Actually our system doesn't have the same rules for everybody. For one if you have been convicted of a felony in the past, then you give up some of your rights. This is in the constitution. Also the constitution grantees no specific rights to non-citizens of the United States.
I am by no means a fan of the ACLU (I think they're rotton to the core), however, the system is the way it is to prevent inocent people from being convicted of crimes. This does, however let guilty people free. One man (a judge I think, but I can't remember) said that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. If an innocent man is convicted then there are two wrongs done: the innocent man is punished for a crime he committed, and a guilty man goes free.
Now of course the system isn't perfect; innocent men are convicted sometimes. But, is it really good to keep track of everything so that if someone says the wrong word (just think of how many uses b**b has that don't refer to any kind of terrorist activities) they are investigated and harrased by the FBI/CIA?.
You hit the nail on the head. The choice is obvious. Either we give up our freedom for a sense of security (the question still remains, however, wether this security is really what the government wants us to believe it is), or we give up our sense of security to keep our freedoms.
Those who fought the revolutionary war knew that there were certian sacrifices that they, as well as thier decendents (us) would have to make. Will we choose to sacrifice to keep our freedoms and way of life, or will we choose this new security?
I compleatly agree with you. Many people in the free software community sometimes loose site of the fact that free software has problems too. I love the free software (open source, whatever you want to call it) movement and I believe that this vulnerability could show the strength of the open source movement, if it is delt with correctly. If bugs are found and fixed quickly with no obfuscation (as has happened in the past with the company we all love, note sarcasim) then then one of the strienghts of free software will shine through.
You fail to realize that pro-life activists are NOT anti-stem cell reaserch. They are anti-embryonic stem cell research. There is much reasearch in the area of stem cells that are taken from adults. Most pro-lifers have absolutly no problem with this. You are very decieved if you believe that pro-life activists are anti-stem cell research, as the liberals would have you believe.
I dissagree with you. I am by no means against technology (after all why would I read slashdot all of the time?) but that doesn't mean that I believe that we humans should dive into every technology that we develop.
The problem with technology and humans is that humans have a knack for doing more harm with a technology than good. To say that genetic engineering is only good is being very ignorant of humans' knack for doing harm. Don't get me wrong, not everybody is going to use these technologies for evil, but all it takes is another Hitler (who did plenty of expirements with genetics himself) to come along and figure out how to use genetic engineering to control many people.
Bill Joy (the chief computer scientist at Sun Microsystems) wrote an article in Wired Magazine that opened my eyes to the dangers of tecnology. I believe that every person who believes that genetic engineering is good (which it is in some cases, such as saving lives) should read this article. It can be found here.
an Earthlike planet _could_ survive an orbit between the two large ones.
However even if a planet does survive it is likely that gravitational forces would wreck havoc on the planet, meaning that even though the planet survives, it would probably undergo extream volcanic activity along with severe "planetquakes." Look at IO, the closest large moon to Jupiter. This planet is the most volcanicly active object in the solar system because of its proximity to Jupiter.
Well, It seams to me that this is another case of weird science. The argument for rising temperatures is simple, the temperature of the surface will move downward due to conduction (you heat a long metal rod on one end and eventually the temperature will be conducted to the other end).
But wouldn't the rising crustal temperatures on earth be subject to too many variables? The tempurature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth would not only be dependent on the temperature of the earth ~150 years ago, but upon the temperature much longer ago than that. Why is this? Well 200 years ago the temperature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth (lets call this tempurature "A") was influence by the earth's surface tempurature ~150 years before that (from their reasoning). Now, at present, the tempurature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth is dependent upon the surface tempurature of the earth ~150 years ago ( lets call this tempurature "B"). It is obvious to me that tempurature "B" is going to be influenced by more than just the surface temperature ~150 years ago, but also by tempuratue "A" (something that has an initial temperature that is low, when warmed up by a given amount will still be cooler that something with a relatively high temperature, when warmed by the same amount), and likewise tempurature "A" is dependent upon more than just the crustal temperatures ~150 years before it was measured.
