That's exactly what I was gonna say. "Fuck you!" sums up what being punk is better than any arty/intellectual analysis of Punk as a social phenomenon. "Fuck you" is definitely a better punk credo than any political or philosophical statement. Being punk isn't about being noble, it's about going to a show, getting drunk, puking in the alley, and crashing on someone's couch.
That, and shouting "Oi!" a lot... and getting beat up by boneheads.
Yeah, but could neutrons penetrate a double-hull space ship, with (for example), a thin layer of lead between them? Since they are pretty massive, I would think you could stop them cold pretty easily. I know this would make the hull/shielding radioactive, but it would mostly spare the water, which is more useful for blocking X-rays and such.
Hmmm. How exactly does the water become contaminated with radiation, though? It isn't from radioactive material like uranium or plutonium, that's for sure. And you can't make an isotope of hydrogen from knocking out neutrons, cos it doesn't have any. I guess that leaves oxygen atoms, which I suppose could be changed into isotopes.
I'm pretty sure alpha and beta radiation would be stopped by the hull of the ship. Does anybody know if water is actually likely to become radioactive when exposed to energetic gamma radiation?
Water is indeed a better shielding material, plus you can mine it on the moon (or from comets and asteroids, too) and avoid the gravity penalty of bringing up Terran water. Plus, you can use it for all sorts of other things, like growing food, storing power, and drinking. Try doing that with lead.
ZZZZZZ... go back to sleep. I bet those big words like "direct human influence" confused you. Don't worry your little head about the world's problems, puddin. You need your beauty rest.
I can't believe this post got modded up. Well, I *can* believe it, considering the amount of people who don't want to hear that we are on course to a full-blown crisis. So of course, anything that challenges their point of view by actually attempting to analyse the problem (even just with rough estimates, which this report admitted it was using) must be crap.
COME ONE GUYS!! Do more than read the/. summary before you attack an article. Maybe even go as far as *gasp* looking at the data notes and refernces. That, of course, would require a genuine interest in the subject, as opposed to a pre-formulated and self-serving set of beliefs used as a blanket "whatever" defence to a fearless discussion on the subject.
Go ahead, keep repeating your mantra: "there's nothing wrong with the environment". You are harldy rocking the boat with your conventional anti-environmental ideology.
My point exactly. This sniper thing is like a feedback mechanism for society. My idea is that if you "engineer" such a social context you shouldn't be surprised when it bites you in the ass. I believe "cybernetics" deals with crime as a necessary result of a larger social system... so, in fact, this guy (in an abstract sense) represents part of the American unconscious.
Visit Europe. Hell, visit New Orleans or Brooklyn. This guy could NOT operate the way he has been in those places.
If you still find my hypothesis hard to swallow, think about the locations has been using: parking lots, gas stations, convenience stores, bus stops in the middle of nowhere. What do these things have in common?
And give the old one to your mom... who is not likely to be pissed about being banned from playing Counter-Strike cos someone thinks she is a 1337 h4x0r.
This guy would lack both the cover and the alienation required to snipe strangers if the US wasn't dominated by low-density suburban planning. The American obsession with the automobile has shattered the older urban communities and scattered people to the suburbs, which are no substitue for a healthy neighbourhood.
People in high-density/pedestrian-oriented urban areas would probably a)have a stronger bond with people in their vicinity, b)play a more active role in policing their neighbourhood, and c)notice a guy setting up down the block with an assault rifle.
This guy is sick, for sure. How did he get that way? Why doesn't every contry have a sniper killer? All I can say is: the conditions that created this individual aren't changing, so prepare for more. He won't be the last.
No. Even with dynamite, you are going to have to move stones. You mean he invents an earth-mover. Dynamite just turns one big chunk of rock into many, smaller pieces of rock. Conservation of mass and all that.
We start with working on the ideas. We start with building bridges between groups that are ready to work. We say what we think, we learn from our mistakes, and we try to include people in the process. Bootstrapping... you know.
I have my doubts about common sense. That's just me, though: Mr. Pathologically Unconventional, pleased to meet you.
And often, economics and ecology work just fine together.
Huh? I'm not aware of any examples. Well, I know that some companies can maintain a low ecological "footprint", but this is not a matter of the economy ENCOURAGING it. If we redefine capitol as "the means of production, AND the bio-infrastructure which allows an economy to exist", then yes, our economy would be rational. Then, meeting the needs of capitol would make sense.
My philosophy: Try at least to be a little bit better than the people around you.
Heh. "Better" is just a word. "Wiser" is probably a little more objective. Let's try for wiser.
