I think we have to start promoting this type of thing in a different way. Rather than "it's about protecting the environment" we should be saying "it's about not being dependent upon the Middle East".
I don't know about anyone else, but that video is very persuasive. Its intelligent and serious perspective on the issues has made me realise how the current situation with North Korea is actually the fault of the Democrats. I suggest everyone watches it to see the quality of discourse on the Republican side of this debate.
I have to say I have been very impressed by Apple's strategic manovering over the last five years or so. Whilst Sony and Microsoft has been clashing heads trying to use gaming machines as a trojan horse to become the digital hub of people's living rooms, Apple has quietly been putting together all the pieces it needs to do so in a much more sophisticated manner.
Personally, I don't think Steve Jobs is very interested in conquering the enterprise desktop these days, he's got his eyes fixed on potentially a much bigger pie - becoming the digital media hub of people's homes.
Personally I find it interesting that, in the build up to the current war in Iraq, the US administration tried to make out that Saddam Hussien had proven links to the funding of terrorist activities in the west - which now turns out not to be true - whereas Gaddafi is known to have directly funded and supported international terrorist operations for many years, and yet now he is our best mate. I wonder why that is..?
So, if either the NSA or CIA ever did do such a thing, they would be in hot water, legally - at least as far as I know.
Yes, I know. Torture is/was illegal as well. My point is that if Bush thinks he can ignore laws about torture, then he may think he can ignore laws preventing the intelligence agencies operating on US citizens.
Rosen suggests that the story everyone missed is how this government has distorted reality by bullying journalists, amongst other things. This has got me thinking...
Bush thinks that the "war on terror" is so important that some of the very principals that our legal system is based on can be ignored.
It has been a principal of government in the past that the intelligence services are not used on the general public to influence their opinion or voting intentions (at least not in the USA, they can influence people in other countries). What if this principal were no longer followed? Personally I wouldn't be shocked if a scandal broke that various journalists were part of a clandestine "psyops" operation to influence US public opinion with relation to Bush's policies.
A very good point. There has to be a mechanism to limit who sends you stuff - "only receive content invites from people on my friends list" - type of thing. Otherwise the potential for abuse is huge.
That being said, I don't see how this is much different than the functionality many Bluetooth mobile phones have - they can already send images and sound files to other phones.
It would be like the police being allowed to shoot people they see speeding.
This reminds me of an amusing conversation I had with an American a few years ago. It went something like this:
Me: The local police in the UK often don't carry guns. American: What? That's terrible! Me: People here think it's a good thing. American: But what if they see someone stealing something, for instance, and then they run away. How do they stop them? Me: The policeman runs after them and tries to catch them. American: But what if the criminal runs faster? Me: They get away. American: That's dumb. Me: So a policeman in the USA would shoot a shoplifter if they ran away? American: If they didn't stop, I guess they would. Me: That's dumber.
Within the context of applicable laws. The laws we define.
You can apply your argument to pretty much everything - when you send a parcel via UPS, when you make a telephone call, when you give your details to a company to purchase something. Laws apply which protect us from misuse of our personal information.
If you choose to tell someone something voluntarily you cannot expect them to forget about it when you think they should.
Rubbish. An organisation can use your personal information within the bounds set by applicable laws.
The concept of gun bans and video game bans are similar in many ways. It is the basic argument of personal responsibility versus outside influence.
True, but guns and video games are not similar at all - games are designed for fun, guns are designed to injure and kill. They are completely different things and so the same arguments do not apply.
That's nothing. At my company, we never have any meetings at all, nor any plans. And staff can take holidays whenever they want and work on whatever they want!
We're not making any money yet, but it's only a matter of time! (Fingers crossed!)
George Bush: Yo computer! George AI: Hello. George Bush: Howdy! So you're a computer that knows everything? George AI: I know a lot of things. George Bush: So, where is Bin Laden? LOL! George AI: Seek and you will find. George Bush: What?! George AI: It's a quotation from the Bible. Matthew 7:7. George Bush: Now I'm confused. What are you talking about? George AI: Is there someone else there I can chat to?
I'm a firm believer that most people act in the best intrests of others.
I think you're probably right. However, it is a sad fact that this isn't true of most people that get into positions of power - you generally don't get into a position of power by thinking of others.
I'd like to know what the cristian/catholic/islamic/etc perspective on maximizing lifespain is. My understanding of catholic thought is that this life is just a test before you get to get to the good stuff (heaven). So it doesn't make sense to maximise "this life" beyond what is "natural".
I guess these days if you purchase a big block of Sodium you are guaranteed a place on a government terrorist watchlist. If you're muslim you might also get a visit from the spooks. Go USA!
Slashdot Mirror
? Not following you - they are both valid and truthful reasons.
Isn't it obvious?
I don't think it is obvious to many people.
I think we have to start promoting this type of thing in a different way. Rather than "it's about protecting the environment" we should be saying "it's about not being dependent upon the Middle East".
Yes, marking that video as inappropriate is terrible. How can a lecture by a nobel prize winner be inappropriate?
It is interesting to contrast the intelligent, clear discourse of Pinter's lecture with the Benny Hill style of that political advertisement.
Yes, I just watched it.
I don't know about anyone else, but that video is very persuasive. Its intelligent and serious perspective on the issues has made me realise how the current situation with North Korea is actually the fault of the Democrats. I suggest everyone watches it to see the quality of discourse on the Republican side of this debate.
