which intellectually and technologically pales in comparison to human civilization today. Wouldn't the advancements we've made since the Toba eruption help us to endure the effect of another mega-eruption?
Perhaps - I suppose it depends on how much of the infrastructure is still usable. As we can see with many other disasters in the world, getting help out to those in need is often the biggest problem; add to that the fact that most modern Americans have next to no survival skills when it comes to living with no technology at all. Humans 75000 years agou were probably significantly better equipped for living rough. In my view it is not unlikely that a far larger proportion of humans would succumb to this kind of catastrophe; but of course, in survival of the species terms, we can afford to take a huge hit, because there are so many of us.
Let me join the chorus of congratulations - if any author deserves it, it's him. He is one of the very few who has mastered the art of writing books that are not only funny, but deep and serious at the same time. In fact, I can't really think of any other author that comes close. I can keep re-reading his books again and again; I often go looking for new books, mostly SciFi or fantasy, and mostly go home empty-handed; and then in desparation I return once more to one of TPs books, certain that this time I will be tired of it - but it hasn't happened yet. I think his greatest strength is that his books are not actually funny - the stories are very serious, but written with a lot of humour.
As for the Alzheimer's - it would seem that there is hope of an actual cure in the not too distant future. I really hope he will benefit from the progress of this research.
Funny enough nobody seems to have thought of China - even though India has been mentioned... Well, I suppose I can guess why, since most/. readers are Americans.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think it makes too much difference to the quality of your degree whether you stay in the US or go to Europe, India or China. The most important benefits from studying abroad are culture and language. I would say China is at least on par with China as far as computer science goes, and probably ahead in maths. And learning Chinese is definitely going to be more useful than learning Hindi or other Indian languages, worthy though they be. Part of the reason is that there is one official Chinese language, Mandarin, that will give you access to all of China, whereas there are many Indian dialects and several scripts. Reading, writing and speaking Chinese is likely to give you a massive advantage in the future - the Chinese absolutely love it when foreigners make the effort and speak even a few words.
I can personally recommend Beijing Union University - I have several friends in the administration of the international department; have a look at their home pages: http://www.buu.edu.cn/home/indexe/indexe.htm (No, I don't get commission, I simply think it is a good university).
Well, I think we all knew this, really. What this kind of research should tell us, which is much more important, is that there is in fact no global conspiracy of fat cat climatologists, who holds on to government funding and keeps the good, honest climate sceptics out. Because, as we can see, even these more obscure and border-line absurd hypotheses actually do get researched - ie. they too get funding and their ideas are tested seriously.
You "why" as in "what is the purpose"? I think that simply lies outside science; science deal with cause and effect and doesn't need to assume that there is a higher purpose. I think in a scientific context, the only valid meaning of "why" is "what is the cause".
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your first point, but IMHO soldiers who committed torture do not deserve protection. They could and should have refused to execute their orders.
This is not about what those who commit atrocities are, but about what we are. Are we not better than that? Society extends the protection of the law even to scum, exactly because we aren't scum.
There is a discrepancy here - people always moan and whine about "too much government" and the terrible waste of having to pay taxes, which when you get right down to it is what pays for policing. But you find it unreasonable that the same public agencies don't want to be overcharged by private companies; if they pay more, then the state has to charge more in tax, so what do you want? Higher taxes, so ISPs can charge more? Or that CEOP tries to save money while still doing their job?
As far as I can see, they are complaining that they have to compensate ISPs for their actual work, only that it looks like they are overcharging.
Is it really unconstitutional? I don't know; but I do know that it is completely idiotic to try to criminalize something that people have no influence on. There is no practical way that a web-master could ensure that no child could reach "harmful content" via his web-site; or even that there would be no harmful content hosted on his web-site. Sometimes I suspect those in power imagine computers like some sort of magical device that could easily do anything, "if only somebody would get their act together". It would be nice if it was a requirement that you were qualified for the job before you could be elected for a public office; I mean, I'm all for democracy, but I would expect if you are bright enough to run for things like mayor, congress or president, then you are also bright enough to learn and understand a few basic facts about how things work in the real world.
If it was an easy thing to do, I would say that it was a very good idea to make sure that our children could not come into contact with things that were more dangerous than they would be able to handle well. But it isn't. The only people who stand a reasonable chance at protecting children are their parents - and possibly teachers - but even they can only do so much. Sad, but true.
People talk about this as if it was a major disappointment, but all it is, is that the ultra-rich .2% of the population or so have lost one of their toys. It's not going to bring my piss to the boil.
