Since you can't comprehend simple English and react with hysterical insults when called on it, I'd opine that you're one of those 12 year olds, i.e., someone who can't comprehend "us" as meaning any reader of his book - not to mention that many/.'ers are quite well aware of his book anyway since nanotech is one of the news sections on/.
My plans were very comprehensive. Had I succeeded in getting the equipment and other resources needed for them, I would have made Osama look like Donny Osmond.
Most of the people presently running everything would be dead today (or more likely I would be - or both.)
As my attorney said during my initial incarceration, "We're lucky they stopped you early!"
The FBI found writeups of my plans and didn't know whether to poop or go blind. Neither did my sentencing judge (who by the way was an integral part of the INSLAW scandal and deserves to be in Federal prison himself) who decided to ignore all of it and sentence me strictly on the two bank robberies. Which is why I'm out today instead of doing "life or fifty years".
Wrong on all suppositions (although I was in the US Army during Vietnam.)
I robbed two banks to get money for weapons and supplies. Since I really didn't know what I was doing (at least as far as bank robbery technigues were concerned), I got caught and did eight years on a nine-year sentence.
While in, I recognized that my plans were not the most efficient way to deal with the problem of the state - at least, not at my level of implementation. I concluded the most efficient way (for me) is to wait for the development of the necessary technology (nanotech, for the most part) and take advantage of that as feasible to achieve a Transhuman state and then deal with the state.
Of course, you never know if some situation may arise where I have no choice but to go back to "Plan A". But it seems unlikely.
"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'."
"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'."
This is why the story is censored. Period.
Also, there is much speculation that bunker buster bombs have been upgraded with DU to make them more effective - since the alternative is tungsten which supposedly is less effective for various reasons than DU. The Pentagon, of course, is NOT saying what is being used or considered for use in bunker buster bombs.
"First, the US government DOESN'T go into radio stations and shoot people, so that point is moot."
First, the government doesn't shoot you, they just fine your company whenever you say a four-letter word and get you fired.
Second, since when does the medical effects of depleted and nondepleted uranium on US troops and indigenous civilians fall into the category of "bunny porn"?
Third, there's no "right" to be heard. Right. But the major media are SUPPOSED to be delivering "all the news that's fit to print". Obviously, as in the DU story, they aren't.
The Dixie Chicks situation may be a bad example of censorship (although the point of the stations was exactly that - to punish the statement of opinion - since it was a serious overreaction to a minor on-stage comment), but that is irrelevant to the rest of the stories listed.
YOUR agenda obviously is to support censorship of news which doesn't agree with your worldview.
If you're a supposed "journalist" and you've stated your purpose is to print NEWS, then you DON T print news because you don't agree with it (note I did not say, because you can prove it wrong with facts - which in itself would be news you should report), then you are violating YOUR stated "code of ethics".
And since the purpose of your publication is to provide news to the public, the only purpose for your not so doing so is to insure the public is NOT informed of this news.
This is censorship. It may not be GOVERNMENT censorship, but it is the ACT of censoring.
Now, if your reasons for not covering this news involved no space in the publication, no interest by your readers, yada, yada, anything other than your own disagreement with the concepts involved, then it might not be censorship. It might just be business or technology or practical reasons.
Refusing to cover news or covering it in a negative light in the absence of facts supporting that negative coverage with the intent to either withhold or distort news is censorship.
And nobody is claiming one does not have the privilege of censoring whatever one wishes with one's own privately owned organization. But it is still censorship.
In some of the listed cases, I might quibble over the phrase "under-reported" since this implies everybody has the same idea of the importance of the topics which are mostly the usual left complaints about whatever.
However, I think the use of nondepleted uranium weapons - not to mention the medical effects of depleted uranium weapons - should definitely be a major story in the US, given that thousands of US troops and their families are exposed to this threat daily. This is a clear example of a story that should have been thoroughly covered in all the major media and hasn't been. Had it been, it would be a major topic during this election year given the fact of the Iraq situation.
But the major media are known for avoiding stories with a technical or medical base (unless it involves sex, as in AIDS) because they don't have the ability to comprehend the issues or sort the facts from the opinions of the "experts" with agendas. Add to that the risk of antagonizing the "military first" crowd and the Administration, and this story will never get covered adequately until twenty years from now.
