US politics has become like WWE. They put on a good show, everyone gets entertained, but it's all rigged anyway and at the end of the day you're the one out of pocket. Rinse, repeat.
That our political discourse is so shaped by people who are comedians by trade, should be troubling.
""Did we just kill a kid?"
"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.
"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.
Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.
They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?"
This makes sense once you understand the Exchange's big draw is the calendar stuff. PHB's spend half their lives trying to arrange 'meetings' so they can 'discuss stuff', while engineers spend their lives trying to avoid meetings so they can get real work done.
This has happened to every society moving to a large scale capitalistic economy.
Uhm, moving from what - something that was previously less 'corrupt'? That is your implication, but reality check, China has "moved" from an enormously violent totalitarian Communist state to what it is now - are you really going to say the Chinese government is now "more corrupt" than Chairman Mao's government? The one that openly slaughtered millions? Really?
Take the United Kingdom, that moved to a "large scale capitalistic economy". You know what it moved from? Dictatorial monarchies - these were basically fascist totalitarian regimes - you think they were "less corrupt" than the days when the King could take your wife or lob off your head if he just didn't like the look of you?
Or consider corruption in Africa. You really think corruption in a modern African state is "worse" than the days when e.g. Shaka Zulu was openly killing thousands of both his own people and other people?
Or consider corruption in Russia. You really think it's "worse" now than it was in the pure Communist days, before it "moved to" a "large scale capitalistic economy"?
That word "marginalize", I don't think it means what you think it means.
The core question is whose rights are being violated by the existence of animal porn, that supposedly gives you the right to initiate force against those who view animal porn. Your rights do not get violated by the mere existence of the stuff, and to claim as such is an extraordinary stretch - how are your rights violated - are you unable to go out in public because there are posters of animal porn everywhere? Are you unable to go to work because animal porn posters adorn the walls of every business? I don't think so.
At best, this is a question of animal rights. There might be an argument that creating animal porn constitutes cruelty to animals, because animals cannot consent in the way humans consent to sex. But that has more to do with the production of the porn than its consumption.
Devil's Advocate, and tinfoil hat time: How do we know this isn't a sophisticated false flag operation, by our own government? This could be exactly what is needed to try convince the public to support new over-reaching laws giving the government much more control over our Internet. Watch closely any new bills or regulations that follow this.
Last reply, just a quick question, if you don't like space, why not just avoid it yourself? Why try bully and harass others into avoiding space? Why not just let the people who want to go to space, go to space - how does it affect you anyway? Live and let live. Let other people go to space, and you stay on Earth, and everyone's happy.
I mean, I don't care for, say, beer, but I don't go around bashing anyone who drinks beer as being an idiotic "Beer Nutter". No, you have a deeper motive here.
If it's really impossible, as you say, then you'll be proven right. So why are you afraid that people try? Are you afraid they might succeed?
If you just have an issue relating to how space is funded, well that's something else, we can discuss that as a separate topic. I mean, projects like Mars One aim to be privately funded - they aren't even trying to take your tax money to do it.
I realize of course that the statistical odds of such a calamity in our lifetimes is very small, but I take a long-term view. Consider that we've been "modern humans" for perhaps 100,000 to 200,000 years, and we've been humans for approximately 2 million years. On these timescales, the odds of major catastrophic events increases and eventually approaches 1. (There are other risks too.) Just on our tiny planet, we've had not one, but several major extinction events (though it seems you adopting a Biblical "that never happened" view, in which case, well, I would first have to convince you about this thing called "science" and "evidence").
But, there are a whole host of other reasons why it makes sense to start colonizing space. Even if there were no such thing as large-scale catastrophes, I would still think it makes sense.
Plus, it's cool. Come on, you have to admit, it would be awesome for us to set foot on Mars.
You know, even a 6-year old can figure out that if dinosaurs had colonized other planets, they'd still be alive today. By "doomsday scenario" you are referring to things that actually happen in reality - and by "salvation", you are referring to something that really actually would mitigate this risk.
You don't seem to understand what a "religion" is. Things that are real do not constitute religion. You know what constitutes "religion"? Denying that real things exist.
The dinosaurs are a religion? WTF? Are you claiming this never happened? How do you explain the massive crater and heaps of other evidence for an impact?
Actually, considering the use of existing structures like caves is one of the options for consideration for missions to other bodies in the solar system, it's a worthwhile suggestion. What we should probably do is use robotic cave exploration to learn more about the nature and suitability of the caves (whether Moon or Mars). I think the point of this though is to explore the option of automated or semi-automated construction, which I suspect in the longer term may have more advantages.
What it is with the anti-space trolls on slashdot lately? I'm sure it's just 2 or 3 individuals, but every space-related article you come crawling out of the woodwork and paste the exact same crap, like calling people "space Nutters". You know what's really idiotic? Any "intelligent" species that thinks it actually makes sense to stay home and wait for the entire species to be obliterated by an impact, like the dinosaurs.
Surely the payload of a printer and materials will be greater than the prefabricated materials alone? Isn't this more costly?
Imagine for a moment that some years from now (maybe 5, 10, 15) new techniques allow for the harvesting and use of materials directly on the surface of the moon (or, imagine, another planet), perhaps even automated harvesting/mining of materials (e.g. imagine a small team of robots could scour the moon for new materials to feed into the machine). When combined with this technique, it could then become possible to far more cheaply build large numbers of such structures, with many potential applications and uses. Then the initial materials would constitute an investment of sorts.