The purpose of the space station is research - it is nice to see that getting priority over making money on silly publicity stunts for once; I'd like to see more of that. And while the microgravity of that environment is a very valuable scientific resource, it is hardly out in space, actually. If you have a look at one of those photos of Earth, you can hardly see the atmosphere - it's that thin a layer - and the space station almost skims along the top of that; you wonder why it doesn't leave a wake in the Pacific. That doesn't count as "in spce", not in my book. The Moon, yes, Mars, definitely, but not something that close.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
And here's another quote in favour of the right to wear arms: "No arms, no cake".
Only a paranoid totalitarian state would waste time penetrating Congress. There's not much there that isn't accessible via the news. Anyone who had half a brain would target the Executive branch, where there is data that is not publically accessible.
How about some of your own, homegrown extremists and quasi-terrorists? Or for that matter, other members of Congress? No other country in the world houses so many groups of people with extreme agendas as the US, sadly: ultra-rightwing Christians, anti-abortionists, this-or-that rights campaigners, neo-nazis etc. There is no need to go abroad to likely braindeads who would hack into Congress.
It seems more likely to me that people who do this are after finding personal information on the PCs of members of Congress, something that could be used for extortion.
Do nice engineers always finish last? Of course not - I think it is a sign of managerial incompetence if the management does not look more deeply at things than that. I think a more likely scenario is one where back-stabber does not so much benefit himself from his treason, but instead simply harms somebody else. Sensible managers will always look at the real requirements of a position; the higher the level of management, the more important are the "soft" skills of the person. The leader of a department does not need to be the one with the most technical expertise, but he does need to be able to manage his employees, which is something that requires good interpersonal skills. And in tough times, since the future of the company may well depend on the ability of management to mobilise the best in its employees, this is something that becomes more important exactly when it is tough.
However, being nice is not necessarily the same as being well qualified for a management position. A leader sometimes needs to do things that don't look or feel nice; it is actually possible to do those things in a way that avoid nastyness as much as possible while still being effective. It has a lot to do with things like respect, trust and openness; a good manager wouldn't listen to somebody's malicious gossip without checking out the facts - he would have a talk with the person being slandered at the very least, where he would be open about the issues and would show due respect and consideration for the employee.
... helping to prove that the universe doesn't revolve around us.
Ah, but it does - it is just a matter of choosing your coordinate system.
As presented this is of course an obvious piece of idiot legislation - what else can one say about it? It's not worth wasting more breath than that.
But it should make people think a little about why the democratically elected government of any state would spend time - taxpayers' money IOW - on this kind of idle crap? Most of us are ordinary people - we don't agree with this kind of wasting time on formalized prudery; and neither do the majority of people in the world, whether they live in South Carolina or not, so it sholdn't be possible for this to happen. The reason, it seems to me, is that us ordinary people do not want to take part in democracy - why else do those in power only represent religious extremists and big money?
I'm not convinced that it is because people just don't care as long as they have what they want - I think it is because they have been made to feel hopeless about the whole thing. For a very long time it has looked as if it made no difference what ordinary people wanted - but what the election of Obama has shown, I think, is the power of the internet. The internet has given ordinary people the opportunity to have real influence on the debate; you can get heard if what you say appeals enough to people - you don't need to be rich or famous or know somebody.
And that is probably why so many of those in power want to limit what you can say in public; after all, what is "profanity"? There was a time where eg the word "cock" was an innocent, everyday word meaning "male bird" or "cockerel" - and so on. So who gets to define what is "profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent"? As it stands, it could well cover more or less everything people say if they don't agree with those in power, but I am pretty sure "indecent" won't mean lying to the electorate or being a pompous hypocrite.
If you're worried about impressionable children being taught violence you should look at parents teaching their children religion at a young age since those things do tend to contain a lot of bad things even if the parents don't emphasize them and there's no real question that religion has a strong tendency of affecting your behaviour when you grow up.
As I tried to say, read what I write; though perhaps I should have said "understand what I write". No I am not worried about that - it wouldn't make any difference if I were, anyway. What I am worried about is that this silly argument continues indefinitely without anybody actually knowing what they are talking about. We all know what the result of that is likely to be: the restrictive policies have their way, because the reactionaries always win when people don't make the effort to get the real, scientific facts.
Lets not be idiots about this - if you really believe that games are not harmful, you should not fear what proper research can turn up. And if they turned out to be bad for you, at least you would know the danger and be able to make an informed choice about it.
Now, before anybody starts howling simply because I don't join the howling chorus, please read what I write first, that's all I ask. The question of how games and cartoons influence children is complicated - far too complicated to settle with name calling, and of course way beyond the comprehension of the average teen-ager, let alone the average congress-man.