Notice I said "commitment to change" and not "commitment to knee-jerk, hand-waving governance". The problem as I see it is based on two things:
1) people have forgotten the value of philosophy in resolving problems at the highest level of abstraction (ie: we need to change our ideas if we want to change the world)
and 2) our systems of governance, at all levels, and in all jurisdictions, need to be smarter. making decisions with one eye closed and blinders on can hardly lead to wise choices.
It is not any one change I want to see, but a change to the way we deal with change. A system that learns. A system that knows what "best practices" and "stakeholder representation" means. And one that is *gasp* based on ethics and transparency, as opposed to the Machiavellian hypocrisy we call government these days.
So, no, I don't want to change the status quo based on some beef of being kicked around by popular kids (which I was), but because I really think the status quo is the product of a rigid rule-based system that represents the interests of elitist and short-sighted power-mongers, be they capitalist or communist. But if four hundred at "the top" have to suffer to save four billion at "the bottom", then too bad... I was never that much into pyramids, anyhow.
Did I say asking questions was wrong? No. Don't put words in my mouth, or start throwing around references to everyone's favourite Hitler-of-the-Month.
Maybe you honestly misinterpreted my rejection of your rejection. Let me spell it out for you: asking questions you assume you know the answer to is not an argument and does not illuminate the topic. It just makes you sound like an overly-dramatic lawyer. You ask what are supposed to be important questions, but can't be bothered to come out and answer them yourself. If you know something your reader should know, tell them. Unless, of course, you are speaking only to people who already share your point of view.
Also, I don't reject Creationism because of my beliefs, spiritual or otherwise. I reject Creationism because it is untestable and often falls into emotional arguments and character assassination rather than putting forward ideas that stand for themselves.
I would like to underscore your last point. I am tired of people throwing around examples and conjectures on the "natural" variation in planet-wide temperatures as a reason to not take a hard look at our own role. (Not saying anything about your comments, BTW, dcuny).
OK, the earth has already been through some dramatic ups and downs in the past: the earth will survive, obviously. But will there always be room for us? Our environment is not a simple linear system; our human activities have an impact far beyond the human scale.
Personally, I think our "minor" inputs (greenhouse gases, extinctions, deforestatrion, etc.) could easily lead to a global weather system that reorganizes itself into a new "stable" state that we may not like at all... one in which humanity has to make some pretty big changes to its lifestyle choices.
Many people seem to use ignorance as a shield, choosing to avoid grappling with unpleasant problems. So, the question isn't "what should I do?", because that is more of a long conversation and lifetime commitment to change. The real question is: "do I care?"
If the answer is "not really", don't worry: you have lots of company.
There is a difference between being a skeptic and burying your head in the sand. I notice you didn't actually refute any of the information presented, you just asked a lot of rhetorical questions and threw out an anecdotal observation or two.
Rejecting evidence that doesn't fit with your beliefs is not smart (like Bayes is smart). What do you do for an encore? Argue for creationism?
I find it amusing that you defend capitalism with rhyming poetry. What a waste of time. Why don't leave that to people who actually have a few million kicking around and buy another lottery ticket, wannabe.
Yeah, back in the day, we used to call the 512K the "Phat Mac". I can still remember getting the upgrade for our little 128 and hearing "Ride of the Valkyries" pumping out of that little speaker when I played "Airborne!". Ah, the memories.
Another cool Mac vs. Islam reference: the Public Enemy song where Chuck D talks about sitting down to composes his next song by "smack[ing] the Mac on the back and attack"... anyone who remembers the old 9" monochrome machines remembers that little switch on the left in the back... and that happy little "bong!"
Listen, when Americans can stop blathering on and on about the merits of their founding fathers, the revolution, the fight for the Union, etc. etc. then I will accept the "leave the past in the past" argument. So don't be a hypocrite and say that you accept the "good" parts of your past and reject the bad parts. History may not be objective, but it sure as hell shouldn't be forgotten.
Or maybe you would prefer to pretend that all the groups/societies in the world that are priveleged should be seen as being inherently "worthy" of that privelege, and that no historical analysis of how they got there is required? (ie: the "never ask a man how he made his first million" quote).
No offense, but isn't the whole point of capitalism to serve the interests of capital? And isn't it in the best interest of capital to reward those make your company a whole bunch of money? I mean, you can go around beating your dog whenever he licks your hand, but he probably won't be licking your hand for very long. Similarly, if you want to attract the best and brightest minds, you should probably reward the ones who actually DO come up with the groundbreaking applications/products. A couple of million dollars is hella incentive to come up with the next revolutionary invention, wouldn't you agree? Much more than, say, GETTING THE SHAFT APPLIED TO THE RECTAL AREA YET AGAIN, perhaps?
Sorry if I'm being to radical here. I just think that if you are going to be a good little capitalist you should at least play by the rules of capitalism. Unfortunately a lot of corporations these days practice a sort of soft communism where the administrators set the plan, divide the profits among themselves, and keep the prols in line with an alternating conga line of downsizing consultants and motivational speakers. No wonder they have to cook the books in order to look good to their shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate Slashdot. less than 50 replies and someone already beat me to the punchline!