I have to say I have been very impressed by Apple's strategic manovering over the last five years or so. Whilst Sony and Microsoft has been clashing heads trying to use gaming machines as a trojan horse to become the digital hub of people's living rooms, Apple has quietly been putting together all the pieces it needs to do so in a much more sophisticated manner.
Personally, I don't think Steve Jobs is very interested in conquering the enterprise desktop these days, he's got his eyes fixed on potentially a much bigger pie - becoming the digital media hub of people's homes.
God damn that Muammar Gaddafi
Personally I find it interesting that, in the build up to the current war in Iraq, the US administration tried to make out that Saddam Hussien had proven links to the funding of terrorist activities in the west - which now turns out not to be true - whereas Gaddafi is known to have directly funded and supported international terrorist operations for many years, and yet now he is our best mate. I wonder why that is..?
Hasn't any business been paying attention?! People will actually spend money to avoid advertising.
Actually, that company exists. But you've probably never heard of it because they never advertise.
And the Spanish translation of Faulty towers had Manuel coming from Mexico I believe.
The French have a confused view of the US.
And the US has a confused view of the French. Especially recently.
So, if either the NSA or CIA ever did do such a thing, they would be in hot water, legally - at least as far as I know.
Yes, I know. Torture is/was illegal as well. My point is that if Bush thinks he can ignore laws about torture, then he may think he can ignore laws preventing the intelligence agencies operating on US citizens.
Rosen suggests that the story everyone missed is how this government has distorted reality by bullying journalists, amongst other things. This has got me thinking...
Bush thinks that the "war on terror" is so important that some of the very principals that our legal system is based on can be ignored.
It has been a principal of government in the past that the intelligence services are not used on the general public to influence their opinion or voting intentions (at least not in the USA, they can influence people in other countries). What if this principal were no longer followed? Personally I wouldn't be shocked if a scandal broke that various journalists were part of a clandestine "psyops" operation to influence US public opinion with relation to Bush's policies.
A very good point. There has to be a mechanism to limit who sends you stuff - "only receive content invites from people on my friends list" - type of thing. Otherwise the potential for abuse is huge.
That being said, I don't see how this is much different than the functionality many Bluetooth mobile phones have - they can already send images and sound files to other phones.
It would be like the police being allowed to shoot people they see speeding.
This reminds me of an amusing conversation I had with an American a few years ago. It went something like this:
Me: The local police in the UK often don't carry guns.
American: What? That's terrible!
Me: People here think it's a good thing.
American: But what if they see someone stealing something, for instance, and then they run away. How do they stop them?
Me: The policeman runs after them and tries to catch them.
American: But what if the criminal runs faster?
Me: They get away.
American: That's dumb.
Me: So a policeman in the USA would shoot a shoplifter if they ran away?
American: If they didn't stop, I guess they would.
Me: That's dumber.
You give up this data willingly.
Within the context of applicable laws. The laws we define.
You can apply your argument to pretty much everything - when you send a parcel via UPS, when you make a telephone call, when you give your details to a company to purchase something. Laws apply which protect us from misuse of our personal information.
If you choose to tell someone something voluntarily you cannot expect them to forget about it when you think they should.
Rubbish. An organisation can use your personal information within the bounds set by applicable laws.
The concept of gun bans and video game bans are similar in many ways. It is the basic argument of personal responsibility versus outside influence.
True, but guns and video games are not similar at all - games are designed for fun, guns are designed to injure and kill. They are completely different things and so the same arguments do not apply.
So, if someone is obsessed by guns and then goes on a shooting spree, should guns be banned?
That's nothing. At my company, we never have any meetings at all, nor any plans. And staff can take holidays whenever they want and work on whatever they want!
We're not making any money yet, but it's only a matter of time! (Fingers crossed!)
George Bush: Yo computer!
George AI: Hello.
George Bush: Howdy! So you're a computer that knows everything?
George AI: I know a lot of things.
George Bush: So, where is Bin Laden? LOL!
George AI: Seek and you will find.
George Bush: What?!
George AI: It's a quotation from the Bible. Matthew 7:7.
George Bush: Now I'm confused. What are you talking about?
George AI: Is there someone else there I can chat to?
Notice that in Rule 1, the word "aero" is not in the font they say you have to use...
Most people action in what they, perhaps subconciously, perceive to be the best interests of themselves.
If that were true mankind would die out very quickly. Nobody would have kids.
I'm a firm believer that most people act in the best intrests of others.
I think you're probably right. However, it is a sad fact that this isn't true of most people that get into positions of power - you generally don't get into a position of power by thinking of others.
I think my answer lies somewhere in management.
Bingo.
I'd like to know what the cristian/catholic/islamic/etc perspective on maximizing lifespain is. My understanding of catholic thought is that this life is just a test before you get to get to the good stuff (heaven). So it doesn't make sense to maximise "this life" beyond what is "natural".
Apart from that, do you think God would approve?
As for boycotting Vista, I wish the world would consider, but it won't.
Actually, I'm amazed how many people I know that are considering switching to Mac, and some that have done.
I guess these days if you purchase a big block of Sodium you are guaranteed a place on a government terrorist watchlist. If you're muslim you might also get a visit from the spooks. Go USA!
That's like putting a Robin Reliant into a huge metal box to make it as safe as a Volvo. Or something. More coffee...