Police job is dirty, repetitive, boring, and dangerous. Your peers are power-mad, steroid-popping, angry people like Chris Dorner. They are all armed; your adversaries are armed too. Nobody loves you. This is a job only for those who are willing to take these drawbacks in exchange for something greater.
naturally cops want to do things that make their lives more fun, like force unsuspecting people to undergo repeated anal probing. That must make it all worthwhile.
What if, the moment the police started to pull him over, he had opened the compartment up so it wasn't concealed?
Re:a skeptic says "wow bitcoin is serious ". Hope
on
195K Bitcoin Transaction
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Right, which is what I'm getting at; the bitcoin is useless as a 'coin' that you can buy and sell goods and services for. Its only use at the moment is speculation.
You can't set prices of goods and services in terms of 'thinly traded commodities subject to massive speculation'.
You can't put bit coin price tags on things, this would be completely impossible. Yet I see this often online.
Re:a skeptic says "wow bitcoin is serious ". Hope
on
195K Bitcoin Transaction
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Thats kind of what I mean; you can't set prices in bitcoins. That impacts the bitcoins utility as a practical unit of currency.
Re:a skeptic says "wow bitcoin is serious ". Hope
on
195K Bitcoin Transaction
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I've poo-pooed Bitcoin before.
I'll keep poo-pooing it.
How can anyone set prices in bitcoins? You might offer to sell some good or service for 1 bitcoin. Then, a week later, your potential customers are laughing at you saying "one bitcoin for THAT? WOW talk about over priced, thats ridiculous!" and then they will buy from someone else.
Bitcoins simply cannot be used as a medium of exchange for goods and services.
If you look at how much a good or service costs in bitcoins you are probably and reasonably going to make a mental conversion into 'real' currency. Each week those goods and services effectively cost more and more.
The seller has a choice; post a stable price in bitcoins or post a (constantly adjusted) realistic price in bitcoins.
Ie in order to sell things in bitcoins and maintain a realistic price you have to keep charging less and less of a bitcoin. If you post a price in bitcoins and don't continually adjust it downward anyone who wants to buy and doesn't already have 'old' bitcoins is going to look at how much they now have to spend on bitcoins just to pay for your goods/services and, probably, think twice about it and probably go somewhere else.
How big a proportion of people who use bitcoins mined them themselves? How big a proportion got those bitcoins through selling goods/services for them? How big a proportion bought the bitcoins with 'real' currency? My guess is that most bitcoin users pay for them with another currency and these people are not going to use them to buy and sell; they are going to hoard them.
Therefore, bitcoins are useless for anything other than speculation which was not the original intention of the system; it was intended to be used to buy and sell services. Therefore bitcoins are now useless for their intended purpose.
WTF happened here? Has the bitcoin been deliberately sabotaged? Or is this just an unintended consequence? Do we need a new virtual currency that won't devolve into this and stay useful?
I saw a tv interview with Russel where they asked him about this and played him BBC recordings of what he said earlier. He made excuses about game theory.
How does the drone pilot really know where his drone is? He has a readout on the screen telling him its East Buttfuckistan and happily kills the terrorists who are wearing civilian clothes. Maybe they look european and he is told they are chechens who have joined this al qaida group.
Meanwhile his handlers have spoofed his readouts and actually this is South Dakota and he is killing American 'patriots'.
Drone warfare is easy to turn around and use on your own people without the drone operators even knowing what is happening.
Drones and robotic soldiers are very dangerous. A government could order human soldiers to shoot their fellow countrymen and they would likely rebel. Robot soldiers have no conscious and will carry out those orders.
Judging from the behavior of soldiers in the field, conscience is a small small problem. Soldiers are conditioned to kill without thinking. Rape has always been a part of war.
Soldiers are basically trained, conditioned, brainwashed serial killers.
Nukes could render the earth permanently uninhabitable to humans, bringing all human progress to a dead stop.
You drastically overestimate the destructive potential of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can end civilization as we know it. Exterminating the entire human race? Not bloody likely. Homo Sapiens are persistent little fuckers that have survived natural catastrophes far in excess of anything we're capable of doing to the blue marble with modern technology.
The living will envy the dead and all that jazz, but the human race would almost certainly survive.
Dropping the atomic bomb on civilian populations in 1945 didn't stop the USA from leading the world toward outlawing "nuclear proliferation" decades later; why should this issue be handled differently?
Bertrand Russel, later a famous antinuclear protester and leading member of CND, advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. It was only when the SU developed their own nukes that Russel changed his stance on this; to him it was just a simple matter of game theory.
The thing is at the moment the US has a pretty irresistibly superior military. If Pakistan tried to send a drone in to the US to strike something, it would almost certainly get splashed before it was over land. The PAVE PAWS radar system watches for inbound craft from basically anywhere for a thousand miles or more.