Here's the bottom line, semantic nit-picking/. nerd-boy:
The intention of the people under-reporting, pulling, or trashing said stories was to make sure these stories were ignored by most of the population, for reasons of their own agendas, which is contrary to THEIR stated intentions of reporting "all the news that's fit to print" (or some such journalistic horseshit that was never true in the first place.)
This qualifies as "censorship" in the larger sense, if not "government censorship" which is a subset of the term "censorship".
"my favorite is the Target Alert extension which displays a small graphic next to links that are not web pages. For example a mailto: link will display a small envelope, a link to a PDF file will display a small Adobe icon, etc."
Although I will admit I get caught by the PDF links sometimes. It would be better if the site designer carefully noted in his text which links are to non-Web pages. That works in ANY browser.
When the others open fire on you, they hit your Threat Level Fifty body armor (plus ten civilians who happen to be around you), then you crush them.
Of course, then they send an F-16 to shoot the plane down (killing another 150 civilians, of course), so you might as well take the train or a private car and avoid the hassle.
That's using the ten terabits of smarts you've got stored in your head.
"A rifle will lay waste to any and all current body armour."
Bullshit. Threat Level III withstands 7.62 NATO/.308 ammo and Threat Level IV withstands 30.06 armor-piercing. These body armors use titanium steel plates.
Unless of course you riddle the fucker with multiple rounds at the same impact point - or simply shoot his arms and legs (and head, of course) full of holes.
Not to mention the fact that a rifle IS considered "small arms." If you mean handguns, ignoramus, say so.
Actually, I thought it was humans who couldn't be reasoned with...But of course, humans REALLY feel pity (for themselves), remorse (for themselves) and definitely fear.
And humans definitely won't stop doing this until they're dead.
The only question: why do you say that like it's a Bad Thing?
Well, there are 33 million Baptists, and 4.4 million Pentecostals, 14 million Methodists, 9 million Lutherans, 5 million Presbyterians, 3.4 million Epicopalians, and a few million smaller sects.
There are 46 million Catholics - not counting Mel Gibson who counts as at least 2 Catholics all on his own.
I'd say a significant percentage of that lot support Bush, but of course actual figures are wanting.
Here is one quote I found:
A June study by The Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, said 86 percent of self-described evangelicals plan to vote for Bush in November.
Conservative Christians are arguably the nation's most influential voting bloc.
About 30 million people belong to National Association of Evangelicals member churches.
And another article states:
Depending on how studies are done, there are between 45 and 100 million "born again" or evangelical Christians in the United States. In the 2000 presidential election, 32 percent of the votes George W. Bush received came from church-going white evangelicals; and 14 percent of all voters identified themselves as part of the Christian right movement, where support for an aggressive brand of Zionism is strong.
I have found a couple articles who analyze the voting habits of Christians and discovered that more than religious views, economic status seems to govern - the poor Christians vote Democrat, the rich ones Republican.
So saying 65 million fundies support Bush may be an exaggeration - but I suspect not by much.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you can't comprehend simple English and react with hysterical insults when called on it, I'd opine that you're one of those 12 year olds, /.'ers are quite well aware of his book anyway since nanotech is one of the news sections on /.
i.e., someone who can't comprehend "us" as meaning any reader of his book - not to mention that many
I happen to be 55, actually.
Do run along now and play.
I'll add one other point.
My plans were very comprehensive. Had I succeeded in getting the equipment and other resources needed for them, I would have made Osama look like Donny Osmond.
Most of the people presently running everything would be dead today (or more likely I would be - or both.)
As my attorney said during my initial incarceration, "We're lucky they stopped you early!"
The FBI found writeups of my plans and didn't know whether to poop or go blind. Neither did my sentencing judge (who by the way was an integral part of the INSLAW scandal and deserves to be in Federal prison himself) who decided to ignore all of it and sentence me strictly on the two bank robberies. Which is why I'm out today instead of doing "life or fifty years".
Wrong on all suppositions (although I was in the US Army during Vietnam.)