All I could think when I read the article was "Clippy + Pool Cue = Long Time Coming"
What the hell does "basic, but very sufficient" mean? Is that like "minimal, but extremely adequate"? Or more like "average, but radically normal"?
/. guys. Not that anyone else cares, I'm sure.
Just thought I'd point out this lapse in editing, on both the part of the submitter and the
That, and shouting "Oi!" a lot... and getting beat up by boneheads.
Yeah, but could neutrons penetrate a double-hull space ship, with (for example), a thin layer of lead between them? Since they are pretty massive, I would think you could stop them cold pretty easily. I know this would make the hull/shielding radioactive, but it would mostly spare the water, which is more useful for blocking X-rays and such.
Hmmm. How exactly does the water become contaminated with radiation, though? It isn't from radioactive material like uranium or plutonium, that's for sure. And you can't make an isotope of hydrogen from knocking out neutrons, cos it doesn't have any. I guess that leaves oxygen atoms, which I suppose could be changed into isotopes.
I'm pretty sure alpha and beta radiation would be stopped by the hull of the ship. Does anybody know if water is actually likely to become radioactive when exposed to energetic gamma radiation?
Water is indeed a better shielding material, plus you can mine it on the moon (or from comets and asteroids, too) and avoid the gravity penalty of bringing up Terran water. Plus, you can use it for all sorts of other things, like growing food, storing power, and drinking. Try doing that with lead.
Quebec is next to Canada? Not yet, men. Not yet. I believe he was talking about Alaskans, actually. heh heh
ZZZZZZ... go back to sleep. I bet those big words like "direct human influence" confused you. Don't worry your little head about the world's problems, puddin. You need your beauty rest.
I can't believe this post got modded up. Well, I *can* believe it, considering the amount of people who don't want to hear that we are on course to a full-blown crisis. So of course, anything that challenges their point of view by actually attempting to analyse the problem (even just with rough estimates, which this report admitted it was using) must be crap.
/. summary before you attack an article. Maybe even go as far as *gasp* looking at the data notes and refernces. That, of course, would require a genuine interest in the subject, as opposed to a pre-formulated and self-serving set of beliefs used as a blanket "whatever" defence to a fearless discussion on the subject.
COME ONE GUYS!! Do more than read the
Go ahead, keep repeating your mantra: "there's nothing wrong with the environment". You are harldy rocking the boat with your conventional anti-environmental ideology.
My point exactly. This sniper thing is like a feedback mechanism for society. My idea is that if you "engineer" such a social context you shouldn't be surprised when it bites you in the ass. I believe "cybernetics" deals with crime as a necessary result of a larger social system... so, in fact, this guy (in an abstract sense) represents part of the American unconscious.
Visit Europe. Hell, visit New Orleans or Brooklyn. This guy could NOT operate the way he has been in those places.
If you still find my hypothesis hard to swallow, think about the locations has been using: parking lots, gas stations, convenience stores, bus stops in the middle of nowhere. What do these things have in common?
And give the old one to your mom... who is not likely to be pissed about being banned from playing Counter-Strike cos someone thinks she is a 1337 h4x0r.
This guy would lack both the cover and the alienation required to snipe strangers if the US wasn't dominated by low-density suburban planning. The American obsession with the automobile has shattered the older urban communities and scattered people to the suburbs, which are no substitue for a healthy neighbourhood.
People in high-density/pedestrian-oriented urban areas would probably a)have a stronger bond with people in their vicinity, b)play a more active role in policing their neighbourhood, and c)notice a guy setting up down the block with an assault rifle.
This guy is sick, for sure. How did he get that way? Why doesn't every contry have a sniper killer? All I can say is: the conditions that created this individual aren't changing, so prepare for more. He won't be the last.
No. Even with dynamite, you are going to have to move stones. You mean he invents an earth-mover. Dynamite just turns one big chunk of rock into many, smaller pieces of rock. Conservation of mass and all that.
We start with working on the ideas. We start with building bridges between groups that are ready to work. We say what we think, we learn from our mistakes, and we try to include people in the process. Bootstrapping... you know.
I have my doubts about common sense. That's just me, though: Mr. Pathologically Unconventional, pleased to meet you.
And often, economics and ecology work just fine together.
Huh? I'm not aware of any examples. Well, I know that some companies can maintain a low ecological "footprint", but this is not a matter of the economy ENCOURAGING it. If we redefine capitol as "the means of production, AND the bio-infrastructure which allows an economy to exist", then yes, our economy would be rational. Then, meeting the needs of capitol would make sense.
