So, they're going to use actual bodies as a computational model that measures the fit of a theoretical model to actuality? Sounds fishy. Using reality as a model of reality...couldn't that lead to some kind of infinite regress? A semantic gravitational collapse? Before we all disappear behind the denotational event-horizon, perhaps we should run a (safe) computer simulation modelling the idea of using reality as a way of testing our models of reality.
In any case, given the risks, I think they should ban this kind of experiment until further simulations can be run.
I see your point, but one thing glossed over by your analogy is the fact that Ted Rall (whom I think is almost never funny, and is relatively unknown) doesn't show up regularly on television, spewing his ill-informed hatred of his perceived political enemies. Coulter does. I guess my point is that the idea that people can become popular by being outrageous is not really accurate; they can do that if and only if they are aided and abetted by the owners of the media outlet they rely on.
They could have seen this coming as long ago as the advent of audio and video cassettes. Getting twigged to it now is thus not especially to be praised, though you're right that it does serve as circumstantial evidence that they're not insane.
Point taken about the level and kind of "disagreement" we're talking about in McCarthy's case. Still waiting for proof that the war effort was substantially harmed by his baseless accusations.
This was during the Korean War, meaning he undermined the authority and efficacy of the President when the troops were in harm's way. He should have been impeached and jailed for it.
If what you say is true, this produces something like what economists call a "perverse incentive." If the President's powers expand so dramatically whenever "troops are in harm's way," then the office of the presidency favors putting them there. So, the office of the presidency is inherently dangerous to U.S. troops because of its irresistible penchant for war-making.
So, maybe your premise is wrong. Maybe it can't magically become a crime to disagree with the President whenever he says "it's war time" (whether or not he's the "decider"). Note that the Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war, though this administration more than any before it has cashed in on the ambiguity over what it takes for a state of war to exist in order to arrogate broad powers to itself. Sort of like a playground bully who declares it's Opposite Day then asks whether you want him to hit you.
Finally, maybe "undermining the authority and efficacy of the President" doesn't define a crime: shouldn't it at least have to be substantial undermining?
Heaven forbid we actually expect some personal responsiblity from people.
Heaven forfend we should expect the government to allow its actions to be revealed to the public by its own sworn guardians! (And yes, the antecedent of the last "its" is intentionally ambiguous.)
Slashdot Mirror
So, they're going to use actual bodies as a computational model that measures the fit of a theoretical model to actuality? Sounds fishy. Using reality as a model of reality...couldn't that lead to some kind of infinite regress? A semantic gravitational collapse? Before we all disappear behind the denotational event-horizon, perhaps we should run a (safe) computer simulation modelling the idea of using reality as a way of testing our models of reality.
In any case, given the risks, I think they should ban this kind of experiment until further simulations can be run.
Not really. Chickens can fly...
'Nuff said.
"French PMS" is unreceptive to rm? That what the -f flag is for.
I'd just like to note that very few humans have yet been created who can understand and follow the "three laws" of robotics.
Once upon a time, weapons could be charged with crimes and destroyed if found "guilty."
Wary? You don't think an ambiguously oriented Jude Law-bot would be hot?
I see your point, but one thing glossed over by your analogy is the fact that Ted Rall (whom I think is almost never funny, and is relatively unknown) doesn't show up regularly on television, spewing his ill-informed hatred of his perceived political enemies. Coulter does. I guess my point is that the idea that people can become popular by being outrageous is not really accurate; they can do that if and only if they are aided and abetted by the owners of the media outlet they rely on.
You've gone too far! They shouldn't have to cannibalize each other!
Genetically encoded barcode reader? CueCat 2.0?
Well done, sir.
Zoidberg: We'll have to get a look inside of you with this camera.
*Fry opens his mouth*
Zoidberg: Guess again.
Wait! You mean you actually looked at five sides of the cube, and ... and then spent your time to look at the last one? What a waste of time!
They could have seen this coming as long ago as the advent of audio and video cassettes. Getting twigged to it now is thus not especially to be praised, though you're right that it does serve as circumstantial evidence that they're not insane.
This would be less disturbing if your screen name weren't what it is.
All blocked by Safari. Maybe your settings are off?
Point taken about the level and kind of "disagreement" we're talking about in McCarthy's case. Still waiting for proof that the war effort was substantially harmed by his baseless accusations.
The above joke, of course, was taken from the Daily Show.
Best T-Shirt idea ever? Osama's face, plus the caption "I brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11 and all I got was away with it."
If what you say is true, this produces something like what economists call a "perverse incentive." If the President's powers expand so dramatically whenever "troops are in harm's way," then the office of the presidency favors putting them there. So, the office of the presidency is inherently dangerous to U.S. troops because of its irresistible penchant for war-making.
So, maybe your premise is wrong. Maybe it can't magically become a crime to disagree with the President whenever he says "it's war time" (whether or not he's the "decider"). Note that the Constitution does not give the President the power to declare war, though this administration more than any before it has cashed in on the ambiguity over what it takes for a state of war to exist in order to arrogate broad powers to itself. Sort of like a playground bully who declares it's Opposite Day then asks whether you want him to hit you.
Finally, maybe "undermining the authority and efficacy of the President" doesn't define a crime: shouldn't it at least have to be substantial undermining?
Dial 45... 41.... oh oh oh
Call Mr Lee,
He'll know the code is broken,
Tell him the dog is turning red.
I was about to post the same. Posting the link is totally indefensible.
If your laughter then made you choke on a pretzel and die, that would then be ... justice.
Heaven forfend we should expect the government to allow its actions to be revealed to the public by its own sworn guardians! (And yes, the antecedent of the last "its" is intentionally ambiguous.)
Dittohead.
ad infantem?
There's a good list of RoR tutorials here.