Recently US servicemen were killed when a practice drone crashed into their ship, a ship that was set up to shoot down these drones.
The people of the USA are remarkably squeamish about their own people going to other countries and getting killed while fighting a war, possibly more squeamish than most other nations.
Therefore it is massively in the interests of the government of the USA to be able to wage war in other countries without risking the lives of their service men and women.
The problem then becomes, for the people on who war is being waged, how to deal with this. Possibly the best solution is to take the killing to the American people, in their homeland.
Interestingly the American people, so cowardly that they can only use remote controlled weapons to wage war, then call the men and women who give their lives to fight, who go out knowing they will die, the suicide bombers, cowards.
Libertarian paradise? I don't think there's anything in the libertarian credo that says you should rip off everyone who's weaker than you are, but that's the rule in EVE. The EVE universe is one of untrammeled barbarism; it's a sort of anti-society because there is no basis for trust or lasting cooperation.
I played EVE and then moved to a place that is actually like this in real life (without the gunmen walking the street and there aren't very many explosions, but other than that pretty much untrammeled barbarism).
After a while of playing EVE I thought "You know what? I have to watch my back every day just walking down the street here. I don't need to simulate this in a game."
EVE is one of those old school "you must group up you evil scum sucking soloer, don't you know what the M stands for!" games. Thus it appeals heavily to some players while disgusting others.
And the way the game works, and is designed, you can't trust any of the people you group with, your corp mates or pretty much anyone.
The only people in EVE who you can trust are ones who you can hunt down and beat the shit out of in REAL LIFE. If I were ever to get back into EVE I'd have to do it with a bunch of real life friends. And I'd have to have some good blackmail material on them as well.
So we have a world where many biologists are in denial and just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALAAA I cannot hear you LALALALAAA" when people start wondering about the potential for viable hybrids to occur in nature.
Um, biologists have been aware of the fuzziness of species boundaries for a very long time. It's non-biologists who remember the archaic "mate and produce fertile offspring" definition of "species" from high school science class who make comments like OP's.
Never the less they still use the concept of species.
Christians will even point at the confusion around species and go "HA see? Where do species come from?? Must be GOD!"
Darwins 'origin of the species' is mis-named, it wasn't about origin of species and contains no useful ideas about how species come to be.
The whole idea of species is just unhelpful and the referent of the term probably doesn't even exist.
Lots and lots of things can interbreed and produce viable offspring, from what we call different species. The concept of species is poorly defined and the capability to interbreed and produce viable offspring is poorly understood. Its quite possible that evolution is far less of a directed, acyclic graph than would be good for computational genomics and evolutionary biology.
General graphs are a lot harder to deal with computationally than trees so theres a tendency to try to simplify a lot of things to tree like structures just to make it easier to deal with. Problem is that the reality may not be as directed as that and may have cycles, which really fucks up the algorithms.
So we have a world where many biologists are in denial and just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALAAA I cannot hear you LALALALAAA" when people start wondering about the potential for viable hybrids to occur in nature.
I think the meaning (discerned from between the spelling errors) is that a population who has all their mistakes recorded for anyone to see may finally accept that most people are impulsive narcissists, and thus they will not judge others by standards that they themselves will fail. Of course, if you knew anything about humanity, it is a long tale of people holding others to standards that they themselves cannot achieve.
To disprove the idea that people who know they fail will accept that others fail, consider:
1) At how many job interviews are you asked "what is your biggest weakness"? 2) At how many of those would the person who asks you this have gotten hired if he truthfully described his biggest weakness?
Its easy to get through a job interview answering a question like that truthfully by a positive spin on it in the form of a STAR formatted story. Thats 'Interview technique 101'. And you keep it to work related weaknesses as well not "I've got a weakness for blondes with big tits" type of weakness.
Jengis picked which of his sons would succeed him (Ogedei) and the succession was more or less unopposed. The real succession crisis didn't happen until Ogedei kicked the bucket.
For a 'great empire' it didn't last very long. Up one moment, down the next. Compared to the Romans it was a gigantic flop. Like a guy with a 10 inch cock who can only keep it up for 5 minutes compared to a guy with a 6 inch cock that lasts all night. Guess which one the ladies will enjoy?
Oh and most of the 'huge empire' was uninhabited, kind of like Russia proclaiming itself as the greatest nation on Earth because "we rule SIBERIA!".
(there are stories that Mongol warriors gang-raping a woman, when they ran out of orifices to rape would take their knives and make improvised orifices to rape)
Slashdot Mirror
Some things should be secret from the public, nuclear launch codes, names of spies, etc...
The spies thing would entirely depend on what country the spies are from and what country the public is in.
If I were Russian then names of US spies should definitely not be public. And vice versa.
