"Keeping a head positioned over a track is like driving a car at very high speed down a road that is constantly and unpredictably curving in one direction or another."
Except the car is a jumbo traveling at cruising speed, 6" above the road.
"You are a couple of years behind on the news, eh?"
Maybe I am, the last time I paid attention was when David Hicks was having his butt reamed by a "kangaroo court". How many of the Gitmo crowd have recieved a jury trial so far?
Don't worry, I think the western "dogs of war" would be just as easy to arouse when they are attacked.
You are correct that both sides are currently battling for the attention of the western media. However, the Geogians attacted first and regardless of wether the US had anything to do with the first attack, few people will now belive that Georgia was/is not a puppet. A perfect camera angle at the games with Bush screwing his face up to Putin's words isn't going to convince the world Bush is THAT stupid. Putin is a strongman, he went from the games directly to S. Ossetia to put his stamp on the actions of the Russian military who he claims were attacked by their fellow (Georgian) peacekeepers in "fith column" style.
Rice to her credit did something similar by travelling to the Georgian Capital while Russin troops were stationed on it's outskirts. FWIW: My prediction is Georgia will be cut in two (like cyprus and so many others), there will be endless accusations, arguments and comparisons between looting in Iraq and Georgia, but the real fireworks will start if Poland starts breaking ground for US missile sites. The only sensible approach is offered by the French, ie: both sides back down, bring in international peacekeepers, and finally - blame the whole mess on an over zealous Georgian president.
As an Australian who remebers "duck and cover" training, my reaction to all this is: Thank god that Bush's dad forced him to sack Rummy and this all happend on Gates' watch!
"So it's okay for China to shoot dissidents in cold blood? And build a firewall out their country that shields their citizens from such undesirable ideas as democracy and free speech?"
No it isn't, but the bill of rights certainly hasn't helped any 'illegal combatants'. I believe the point the GP was trying to make is that senate involvement in this 'code of conduct' was just the US throwing stones in it's own glasshouse, yet again. When you start lecturing people/nations about what's "right" they will look for hypocricy that exists between your own words and deeds, generally it's not that hard to find.
Indeed, how would westeners react if Yahoo!, Google, etc, were bought by China via the stock market and we were then stuck with China dictating the "code of conduct"? Not that I support China's stance but it's attitude toward censorship and human rights is not that different to the west during the 50's & 60's.
BTW: Don't panic, China would not be allowed to buy these companies, both the west and the east have laws against pure market forces and for very good reasons.
"I used to be a Fascist, then I became a Republican, then I became a Libertarian, now I am a full-blown Anarchist."
FWIW: The question in my sig would be appropriate here.
"As well intentioned as people like you and the majority of other people are, you simply fail grasp your own lack of power and knowledge. You like to imagine that if you had more power, you cold solve your problems. You imagine that we can devise a "system" that will solve our problems for us. But the reality is that you don't know shit about anything, and all you will do is make things worse."
Why is an imperfect system automatically worse than anarchy? The fact that civilization exists and has enabled you to get on the internet and complain about it falsifies the concept that "all you can do is make things worse".
"All you can really do is try to solve your own problems in your own life and hope for the best. In the mean time, please leave everyone else alone."
Good advice but how does that mitigate the fact that people regularly piss each other off without trying? - The most ironic thing about the libertarian movement is they share the hippie delusion, ie: people would all live 'happily ever after' if they could just get 'the man' off their back.
"Were their shamans just as convincing arguing for less water use and building smaller huts to prevent the climate-changes?"
You jest, but the Sahara is an example of (natural) regional climate change (ie: the Nile changed course and the jungle died). Our modern shamans could, and probably would, prevent the same thing happening today with the use of earth moving equipment, dams, and a bottle of sacraficial champagne.
That the Nile changed it's course in man's pre-history is a bit more than speculation.
The people of the Indus valley were also forced out when a river changed course in the highlands and created the modern Ganges river. But yeah, it's fantastic that we have found archological evidence to show that not only did people pass thru the Sahara but that they (and their prey) lived in the same spot for many generations.