I robbed two banks to get money for weapons and supplies. Since I really didn't know what I was doing (at least as far as bank robbery technigues were concerned), I got caught and did eight years on a nine-year sentence.
While in, I recognized that my plans were not the most efficient way to deal with the problem of the state - at least, not at my level of implementation. I concluded the most efficient way (for me) is to wait for the development of the necessary technology (nanotech, for the most part) and take advantage of that as feasible to achieve a Transhuman state and then deal with the state.
Of course, you never know if some situation may arise where I have no choice but to go back to "Plan A". But it seems unlikely.
"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'."
You said what?
"Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'."
This is why the story is censored. Period.
Also, there is much speculation that bunker buster bombs have been upgraded with DU to make them more effective - since the alternative is tungsten which supposedly is less effective for various reasons than DU. The Pentagon, of course, is NOT saying what is being used or considered for use in bunker buster bombs.
"First, the US government DOESN'T go into radio stations and shoot people, so that point is moot."
First, the government doesn't shoot you, they just fine your company whenever you say a four-letter word and get you fired.
Second, since when does the medical effects of depleted and nondepleted uranium on US troops and indigenous civilians fall into the category of "bunny porn"?
Third, there's no "right" to be heard. Right. But the major media are SUPPOSED to be delivering "all the news that's fit to print". Obviously, as in the DU story, they aren't.
The Dixie Chicks situation may be a bad example of censorship (although the point of the stations was exactly that - to punish the statement of opinion - since it was a serious overreaction to a minor on-stage comment), but that is irrelevant to the rest of the stories listed.
YOUR agenda obviously is to support censorship of news which doesn't agree with your worldview.
If you're a supposed "journalist" and you've stated your purpose is to print NEWS, then you DON
T print news because you don't agree with it (note I did not say, because you can prove it wrong with facts - which in itself would be news you should report), then you are violating YOUR stated "code of ethics".
And since the purpose of your publication is to provide news to the public, the only purpose for your not so doing so is to insure the public is NOT informed of this news.
This is censorship. It may not be GOVERNMENT censorship, but it is the ACT of censoring.
Now, if your reasons for not covering this news involved no space in the publication, no interest by your readers, yada, yada, anything other than your own disagreement with the concepts involved, then it might not be censorship. It might just be business or technology or practical reasons.
Refusing to cover news or covering it in a negative light in the absence of facts supporting that negative coverage with the intent to either withhold or distort news is censorship.
And nobody is claiming one does not have the privilege of censoring whatever one wishes with one's own privately owned organization. But it is still censorship.
In some of the listed cases, I might quibble over the phrase "under-reported" since this implies everybody has the same idea of the importance of the topics which are mostly the usual left complaints about whatever.
However, I think the use of nondepleted uranium weapons - not to mention the medical effects of depleted uranium weapons - should definitely be a major story in the US, given that thousands of US troops and their families are exposed to this threat daily. This is a clear example of a story that should have been thoroughly covered in all the major media and hasn't been. Had it been, it would be a major topic during this election year given the fact of the Iraq situation.
But the major media are known for avoiding stories with a technical or medical base (unless it involves sex, as in AIDS) because they don't have the ability to comprehend the issues or sort the facts from the opinions of the "experts" with agendas. Add to that the risk of antagonizing the "military first" crowd and the Administration, and this story will never get covered adequately until twenty years from now.
Here's the bottom line, semantic nit-picking /. nerd-boy:
The intention of the people under-reporting, pulling, or trashing said stories was to make sure these stories were ignored by most of the population, for reasons of their own agendas, which is contrary to THEIR stated intentions of reporting "all the news that's fit to print" (or some such journalistic horseshit that was never true in the first place.)
This qualifies as "censorship" in the larger sense, if not "government censorship" which is a subset of the term "censorship".
Got a clue now?
What part of "in his first book" didn't you comprehend?
"my favorite is the Target Alert extension which displays a small graphic next to links that are not web pages. For example a mailto: link will display a small envelope, a link to a PDF file will display a small Adobe icon, etc."
Although I will admit I get caught by the PDF links sometimes. It would be better if the site designer carefully noted in his text which links are to non-Web pages. That works in ANY browser.
