Just as we don't like freeloaders, we also don't like people who dislike freeloaders, but are unwilling to do anything about it. It seems that if one is up in a tree, there's no sense in complaining when you can piss on their heads instead.
But, that is not the only curve in play, no? We're not exactly planning our futures for a stable state. There's some kind of assumption that we're going to have more to earn and more to spend in the future, and that will always be the case. I have never met a man who wasn't planning for a constant and stable future, who I didn't then immediately pronounce a severe loser who wasn't fulfilling his quota of Earth rape.
Actually, the people who don't understand an exponential growth curve and what it means on a planet of finite size are the ones not worth listening to.
Mod this guy down for being a consevative. I've been over to his house, and I've seen the pictures of Nixon laying on his desk, fresh puddles of sperm on the image of his Republican cloth coat.
Next time we're all digging up the founding fathers to ask for their opinions on something they couldn't have conceived of when they were alive, please let me know. It's been a while since I've been balls-deep in a corpse.
That's the point - to forget the probes. They're going to journey to the closer star systems at sublight speeds. That means they travel 5-10 thousand years before they start their replication activities. Then the civilizations they spawn have to mature and become spacefaring races.
All-in-all, it's a 100 million year plan to colonize the galaxy. I'm not worried about the seeds coming back home.
I'm not sure this is relevant to what I am proposing. The 100 gram nano assemblers aren't going to be forming a colony. The little assembler is IT. When you're sending probes out on 5000 year or 10,000 year trips, you don't want big things, and you're not going to worry about supplies either.
The nano assemblers land and start making stuff. They can make anything, so there's no need to send supplies.
Why is it a bad comparison? The black box only has to work once, and if the black box doesn't work the airplane blows up anyway. Seems like it's the same thing.
That's why instead of massive colony ships you will send out small robots weighing 100 grams. You build the robots using nanotech, so they can be more sophisticated than any 20 mile long spacecraft we could build with conventional means. They would have the ability to bootstrap themselves in new environments to manufacture ecosystems from raw materials on site. Thus, we colonize other planets with Earth life by sending only a database and a universal nanotech constructor.
Plus, attempts at trying to move this world more towards the ideal will get you called a dirty liberal. Seems the powers that be have a convenient fiction of an already-just world that they'd like to maintain. If you demonstrate that good people don't often get rich by merely working hard and doing all the right things that puts a serious hole in their world view.
First, I know what the topic was. My comment was about the comments on the topic. Why are you bitching about the topic? Furthermore, the characterization I made IS simplistic. You know why? That's because it's just a little tiny bit of something that's much larger. One little posting can't contain everything, you know. Lastly, in your points you might be right, you might be wrong. I don't care what you think. I am more interested in why you think what you think.
I'm an American and I'm a firm believer in public education. I believe that it's a moral value which all Americans share. Our fault is that we respond too quickly to the emotion of fear, thus we spend our treasure on the military. It's an inversion of our moral priorities, and it's gotten so bad that it threatens the future of our country.
Yes, I believe that education should be a higher priority than war? Isn't it ironic that on Slashdot I play a depraved sexual deviant, yet my sense of morality is superior to most Americans? As proof, this posting will be moderated down, no doubt.
Now see, here's a problem. My post was describing both particular moral views from the same standpoint that an anthropologist describes cultures: without arguing that one or another is better. The reason that this is done is that without a bias in the description you can think clearly about either one in relation to each other.
But what you've done is taken it back down into a biased position, from within the viewpoint that a particular moral system is better than another. Your reasons for justifying that viewpoint are logical and consistent, but they are stated from within that particular viewpoint. The other viewpoints also have logical and consistent reasons when they are stated from within that viewpoint as well. BUT, you can't make a comparison between the two.
In other words, when you justify your viewpoint using statements that are formulated from within that viewpoint, all you do is to show that your viewpoint has a particular consistency. It cannot invalidate another's viewpoint. To do that, you need to start with the neutral viewpoint and formulate arguments that are relevant to both viewpoints.
And I have an irrational need to ejaculate in your beautiful beautiful mouth. Surprise! It's me! And I still remember the unjustified attack, you talented cocksucker.
In Japan, privacy is not a primary concern. Their technology is good if it's not radioactive, tastes like squid, has blurries over the naughty bits, looks like a kitten, fits in your pocket, and can sink an American aircraft carrier.
We have here real-life examples of the main difference between conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives value winning at all costs, and libertarians value trying at all costs. They are different moral values. Conservatives see the second-place finisher as the first loser. They view the world as a contest where you must kill the lion because if you don't you are eaten. Libertarians on the other hand have the concept of a beautiful loser. Winning isn't the goal - independence is the goal. To libertarians, a person who fails at business several times but never gives up is nobler than someone who wins at business on someone else's terms.
I'm neither a libertarian or a conservative, but I think a great deal about why people are libertarians or conservatives.
What does a coffee plant need with caffeine? Surely coffee plants didn't evolve caffeine production because it wanted to stimulate humans. And certainly a coffee plant never had to use caffeine to stay awake while cramming for the LSAT. So what's it good for?
Maybe these beneficial effects that we're discovering might help us understand just why is it that so many kinds of plants make caffeine.
Slashdot Mirror
In the future, everybody will get their three laws. - Robot Andy Warhol
Just as we don't like freeloaders, we also don't like people who dislike freeloaders, but are unwilling to do anything about it. It seems that if one is up in a tree, there's no sense in complaining when you can piss on their heads instead.
I think I would stick some in my ass and masturbate to a picture of Pudge. Corn hole-ing indeed.