Therefore unless if we can know the temperature of the surface of the earth in the past, there is no way of knowing the temperature of the surface of the earth in the past. Am I the only one who thinks this is weird science?
Wow! This is pretty amazing. Just makes you wonder when traditional computing ( i.e. not quantum computing ) will reach its limits. I remember reading that this could occur around 2010, but then again that is barring new advances in physics.
Even then we do know that there are limits, for example there is a minimum limit to the amount of heat produced in a computation ( this is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ). So there is a limit to the number of transistors that can be fit into any given area, otherwise the processor would be putting out too much heat energy.
Well anyway, this is very interesting and will make running simulations of real life scientific phenomena better, and as a result our understanding of the universe around us will be enhanced.
Re:Some (offtopic) History of the Homestake Mine
on
New National Science Lab?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, giving the Black Hills back to the Native Americans sounds like a nice idea, but people live there (I am one of them), besides who are the rightfull owners anyway? I don't clame to know anything, but every country has a history of one people group taking over another for whatever reasons (usually bad ones like greed, somtimes for better ones like freedom) and settleing there. You might as well ask that everyone leave the U.S. and go back to their country of origin. If you go back far enough people who live in a certian country probably decended from people who conqured that area long ago, and we might as well say they are not the rightfull owners of the land they live in.
Being fair sounds nice, but is too complicated, besides what is fair? Our history (Human history that is) is full of waring and conquring and atrocities, to right one by giving back the Black Hills to the Native Americans may only create another one by making all of the residents of that area leave their homes and find a living somewhere else.
I am not saying that it is right for the U.S. to have broken treaties over and over again, or to have taken land that wasn't theirs, however the only way we can right this wrong is to apologize to our fellow Americans who are of Native American decent. I for one do apologize for the attrocities and wrongs, and hope to never see anything like that done to any people group by another people group again.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually our system doesn't have the same rules for everybody. For one if you have been convicted of a felony in the past, then you give up some of your rights. This is in the constitution. Also the constitution grantees no specific rights to non-citizens of the United States.
I am by no means a fan of the ACLU (I think they're rotton to the core), however, the system is the way it is to prevent inocent people from being convicted of crimes. This does, however let guilty people free. One man (a judge I think, but I can't remember) said that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted. If an innocent man is convicted then there are two wrongs done: the innocent man is punished for a crime he committed, and a guilty man goes free.
Now of course the system isn't perfect; innocent men are convicted sometimes. But, is it really good to keep track of everything so that if someone says the wrong word (just think of how many uses b**b has that don't refer to any kind of terrorist activities) they are investigated and harrased by the FBI/CIA?.
You hit the nail on the head. The choice is obvious. Either we give up our freedom for a sense of security (the question still remains, however, wether this security is really what the government wants us to believe it is), or we give up our sense of security to keep our freedoms.
Those who fought the revolutionary war knew that there were certian sacrifices that they, as well as thier decendents (us) would have to make. Will we choose to sacrifice to keep our freedoms and way of life, or will we choose this new security?
I compleatly agree with you. Many people in the free software community sometimes loose site of the fact that free software has problems too. I love the free software (open source, whatever you want to call it) movement and I believe that this vulnerability could show the strength of the open source movement, if it is delt with correctly. If bugs are found and fixed quickly with no obfuscation (as has happened in the past with the company we all love, note sarcasim) then then one of the strienghts of free software will shine through.
You fail to realize that pro-life activists are NOT anti-stem cell reaserch. They are anti-embryonic stem cell research. There is much reasearch in the area of stem cells that are taken from adults. Most pro-lifers have absolutly no problem with this. You are very decieved if you believe that pro-life activists are anti-stem cell research, as the liberals would have you believe.
I dissagree with you. I am by no means against technology (after all why would I read slashdot all of the time?) but that doesn't mean that I believe that we humans should dive into every technology that we develop.