"The salt water isn't nearly as important as fresh water. The oceans only provide seafood, fresh water is necessary for most agriculture and industry. It is also necessary for most terrestrial animal life, including humans."
Unfortunately we can't just look at the "important bits" and expect them to survive without an ocean, without a large ocean fresh water would not exist in sufficient quantities to provide a habitat for plants/animals/humans. Killing the ocean will remove over 50% of the earth's biomass, if you think that terrestial life will be unaffected (sans fish fingers) then you have been mis-informed.
Transparency is a good thing and western politics is already more or less transparent (if one has the time and inclination), but western politics is still just as machevellian as it ever was.
GEB is a modern classic, the significance of Godel is nicely summed up here.
From the link:
In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.
Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.
[snip]
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it. [ My emphasis, It reminds me of religious people who describe "seeing the light". ]
Albert Eienstien quoted the philosopher Schopenhauer in his My Credo speech - "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills'". OTOH: You can choose to ignore Albert.
I choose to belive Albert because he's been right about wierd stuff before. Assuming mind emerges from the physical computations going on in the brain could explain why maths so often predicts 'reality', but do all computations produce mind? To butcher Shakespear, there are far more computations in a swirling galaxy than there are in my head so why can't the Galaxy or indeed the entire Universe have 'mind', is this what people are feeling when they feel God? - Is this what, religious or not, humans are detecting when they look at nature with awe?
"A person will, when given time to decide, make the choice that presents the least bad prospect for future goals.
Anyone want to add any more qualifiers to that statement?"
A primordial soup of chemicals behaves in a similar manner, is the soup choosing to do so and if so what are it's goals?
Yeah principles are expensive, but why do you think that people who don't agree with you don't have a conscience? - Have you ever thought their concience may be based on different principles?
TFA is about UK cops, AFAIK ordinary cops in the UK don't carry guns.
As for they people with the balaclava their aim was to upset people and they suceeded. Perhaps the cops were technically wrong to confiscate their stuff, however they were employed to keep the peace at the protest, they were briefed and expected to use their own discresion. Maybe one of them was biased because of previous encounters with balaclava clad protesters at a less peacefull protest, as a cosequence he no longer trusts balaclavas and uses his own discretion. Right or wrong once he decides to take the balaclava backing down is not an option, it's generally interpreted as 'weakness' by humans, particularly in confrontational situations.
So I agree, cops are definitely not interested in "subtle distinctions", their job is to confront strangers all day long, they do what they are trained to do by their superiors, peers and experience, (and yes some are corrupt/bullies or trained to be such). However the vast majority are interested in their own security first and have been trained that way. ie: Hand over the balaclava and get it back after the protest, or have it confiscated as evidence until a judge decides wether your disturbing the peace or not.
If people really were sheep then I would let them eat the grass on my lawn, but they are not sheep, so get off it!
As an Aussie I apologise for Rupert, as an old fart I like what I've seen of Colbert and the Daily Show because I prefer comedy to anger when it comes to political discussion. IMHO the most agnogstic (and some of the funniest) political/social satire to come out of the US in recent years has been in the form of cartoons. Ironicaly the best known of these is the Simpons ( a Fox production ).
Slashdot Mirror
"This is awful advise."
No it's an awful joke, but it can be fun when accepting stuff from couriers.
"Keeping a head positioned over a track is like driving a car at very high speed down a road that is constantly and unpredictably curving in one direction or another."
Except the car is a jumbo traveling at cruising speed, 6" above the road.
Yeah, if it were me I would just sign the thing with an illegible "Adolph Hitler" and let them buy me lunch.
"You are a couple of years behind on the news, eh?"
Maybe I am, the last time I paid attention was when David Hicks was having his butt reamed by a "kangaroo court". How many of the Gitmo crowd have recieved a jury trial so far?
Not sure I follow, I was infering that pure capitalisim does not exist, nor should it IMHO.
Don't worry, I think the western "dogs of war" would be just as easy to arouse when they are attacked.