The real irony is that the violent cartoons our parents (read the 40-60 year old generation that are our world's decision makers today) watched as kids didn't seem to corrupt them too badly
Children learn primarily by playing - especially young children. They can watch something happening in a movie and if they don't understand it, they are likely to ask an adult. When they play games, they learn how to behave in the kind of situations they encounter in the game, just like when they play at making cakes out of mud, they practise certain aspects of life, like how to strive towards a goal ("I will make a cake") and how to interact socially when serving their "cakes". There is no doubt that children learn things from video games - this is one of the many benefits of video games - but it is largely unanswered what it is they learn from violent games; it is not necessarily true that what you learn is what seems to be the prevalent theme of the game. On the other hand, it is not something one can dismiss out of hand. The problem with much research into games is that it asks the wrong questions - "Does this game people more violent?" instead of "What does this game teach people?"
One of the things I think you are likely to learn from watching movies or playing games, is a moral attitude. In most of the best cartoons from several generations ago, you would watch the main character behave badly, but the conclusion would always be something along the lines of "it doesn't pay to be bad". Modern media are much more ambiguous - but the trend seems to be more about "the good guy can do whatever he pleases"; ie, killing is good if you are "the good guy", rape, theft, drug dealing, whatever are all "good" if done by "the good guy" and "bad" if done by "the bad guy". And isn't that what we have seen in society and politics in the last few decades? I think you can find lots and lots of examples of that. The big, unanswered question here, of course, is whether one is causing the other, or whether they are both symptoms of some underlying disease in society, which is what I think.
Finally, the big, very big, problem I have with the proposed scheme is that it is stupid. We have seen in the past how scare campaings fare; it's like that old, prudish lie, that "if you masturbate, you go blind". First you are scared by it, then you try anyway and find out that it isnt true, then you lose your respect for the source of the campaign. If you want people to think seriously about what they are doing, you have to start by respecting the intelligence of your target audience; the scary labels on tobacco don't work, because people don't enjoy being treated like idiots, but campaigns that inform people about how they can stop, what help they can get etc, actually work.
So instead of putting "scary" labels on video games, perhaps they should educate people a bit. And perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce a content labeling scheme for games and movies - which should be written by an independent body - so people can make up their own mind based on facts. It could say something about educational quality, the graphics, the level of challenge to your intellect or reflexes etc. To my mind that would be useful.
Strictly speaking they are not creating anything, but contructing it. Creation means "bringing into existence" from nothing; not something withing the boundaries of science, where preservation of energy, mass and what have you are the reality. Constructing a living entity, or one that is nearly living is still an impressive feat and an important step closer to discovering what life is.
Because that is one other thing we don't actually know; we know a lot of living organisms, and a lot of dead things, and they seem to be fundamentally different in some way, but we don't quite know where the boundary goes.
It was humour, just not very kind.
The article, of course, makes no mention of hippies, but perhaps to the submitter of this bit of tripe, if you are of another faith, you are either a hippie or a terrorist.
In the rest of the world you don't have to be a "hippie" in order to believe in chakras (a Hindu term), yoga (another one), druidism, ley-lines or any other such things. All this submission actually tells us is that the right honourable tosser, his grace Samzenpus, is a narrow minded bigot who hasn't got a clue and enjoys advertising that very fact to the global community.
Apples' latest must have gadget
Thi's seem's to have been written by a per'son who ha's no idea where to put hi's apo'strophe's
I'd love to compare the current U.S. to the faltering Roman empire but there's a football game on. Has anyone seen my welfare check?
Yes, very witty and all that. So you're implying the critics of modern USA are lazy and uneducated? Just to give you a historical point of view, which you apparently have been conveniently too lazy to educate yourself about, most prominent critics of society have been well-educated people from an affluent background. And being able to compare the US with the Roman empire does, as a matter of fact, require a measure of education, if you think about it.
I hear people screaming themselves to an early grave - again - over this issue, and I am beginning to feel that it is hardly worth the effort.
I feel quite convinced that if we can imagine asking all Palestinians, Israelis, Syrians, etc whether they want peace, even if it means giving up the claims to land and other tangible item all sides have, there would overwhelming support for it. So the question is - who is, on all sides, that keep this atrocity going on and on? If we could capture them and get rid of them, peace would happen naturally. more or less. That's the theory, at least.
Only idiots keep holding on to old grudges - and yes, that includes grudges over who massacred innocents last. I'm not saying it would be easy to put these thigns aside, only that it is possible; and I think a majority on both sides want that. The real criminals are the leaders on both sides, who don't have the greatness to let go of their pet hates and grudges; they live their lives far from the pain and horror they put their own peoples through in the name of "justice" or whatever lie they live behind.
Is it a good idea to deposit a number of potential nuclear catastrophes around in the communities? The risk that one goes wrong is quite small - on the other hand, the damage if it does, could be quite significant. But I think this sidesteps the much more pressing issue: there are far too many people on the planet, and we are insisting on living a lifestyle far beyond our means, in terms of limited resources, break-down of ecosystems and the general viability of basing your future on continued, unlimited growth.