So fuck the spies, name them all.
Police job is dirty, repetitive, boring, and dangerous. Your peers are power-mad, steroid-popping, angry people like Chris Dorner. They are all armed; your adversaries are armed too. Nobody loves you. This is a job only for those who are willing to take these drawbacks in exchange for something greater.
naturally cops want to do things that make their lives more fun, like force unsuspecting people to undergo repeated anal probing. That must make it all worthwhile.
What if, the moment the police started to pull him over, he had opened the compartment up so it wasn't concealed?
Right, which is what I'm getting at; the bitcoin is useless as a 'coin' that you can buy and sell goods and services for. Its only use at the moment is speculation.
You can't set prices of goods and services in terms of 'thinly traded commodities subject to massive speculation'.
You can't put bit coin price tags on things, this would be completely impossible. Yet I see this often online.
Thats kind of what I mean; you can't set prices in bitcoins. That impacts the bitcoins utility as a practical unit of currency.
I've poo-pooed Bitcoin before.
I'll keep poo-pooing it.
How can anyone set prices in bitcoins? You might offer to sell some good or service for 1 bitcoin. Then, a week later, your potential customers are laughing at you saying "one bitcoin for THAT? WOW talk about over priced, thats ridiculous!" and then they will buy from someone else.
Bitcoins simply cannot be used as a medium of exchange for goods and services.
If you look at how much a good or service costs in bitcoins you are probably and reasonably going to make a mental conversion into 'real' currency. Each week those goods and services effectively cost more and more.
The seller has a choice; post a stable price in bitcoins or post a (constantly adjusted) realistic price in bitcoins.
Ie in order to sell things in bitcoins and maintain a realistic price you have to keep charging less and less of a bitcoin. If you post a price in bitcoins and don't continually adjust it downward anyone who wants to buy and doesn't already have 'old' bitcoins is going to look at how much they now have to spend on bitcoins just to pay for your goods/services and, probably, think twice about it and probably go somewhere else.
How big a proportion of people who use bitcoins mined them themselves? How big a proportion got those bitcoins through selling goods/services for them? How big a proportion bought the bitcoins with 'real' currency? My guess is that most bitcoin users pay for them with another currency and these people are not going to use them to buy and sell; they are going to hoard them.
Therefore, bitcoins are useless for anything other than speculation which was not the original intention of the system; it was intended to be used to buy and sell services. Therefore bitcoins are now useless for their intended purpose.
WTF happened here? Has the bitcoin been deliberately sabotaged? Or is this just an unintended consequence? Do we need a new virtual currency that won't devolve into this and stay useful?
I saw a tv interview with Russel where they asked him about this and played him BBC recordings of what he said earlier. He made excuses about game theory.
Thats pretty much what was happening in 1984, the war was pretty much fabricated.
I'm thinking more of the drone jockeys being turned against their own people...
When they come out of the caves there will be a sterile planet. They will ultimately die.
How does the drone pilot really know where his drone is? He has a readout on the screen telling him its East Buttfuckistan and happily kills the terrorists who are wearing civilian clothes. Maybe they look european and he is told they are chechens who have joined this al qaida group.
Meanwhile his handlers have spoofed his readouts and actually this is South Dakota and he is killing American 'patriots'.
Drone warfare is easy to turn around and use on your own people without the drone operators even knowing what is happening.
Drones and robotic soldiers are very dangerous. A government could order human soldiers to shoot their fellow countrymen and they would likely rebel. Robot soldiers have no conscious and will carry out those orders.
Judging from the behavior of soldiers in the field, conscience is a small small problem. Soldiers are conditioned to kill without thinking. Rape has always been a part of war.
Soldiers are basically trained, conditioned, brainwashed serial killers.
Nukes could render the earth permanently uninhabitable to humans, bringing all human progress to a dead stop.
You drastically overestimate the destructive potential of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can end civilization as we know it. Exterminating the entire human race? Not bloody likely. Homo Sapiens are persistent little fuckers that have survived natural catastrophes far in excess of anything we're capable of doing to the blue marble with modern technology.
The living will envy the dead and all that jazz, but the human race would almost certainly survive.
Put a nuke in a cobalt shell. End of all life.
Dropping the atomic bomb on civilian populations in 1945 didn't stop the USA from leading the world toward outlawing "nuclear proliferation" decades later; why should this issue be handled differently?
Bertrand Russel, later a famous antinuclear protester and leading member of CND, advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union. It was only when the SU developed their own nukes that Russel changed his stance on this; to him it was just a simple matter of game theory.
The thing is at the moment the US has a pretty irresistibly superior military. If Pakistan tried to send a drone in to the US to strike something, it would almost certainly get splashed before it was over land. The PAVE PAWS radar system watches for inbound craft from basically anywhere for a thousand miles or more.