You are correct that both sides are currently battling for the attention of the western media. However, the Geogians attacted first and regardless of wether the US had anything to do with the first attack, few people will now belive that Georgia was/is not a puppet. A perfect camera angle at the games with Bush screwing his face up to Putin's words isn't going to convince the world Bush is THAT stupid. Putin is a strongman, he went from the games directly to S. Ossetia to put his stamp on the actions of the Russian military who he claims were attacked by their fellow (Georgian) peacekeepers in "fith column" style.
Rice to her credit did something similar by travelling to the Georgian Capital while Russin troops were stationed on it's outskirts. FWIW: My prediction is Georgia will be cut in two (like cyprus and so many others), there will be endless accusations, arguments and comparisons between looting in Iraq and Georgia, but the real fireworks will start if Poland starts breaking ground for US missile sites. The only sensible approach is offered by the French, ie: both sides back down, bring in international peacekeepers, and finally - blame the whole mess on an over zealous Georgian president.
As an Australian who remebers "duck and cover" training, my reaction to all this is: Thank god that Bush's dad forced him to sack Rummy and this all happend on Gates' watch!
"So it's okay for China to shoot dissidents in cold blood? And build a firewall out their country that shields their citizens from such undesirable ideas as democracy and free speech?"
No it isn't, but the bill of rights certainly hasn't helped any 'illegal combatants'. I believe the point the GP was trying to make is that senate involvement in this 'code of conduct' was just the US throwing stones in it's own glasshouse, yet again. When you start lecturing people/nations about what's "right" they will look for hypocricy that exists between your own words and deeds, generally it's not that hard to find.
"Moral relativism syndrome: The tendency to believe that all aspects of all cultures are equally "valid"."
Moral superiority syndrome: The tendency to believe that ones own morals are 'equally valid' to other cultures.
Indeed, how would westeners react if Yahoo!, Google, etc, were bought by China via the stock market and we were then stuck with China dictating the "code of conduct"? Not that I support China's stance but it's attitude toward censorship and human rights is not that different to the west during the 50's & 60's.
BTW: Don't panic, China would not be allowed to buy these companies, both the west and the east have laws against pure market forces and for very good reasons.
"Turning on verbose logging doesn't help you after the process has gone tits up."
How can you demonstrate that you have fixed the reported bug if you can't recreate it in the first place?
"I used to be a Fascist, then I became a Republican, then I became a Libertarian, now I am a full-blown Anarchist."
FWIW: The question in my sig would be appropriate here.
"As well intentioned as people like you and the majority of other people are, you simply fail grasp your own lack of power and knowledge. You like to imagine that if you had more power, you cold solve your problems. You imagine that we can devise a "system" that will solve our problems for us. But the reality is that you don't know shit about anything, and all you will do is make things worse."
Why is an imperfect system automatically worse than anarchy? The fact that civilization exists and has enabled you to get on the internet and complain about it falsifies the concept that "all you can do is make things worse".
"All you can really do is try to solve your own problems in your own life and hope for the best. In the mean time, please leave everyone else alone."
Good advice but how does that mitigate the fact that people regularly piss each other off without trying? - The most ironic thing about the libertarian movement is they share the hippie delusion, ie: people would all live 'happily ever after' if they could just get 'the man' off their back.
"Were their shamans just as convincing arguing for less water use and building smaller huts to prevent the climate-changes?"
You jest, but the Sahara is an example of (natural) regional climate change (ie: the Nile changed course and the jungle died). Our modern shamans could, and probably would, prevent the same thing happening today with the use of earth moving equipment, dams, and a bottle of sacraficial champagne.
That the Nile changed it's course in man's pre-history is a bit more than speculation. The people of the Indus valley were also forced out when a river changed course in the highlands and created the modern Ganges river. But yeah, it's fantastic that we have found archological evidence to show that not only did people pass thru the Sahara but that they (and their prey) lived in the same spot for many generations.
"The salt water isn't nearly as important as fresh water. The oceans only provide seafood, fresh water is necessary for most agriculture and industry. It is also necessary for most terrestrial animal life, including humans."