The problem with technology and humans is that humans have a knack for doing more harm with a technology than good. To say that genetic engineering is only good is being very ignorant of humans' knack for doing harm. Don't get me wrong, not everybody is going to use these technologies for evil, but all it takes is another Hitler (who did plenty of expirements with genetics himself) to come along and figure out how to use genetic engineering to control many people.
Bill Joy (the chief computer scientist at Sun Microsystems) wrote an article in Wired Magazine that opened my eyes to the dangers of tecnology. I believe that every person who believes that genetic engineering is good (which it is in some cases, such as saving lives) should read this article. It can be found here.
an Earthlike planet _could_ survive an orbit between the two large ones.
However even if a planet does survive it is likely that gravitational forces would wreck havoc on the planet, meaning that even though the planet survives, it would probably undergo extream volcanic activity along with severe "planetquakes." Look at IO, the closest large moon to Jupiter. This planet is the most volcanicly active object in the solar system because of its proximity to Jupiter.
Why does IBM feel that Linux is important to IBM, and how important does IBM feel Linux is to the future of computing in general?
Well, It seams to me that this is another case of weird science. The argument for rising temperatures is simple, the temperature of the surface will move downward due to conduction (you heat a long metal rod on one end and eventually the temperature will be conducted to the other end).
But wouldn't the rising crustal temperatures on earth be subject to too many variables? The tempurature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth would not only be dependent on the temperature of the earth ~150 years ago, but upon the temperature much longer ago than that. Why is this? Well 200 years ago the temperature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth (lets call this tempurature "A") was influence by the earth's surface tempurature ~150 years before that (from their reasoning). Now, at present, the tempurature of the crust 100 feet below the surface of the earth is dependent upon the surface tempurature of the earth ~150 years ago ( lets call this tempurature "B"). It is obvious to me that tempurature "B" is going to be influenced by more than just the surface temperature ~150 years ago, but also by tempuratue "A" (something that has an initial temperature that is low, when warmed up by a given amount will still be cooler that something with a relatively high temperature, when warmed by the same amount), and likewise tempurature "A" is dependent upon more than just the crustal temperatures ~150 years before it was measured.
Therefore unless if we can know the temperature of the surface of the earth in the past, there is no way of knowing the temperature of the surface of the earth in the past. Am I the only one who thinks this is weird science?
Wow! This is pretty amazing. Just makes you wonder when traditional computing ( i.e. not quantum computing ) will reach its limits. I remember reading that this could occur around 2010, but then again that is barring new advances in physics.
Even then we do know that there are limits, for example there is a minimum limit to the amount of heat produced in a computation ( this is a result of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ). So there is a limit to the number of transistors that can be fit into any given area, otherwise the processor would be putting out too much heat energy.
Well anyway, this is very interesting and will make running simulations of real life scientific phenomena better, and as a result our understanding of the universe around us will be enhanced.
Yes, giving the Black Hills back to the Native Americans sounds like a nice idea, but people live there (I am one of them), besides who are the rightfull owners anyway? I don't clame to know anything, but every country has a history of one people group taking over another for whatever reasons (usually bad ones like greed, somtimes for better ones like freedom) and settleing there. You might as well ask that everyone leave the U.S. and go back to their country of origin. If you go back far enough people who live in a certian country probably decended from people who conqured that area long ago, and we might as well say they are not the rightfull owners of the land they live in.
Being fair sounds nice, but is too complicated, besides what is fair? Our history (Human history that is) is full of waring and conquring and atrocities, to right one by giving back the Black Hills to the Native Americans may only create another one by making all of the residents of that area leave their homes and find a living somewhere else.
I am not saying that it is right for the U.S. to have broken treaties over and over again, or to have taken land that wasn't theirs, however the only way we can right this wrong is to apologize to our fellow Americans who are of Native American decent. I for one do apologize for the attrocities and wrongs, and hope to never see anything like that done to any people group by another people group again.