Recently US servicemen were killed when a practice drone crashed into their ship, a ship that was set up to shoot down these drones.
So no.
The people of the USA are remarkably squeamish about their own people going to other countries and getting killed while fighting a war, possibly more squeamish than most other nations.
Therefore it is massively in the interests of the government of the USA to be able to wage war in other countries without risking the lives of their service men and women.
The problem then becomes, for the people on who war is being waged, how to deal with this. Possibly the best solution is to take the killing to the American people, in their homeland.
Interestingly the American people, so cowardly that they can only use remote controlled weapons to wage war, then call the men and women who give their lives to fight, who go out knowing they will die, the suicide bombers, cowards.
WTF?
The best way to get into Eve is to join a friend who already plays
Preferably someone you know in real life and who you can punch in the face in real life if they fuck you up in the game.
If you enjoy complexity and not completely burnt out on MMOs yet, take a look at EVE Online. Extremely complex and brutal.
It is not for everyone though: People either love it or severely hate it. Biggest factor is that everything you do is PvP in nature.
With EVE, the people who hate it are typically neither sadists nor masochists.
But minerals I mine are free!
Libertarian paradise? I don't think there's anything in the libertarian credo that says you should rip off everyone who's weaker than you are, but that's the rule in EVE. The EVE universe is one of untrammeled barbarism; it's a sort of anti-society because there is no basis for trust or lasting cooperation.
I played EVE and then moved to a place that is actually like this in real life (without the gunmen walking the street and there aren't very many explosions, but other than that pretty much untrammeled barbarism).
After a while of playing EVE I thought "You know what? I have to watch my back every day just walking down the street here. I don't need to simulate this in a game."
EVE is one of those old school "you must group up you evil scum sucking soloer, don't you know what the M stands for!" games. Thus it appeals heavily to some players while disgusting others.
And the way the game works, and is designed, you can't trust any of the people you group with, your corp mates or pretty much anyone.
The only people in EVE who you can trust are ones who you can hunt down and beat the shit out of in REAL LIFE. If I were ever to get back into EVE I'd have to do it with a bunch of real life friends. And I'd have to have some good blackmail material on them as well.
So we have a world where many biologists are in denial and just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALAAA I cannot hear you LALALALAAA" when people start wondering about the potential for viable hybrids to occur in nature.
Um, biologists have been aware of the fuzziness of species boundaries for a very long time. It's non-biologists who remember the archaic "mate and produce fertile offspring" definition of "species" from high school science class who make comments like OP's.
Never the less they still use the concept of species.
Christians will even point at the confusion around species and go "HA see? Where do species come from?? Must be GOD!"
Darwins 'origin of the species' is mis-named, it wasn't about origin of species and contains no useful ideas about how species come to be.
The whole idea of species is just unhelpful and the referent of the term probably doesn't even exist.
Lots and lots of things can interbreed and produce viable offspring, from what we call different species. The concept of species is poorly defined and the capability to interbreed and produce viable offspring is poorly understood. Its quite possible that evolution is far less of a directed, acyclic graph than would be good for computational genomics and evolutionary biology.
General graphs are a lot harder to deal with computationally than trees so theres a tendency to try to simplify a lot of things to tree like structures just to make it easier to deal with. Problem is that the reality may not be as directed as that and may have cycles, which really fucks up the algorithms.
So we have a world where many biologists are in denial and just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALALALAAA I cannot hear you LALALALAAA" when people start wondering about the potential for viable hybrids to occur in nature.
To disprove the idea that people who know they fail will accept that others fail, consider:
1) At how many job interviews are you asked "what is your biggest weakness"?
2) At how many of those would the person who asks you this have gotten hired if he truthfully described his biggest weakness?
Its easy to get through a job interview answering a question like that truthfully by a positive spin on it in the form of a STAR formatted story. Thats 'Interview technique 101'. And you keep it to work related weaknesses as well not "I've got a weakness for blondes with big tits" type of weakness.
Jengis picked which of his sons would succeed him (Ogedei) and the succession was more or less unopposed. The real succession crisis didn't happen until Ogedei kicked the bucket.
For a 'great empire' it didn't last very long. Up one moment, down the next. Compared to the Romans it was a gigantic flop. Like a guy with a 10 inch cock who can only keep it up for 5 minutes compared to a guy with a 6 inch cock that lasts all night. Guess which one the ladies will enjoy?
Oh and most of the 'huge empire' was uninhabited, kind of like Russia proclaiming itself as the greatest nation on Earth because "we rule SIBERIA!".
Random fact, Khan has 16 million descendants.
Great rapist...
(there are stories that Mongol warriors gang-raping a woman, when they ran out of orifices to rape would take their knives and make improvised orifices to rape)