Unfortunately we can't just look at the "important bits" and expect them to survive without an ocean, without a large ocean fresh water would not exist in sufficient quantities to provide a habitat for plants/animals/humans. Killing the ocean will remove over 50% of the earth's biomass, if you think that terrestial life will be unaffected (sans fish fingers) then you have been mis-informed.
Transparency is a good thing and western politics is already more or less transparent (if one has the time and inclination), but western politics is still just as machevellian as it ever was.
GEB is a modern classic, the significance of Godel is nicely summed up here.
... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.
... It plays a part in modern linguistic theories, which emphasize the power of language to come up with new ways to express ideas. And it has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself.
... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it. [ My emphasis, It reminds me of religious people who describe "seeing the light". ]
From the link:
In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms
Gödel's Theorem has been used to argue that a computer can never be as smart as a human being because the extent of its knowledge is limited by a fixed set of axioms, whereas people can discover unexpected truths
[snip]
Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth
"What's the difference between a ball and a human?"
Humans don't bounce when you hit them with a bat.
Ok, but we will need to borrow your brain for reverse engineering purposes.
Albert Eienstien quoted the philosopher Schopenhauer in his My Credo speech - "I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills'". OTOH: You can choose to ignore Albert.
I choose to belive Albert because he's been right about wierd stuff before. Assuming mind emerges from the physical computations going on in the brain could explain why maths so often predicts 'reality', but do all computations produce mind? To butcher Shakespear, there are far more computations in a swirling galaxy than there are in my head so why can't the Galaxy or indeed the entire Universe have 'mind', is this what people are feeling when they feel God? - Is this what, religious or not, humans are detecting when they look at nature with awe?
"A person will, when given time to decide, make the choice that presents the least bad prospect for future goals. Anyone want to add any more qualifiers to that statement?"
A primordial soup of chemicals behaves in a similar manner, is the soup choosing to do so and if so what are it's goals?
Yeah principles are expensive, but why do you think that people who don't agree with you don't have a conscience? - Have you ever thought their concience may be based on different principles?
TFA is about UK cops, AFAIK ordinary cops in the UK don't carry guns.
As for they people with the balaclava their aim was to upset people and they suceeded. Perhaps the cops were technically wrong to confiscate their stuff, however they were employed to keep the peace at the protest, they were briefed and expected to use their own discresion. Maybe one of them was biased because of previous encounters with balaclava clad protesters at a less peacefull protest, as a cosequence he no longer trusts balaclavas and uses his own discretion. Right or wrong once he decides to take the balaclava backing down is not an option, it's generally interpreted as 'weakness' by humans, particularly in confrontational situations.
So I agree, cops are definitely not interested in "subtle distinctions", their job is to confront strangers all day long, they do what they are trained to do by their superiors, peers and experience, (and yes some are corrupt/bullies or trained to be such). However the vast majority are interested in their own security first and have been trained that way. ie: Hand over the balaclava and get it back after the protest, or have it confiscated as evidence until a judge decides wether your disturbing the peace or not.
If people really were sheep then I would let them eat the grass on my lawn, but they are not sheep, so get off it!
"Why raise any of these issues in a news summary?"
It strongly implies she is financialy and physically helpless and thus it superficially supports her counter claim of bullying.
"(maybe if she was deaf it would add an extra layer)."
Makes me wonder what you would say if she had been in a coma for last 20yrs, still not relevant?
HaHa!
Is the moon in the upper atmosphere already? - Damm, I must have blacked out a few billion years to go.....
As for the moronic rocket/dust idea, what particle are they using that will remain bouyant in the upper atmosphere for more than 3-5yrs?
As an Aussie I apologise for Rupert, as an old fart I like what I've seen of Colbert and the Daily Show because I prefer comedy to anger when it comes to political discussion. IMHO the most agnogstic (and some of the funniest) political/social satire to come out of the US in recent years has been in the form of cartoons. Ironicaly the best known of these is the Simpons ( a Fox production ).