It is not that we lack examples to teach us about these things: no species has ever survived long without finding a balance between growth and die-off. It can't be done, no matter how we twist and turn. It is not just a question about limited mineral resources or energy; life only teems, if one can actually say that, because of its diversity. Whether we know realize it or not, we are not going to be able to survive in such great numbers if we eradicate all the species that are not relevant to us as food. Or look to the current financial crisis - if ever there was a striking example of why we shouldn't live beyond our means, that is it.
The way forward - the ONLY way, in fact - is to first live within our means, and then reduce our numbers. The reduction in number will come, of course; but we still have the time to decide to do it as gently as possible. All this musing about using nuclear-, solar-, wind-, wave- or whatever power must be more than just a quest to extend our wasteful lifestyle a bit longer; otherwise it is simply another way of hiding our heads in the sand.
These viewpoints have never been popular, of course. It's all doom and gloom, people say; well, if it was "doom and gloom" that I was preaching, I would hardly say that we could still make the necessary changes, would I?
First, let me say that I don't like this at all - it is not right, simply. Never mind civil liberties - this is about respect for people and of course the self-respect of our authorities; you just don't sneak around like that, that's something criminals do.
But let us not lose our heads over this. The state already have the power to do far more than anybody would like, if they were to abuse it; this has always been the case, and I suspect it always will. Living in a society means trusting each other, including the ones in power; and of course, if the government breaches that trust, public order will break down.
What makes this move feel so wrong is the fact that they sneak it in; there is no need to do it that way. I am sure most people will be far more able to accept things like this if they are introduced openly and discussed in public. It's a bit like asking for permission - like, if my neighbor asks if he can borrow my lawn mower, I would probably say yes; but I would be seriously pissed off if he just sneaks in and takes it in the night.
I can see why it is tempting to try and save some money - although when has the military ever had savings and synergy in their target? But it is always a very bad idea to mix military and civilian institutions. The military WILL try to take over, claiming that it is now all state secrets, and that will not benefit the people, or space science - proper science can't be conducted in secret, there must be free exchange of theory, regardless of national interests.
But this was human civilization from 75,000 years ago, which intellectually and technologically pales in comparison to human civilization today. Wouldn't the advancements we've made since the Toba eruption help us to endure the effect of another mega-eruption?
Perhaps - I suppose it depends on how much of the infrastructure is still usable. As we can see with many other disasters in the world, getting help out to those in need is often the biggest problem; add to that the fact that most modern Americans have next to no survival skills when it comes to living with no technology at all. Humans 75000 years agou were probably significantly better equipped for living rough. In my view it is not unlikely that a far larger proportion of humans would succumb to this kind of catastrophe; but of course, in survival of the species terms, we can afford to take a huge hit, because there are so many of us.
Let me join the chorus of congratulations - if any author deserves it, it's him. He is one of the very few who has mastered the art of writing books that are not only funny, but deep and serious at the same time. In fact, I can't really think of any other author that comes close. I can keep re-reading his books again and again; I often go looking for new books, mostly SciFi or fantasy, and mostly go home empty-handed; and then in desparation I return once more to one of TPs books, certain that this time I will be tired of it - but it hasn't happened yet. I think his greatest strength is that his books are not actually funny - the stories are very serious, but written with a lot of humour.
As for the Alzheimer's - it would seem that there is hope of an actual cure in the not too distant future. I really hope he will benefit from the progress of this research.
Funny enough nobody seems to have thought of China - even though India has been mentioned... Well, I suppose I can guess why, since most /. readers are Americans.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think it makes too much difference to the quality of your degree whether you stay in the US or go to Europe, India or China. The most important benefits from studying abroad are culture and language. I would say China is at least on par with China as far as computer science goes, and probably ahead in maths. And learning Chinese is definitely going to be more useful than learning Hindi or other Indian languages, worthy though they be. Part of the reason is that there is one official Chinese language, Mandarin, that will give you access to all of China, whereas there are many Indian dialects and several scripts. Reading, writing and speaking Chinese is likely to give you a massive advantage in the future - the Chinese absolutely love it when foreigners make the effort and speak even a few words.
I can personally recommend Beijing Union University - I have several friends in the administration of the international department; have a look at their home pages: http://www.buu.edu.cn/home/indexe/indexe.htm (No, I don't get commission, I simply think it is a good university).
Well, I think we all knew this, really. What this kind of research should tell us, which is much more important, is that there is in fact no global conspiracy of fat cat climatologists, who holds on to government funding and keeps the good, honest climate sceptics out. Because, as we can see, even these more obscure and border-line absurd hypotheses actually do get researched - ie. they too get funding and their ideas are tested seriously.
You "why" as in "what is the purpose"? I think that simply lies outside science; science deal with cause and effect and doesn't need to assume that there is a higher purpose. I think in a scientific context, the only valid meaning of "why" is "what is the cause".