My philosophy: Try at least to be a little bit better than the people around you.
Heh. "Better" is just a word. "Wiser" is probably a little more objective. Let's try for wiser.
Notice I said "commitment to change" and not "commitment to knee-jerk, hand-waving governance". The problem as I see it is based on two things:
1) people have forgotten the value of philosophy in resolving problems at the highest level of abstraction (ie: we need to change our ideas if we want to change the world)
and 2) our systems of governance, at all levels, and in all jurisdictions, need to be smarter. making decisions with one eye closed and blinders on can hardly lead to wise choices.
It is not any one change I want to see, but a change to the way we deal with change. A system that learns. A system that knows what "best practices" and "stakeholder representation" means. And one that is *gasp* based on ethics and transparency, as opposed to the Machiavellian hypocrisy we call government these days.
So, no, I don't want to change the status quo based on some beef of being kicked around by popular kids (which I was), but because I really think the status quo is the product of a rigid rule-based system that represents the interests of elitist and short-sighted power-mongers, be they capitalist or communist. But if four hundred at "the top" have to suffer to save four billion at "the bottom", then too bad... I was never that much into pyramids, anyhow.
Did I say asking questions was wrong? No. Don't put words in my mouth, or start throwing around references to everyone's favourite Hitler-of-the-Month.
Maybe you honestly misinterpreted my rejection of your rejection. Let me spell it out for you: asking questions you assume you know the answer to is not an argument and does not illuminate the topic. It just makes you sound like an overly-dramatic lawyer. You ask what are supposed to be important questions, but can't be bothered to come out and answer them yourself. If you know something your reader should know, tell them. Unless, of course, you are speaking only to people who already share your point of view.
Also, I don't reject Creationism because of my beliefs, spiritual or otherwise. I reject Creationism because it is untestable and often falls into emotional arguments and character assassination rather than putting forward ideas that stand for themselves.
I would like to underscore your last point. I am tired of people throwing around examples and conjectures on the "natural" variation in planet-wide temperatures as a reason to not take a hard look at our own role. (Not saying anything about your comments, BTW, dcuny).
OK, the earth has already been through some dramatic ups and downs in the past: the earth will survive, obviously. But will there always be room for us? Our environment is not a simple linear system; our human activities have an impact far beyond the human scale.
Personally, I think our "minor" inputs (greenhouse gases, extinctions, deforestatrion, etc.) could easily lead to a global weather system that reorganizes itself into a new "stable" state that we may not like at all... one in which humanity has to make some pretty big changes to its lifestyle choices.
Many people seem to use ignorance as a shield, choosing to avoid grappling with unpleasant problems. So, the question isn't "what should I do?", because that is more of a long conversation and lifetime commitment to change. The real question is: "do I care?"
If the answer is "not really", don't worry: you have lots of company.
There is a difference between being a skeptic and burying your head in the sand. I notice you didn't actually refute any of the information presented, you just asked a lot of rhetorical questions and threw out an anecdotal observation or two.
Rejecting evidence that doesn't fit with your beliefs is not smart (like Bayes is smart). What do you do for an encore? Argue for creationism?
Nope, check the lyrics on the Nation of Millions... liner notes. I checked. Word.
I find it amusing that you defend capitalism with rhyming poetry. What a waste of time. Why don't leave that to people who actually have a few million kicking around and buy another lottery ticket, wannabe.
Yeah, back in the day, we used to call the 512K the "Phat Mac". I can still remember getting the upgrade for our little 128 and hearing "Ride of the Valkyries" pumping out of that little speaker when I played "Airborne!". Ah, the memories.
Another cool Mac vs. Islam reference: the Public Enemy song where Chuck D talks about sitting down to composes his next song by "smack[ing] the Mac on the back and attack"... anyone who remembers the old 9" monochrome machines remembers that little switch on the left in the back... and that happy little "bong!"
Listen, when Americans can stop blathering on and on about the merits of their founding fathers, the revolution, the fight for the Union, etc. etc. then I will accept the "leave the past in the past" argument. So don't be a hypocrite and say that you accept the "good" parts of your past and reject the bad parts. History may not be objective, but it sure as hell shouldn't be forgotten.
Or maybe you would prefer to pretend that all the groups/societies in the world that are priveleged should be seen as being inherently "worthy" of that privelege, and that no historical analysis of how they got there is required? (ie: the "never ask a man how he made his first million" quote).
Sorry if I'm being to radical here. I just think that if you are going to be a good little capitalist you should at least play by the rules of capitalism. Unfortunately a lot of corporations these days practice a sort of soft communism where the administrators set the plan, divide the profits among themselves, and keep the prols in line with an alternating conga line of downsizing consultants and motivational speakers. No wonder they have to cook the books in order to look good to their shareholders.