"If you haven't made the switch to Mozilla Firefox it may be because you aren't aware of the great benefits Firefox has over IE."
It's because I'm not aware of any great benefits over Opera.
And yes, I use the ad-supported version.
Thank you for telling us what K. Eric Drexler told us in his first book published, uh, eighteen years ago now?
No, you just crush the security guard.
When the others open fire on you, they hit your Threat Level Fifty body armor (plus ten civilians who happen to be around you), then you crush them.
Of course, then they send an F-16 to shoot the plane down (killing another 150 civilians, of course), so you might as well take the train or a private car and avoid the hassle.
That's using the ten terabits of smarts you've got stored in your head.
See how this works?
Maybe they need to be used on /.
They might not be able to moderate posts, but they could certainly generate the posts themselves...
In fact, they do...
Never give a Transhumanist a monkey straight line...
"A rifle will lay waste to any and all current body armour."
Bullshit. Threat Level III withstands 7.62 NATO/.308 ammo and Threat Level IV withstands 30.06 armor-piercing. These body armors use titanium steel plates.
Unless of course you riddle the fucker with multiple rounds at the same impact point - or simply shoot his arms and legs (and head, of course) full of holes.
Not to mention the fact that a rifle IS considered "small arms." If you mean handguns, ignoramus, say so.
You just listed all the reasons for the editors to reject him!
/. standards!
He's not up to
"Morons"
/.! You were expecting PBS?
Hey, it's
My kind of guys!
Actually, I thought it was humans who couldn't be reasoned with...But of course, humans REALLY feel pity (for themselves), remorse (for themselves) and definitely fear.
And humans definitely won't stop doing this until they're dead.
The only question: why do you say that like it's a Bad Thing?
Bottom Line: he signs his name to his opinions.
"Anonymous Cowards" don't - that's why they are labeled "Anonymous Cowards", right?
I use a handle - and put my name at the bottom.
"Anonymous Cowards" can't, apparently.
Well, there are 33 million Baptists, and 4.4 million Pentecostals, 14 million Methodists, 9 million Lutherans, 5 million Presbyterians, 3.4 million Epicopalians, and a few million smaller sects.
There are 46 million Catholics - not counting Mel Gibson who counts as at least 2 Catholics all on his own.
I'd say a significant percentage of that lot support Bush, but of course actual figures are wanting.
Here is one quote I found:
A June study by The Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, said 86 percent of self-described evangelicals plan to vote for Bush in November.
Conservative Christians are arguably the nation's most influential voting bloc.
About 30 million people belong to National Association of Evangelicals member churches.
And another article states:
Depending on how studies are done, there are between 45 and 100 million "born again" or evangelical Christians in the United States. In the 2000 presidential election, 32 percent of the votes George W. Bush received came from church-going white evangelicals; and 14 percent of all voters identified themselves as part of the Christian right movement, where support for an aggressive brand of Zionism is strong.
I have found a couple articles who analyze the voting habits of Christians and discovered that more than religious views, economic status seems to govern - the poor Christians vote Democrat, the rich ones Republican.
So saying 65 million fundies support Bush may be an exaggeration - but I suspect not by much.
Because most of the British would not like to see Dubya re-elected?
Big surprise.
Like, along with the rest of the planet.
Except the 65 million Christian Zionist fundies in the US, of course.
And you get modded "Flamebait" for saying the truth.
/..
That's
'Your post had nothing intelligent to say about anything, and did not contribute anything except for the narrow little opinion from "Justin World."'
/. that get modded "Insightful"?
And this was different from how many other posts on
Your post, BTW, is set at 0.
Anybody who wants to see useful posts should set their filter to +3.
I don't, 'cause I don't care.
And that will only happen when monkey-ass humans stop voting corporate-owned-and-operated politicians into coercive state offices.
Which is not going to happen until monkey-brained humans get replaced by something better.
You thought I was going to say something else?
Is that why you read this post?
Is this item we're discussing really NEWS?
I expect Microsoft to patent the "stored program" concept next week. Is anyone going to be surprised?
Bill Gates' father is a LAWYER!
Get a clue!