But, that is not the only curve in play, no? We're not exactly planning our futures for a stable state. There's some kind of assumption that we're going to have more to earn and more to spend in the future, and that will always be the case. I have never met a man who wasn't planning for a constant and stable future, who I didn't then immediately pronounce a severe loser who wasn't fulfilling his quota of Earth rape.
Actually, the people who don't understand an exponential growth curve and what it means on a planet of finite size are the ones not worth listening to.
I was one madly in love with a midget who in turn loved Garfield. And that's how I ended up like this today.
Hey, if I wasn't a huge fan, I wouldn't want to have sex with their corpses.
Mod this guy down for being a consevative. I've been over to his house, and I've seen the pictures of Nixon laying on his desk, fresh puddles of sperm on the image of his Republican cloth coat.
Next time we're all digging up the founding fathers to ask for their opinions on something they couldn't have conceived of when they were alive, please let me know. It's been a while since I've been balls-deep in a corpse.
That's what I said. The plane will blow up as designed even if the trigger in the black box is broken. That's why airplanes are so awesome.
But they're both designed to blow up, and they both will do that if the proximity fuse or the black box fail, right?
That's the point - to forget the probes. They're going to journey to the closer star systems at sublight speeds. That means they travel 5-10 thousand years before they start their replication activities. Then the civilizations they spawn have to mature and become spacefaring races.
All-in-all, it's a 100 million year plan to colonize the galaxy. I'm not worried about the seeds coming back home.
I'm not sure this is relevant to what I am proposing. The 100 gram nano assemblers aren't going to be forming a colony. The little assembler is IT. When you're sending probes out on 5000 year or 10,000 year trips, you don't want big things, and you're not going to worry about supplies either.
The nano assemblers land and start making stuff. They can make anything, so there's no need to send supplies.
Why is it a bad comparison? The black box only has to work once, and if the black box doesn't work the airplane blows up anyway. Seems like it's the same thing.
That's why instead of massive colony ships you will send out small robots weighing 100 grams. You build the robots using nanotech, so they can be more sophisticated than any 20 mile long spacecraft we could build with conventional means. They would have the ability to bootstrap themselves in new environments to manufacture ecosystems from raw materials on site. Thus, we colonize other planets with Earth life by sending only a database and a universal nanotech constructor.
Plus, attempts at trying to move this world more towards the ideal will get you called a dirty liberal. Seems the powers that be have a convenient fiction of an already-just world that they'd like to maintain. If you demonstrate that good people don't often get rich by merely working hard and doing all the right things that puts a serious hole in their world view.
Yes! Let's also blow up the other letters of the alphabet! After that, we target pictograms and heiroglyphics!
First, I know what the topic was. My comment was about the comments on the topic. Why are you bitching about the topic? Furthermore, the characterization I made IS simplistic. You know why? That's because it's just a little tiny bit of something that's much larger. One little posting can't contain everything, you know. Lastly, in your points you might be right, you might be wrong. I don't care what you think. I am more interested in why you think what you think.
I'm an American and I'm a firm believer in public education. I believe that it's a moral value which all Americans share. Our fault is that we respond too quickly to the emotion of fear, thus we spend our treasure on the military. It's an inversion of our moral priorities, and it's gotten so bad that it threatens the future of our country.
Yes, I believe that education should be a higher priority than war? Isn't it ironic that on Slashdot I play a depraved sexual deviant, yet my sense of morality is superior to most Americans? As proof, this posting will be moderated down, no doubt.
Now see, here's a problem. My post was describing both particular moral views from the same standpoint that an anthropologist describes cultures: without arguing that one or another is better. The reason that this is done is that without a bias in the description you can think clearly about either one in relation to each other.
But what you've done is taken it back down into a biased position, from within the viewpoint that a particular moral system is better than another. Your reasons for justifying that viewpoint are logical and consistent, but they are stated from within that particular viewpoint. The other viewpoints also have logical and consistent reasons when they are stated from within that viewpoint as well. BUT, you can't make a comparison between the two.
In other words, when you justify your viewpoint using statements that are formulated from within that viewpoint, all you do is to show that your viewpoint has a particular consistency. It cannot invalidate another's viewpoint. To do that, you need to start with the neutral viewpoint and formulate arguments that are relevant to both viewpoints.
And I have an irrational need to ejaculate in your beautiful beautiful mouth. Surprise! It's me! And I still remember the unjustified attack, you talented cocksucker.
In Japan, privacy is not a primary concern. Their technology is good if it's not radioactive, tastes like squid, has blurries over the naughty bits, looks like a kitten, fits in your pocket, and can sink an American aircraft carrier.
Wait a second... I'm pretty sure that none of what you said is in the Bible.
We have here real-life examples of the main difference between conservatives and libertarians. Conservatives value winning at all costs, and libertarians value trying at all costs. They are different moral values. Conservatives see the second-place finisher as the first loser. They view the world as a contest where you must kill the lion because if you don't you are eaten. Libertarians on the other hand have the concept of a beautiful loser. Winning isn't the goal - independence is the goal. To libertarians, a person who fails at business several times but never gives up is nobler than someone who wins at business on someone else's terms.
I'm neither a libertarian or a conservative, but I think a great deal about why people are libertarians or conservatives.
What does a coffee plant need with caffeine? Surely coffee plants didn't evolve caffeine production because it wanted to stimulate humans. And certainly a coffee plant never had to use caffeine to stay awake while cramming for the LSAT. So what's it good for?
Maybe these beneficial effects that we're discovering might help us understand just why is it that so many kinds of plants make caffeine.