(The latter is incorrect reasoning because "choosing" is only something individuals can do. When we say that everyone "chooses" collectively, what we really mean is that some less-than-100% percentage of individuals has chosen to do something - which reveals that some percentage of individuals have in fact not "chosen" to do so at all, but may well have objected to trying. In practice, this may either just be "linguistic shorthand" for what was really meant, or an error in reasoning.)
Actually (yes yes, I'm humorless), while it is a logical fallacy to 'anthropomorphize' society as a collective, society as a collective does actually also exist - there are some senses in which it is not a fallacy, and the GP's use of "us" is correct.
Correct: "Can't wait for us [humans] to return to the moon"
Incorrect: "We choose to go to the moon, not because.."
..and the criticism too. Unless we plan to do something on the moon that cannot be done in earths orbit or even on the earths surface, then whats the point?
The techniques developed, and experience gained in doing something like this would be excellent, and applicable, for doing similar on Mars.
Sure, we can climb a mountain 'because its there' but whats the price tag?
What is the appropriate cost for mitigating against planetary-scale extinction events like the impact that killed the dinosaurs? Colonizing other planets is exactly a sensible and intelligent thing to do if you want to enhance your survival rate as a species.. if the Dinosaurs had Martian colonies, they'd still be alive today.
In any case, the costs we're talking about are comparatively incredibly miniscule. Consider that the War in Iraq ALONE cost an estimated $3.4 TRILLION. And yet a few tens of billions to potentially ensure the survival of our species in the longer term, and not have all our eggs in one basket, is "too costly"? Come on.
Those evil turds like Feinstein are not real Jews. I think it's more accurate to consider them satanists or something. I know a lot of real Jews that do not think or behave in the disgusting corrupt way that those like Feinstein behave, and I don't think the Jewish God would endorse their behavior either. They're going straight to hell.
Slashdot Mirror
US politics has become like WWE. They put on a good show, everyone gets entertained, but it's all rigged anyway and at the end of the day you're the one out of pocket. Rinse, repeat.
That our political discourse is so shaped by people who are comedians by trade, should be troubling.
As opposed to the bastion of truth and fairness that is most of the rest of the US media :/ ?
Tinfoil hat time .. maybe this is a false flag, to create a premise to pass draconian new Internet surveillance laws. Why such mundane pics only?
Except that unlike the mythical WMD's, 'drone bombing' is all too real, e.g.
""Did we just kill a kid?"
"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.
"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.
Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.
They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?"
This makes sense once you understand the Exchange's big draw is the calendar stuff. PHB's spend half their lives trying to arrange 'meetings' so they can 'discuss stuff', while engineers spend their lives trying to avoid meetings so they can get real work done.
"Raped"? Where does it say she was raped? How do you get modded up with that crap?
This has happened to every society moving to a large scale capitalistic economy.
Uhm, moving from what - something that was previously less 'corrupt'? That is your implication, but reality check, China has "moved" from an enormously violent totalitarian Communist state to what it is now - are you really going to say the Chinese government is now "more corrupt" than Chairman Mao's government? The one that openly slaughtered millions? Really?
Take the United Kingdom, that moved to a "large scale capitalistic economy". You know what it moved from? Dictatorial monarchies - these were basically fascist totalitarian regimes - you think they were "less corrupt" than the days when the King could take your wife or lob off your head if he just didn't like the look of you?
Or consider corruption in Africa. You really think corruption in a modern African state is "worse" than the days when e.g. Shaka Zulu was openly killing thousands of both his own people and other people?
Or consider corruption in Russia. You really think it's "worse" now than it was in the pure Communist days, before it "moved to" a "large scale capitalistic economy"?
I think we could go on and on.
That word "marginalize", I don't think it means what you think it means.
The core question is whose rights are being violated by the existence of animal porn, that supposedly gives you the right to initiate force against those who view animal porn. Your rights do not get violated by the mere existence of the stuff, and to claim as such is an extraordinary stretch - how are your rights violated - are you unable to go out in public because there are posters of animal porn everywhere? Are you unable to go to work because animal porn posters adorn the walls of every business? I don't think so.
At best, this is a question of animal rights. There might be an argument that creating animal porn constitutes cruelty to animals, because animals cannot consent in the way humans consent to sex. But that has more to do with the production of the porn than its consumption.
Please don't assume all libertarians want to just let anyone poison everyone else with toxins like lead, it's only the stupid ones.
Devil's Advocate, and tinfoil hat time: How do we know this isn't a sophisticated false flag operation, by our own government? This could be exactly what is needed to try convince the public to support new over-reaching laws giving the government much more control over our Internet. Watch closely any new bills or regulations that follow this.
Last reply, just a quick question, if you don't like space, why not just avoid it yourself? Why try bully and harass others into avoiding space? Why not just let the people who want to go to space, go to space - how does it affect you anyway? Live and let live. Let other people go to space, and you stay on Earth, and everyone's happy.
I mean, I don't care for, say, beer, but I don't go around bashing anyone who drinks beer as being an idiotic "Beer Nutter". No, you have a deeper motive here.
If it's really impossible, as you say, then you'll be proven right. So why are you afraid that people try? Are you afraid they might succeed?
If you just have an issue relating to how space is funded, well that's something else, we can discuss that as a separate topic. I mean, projects like Mars One aim to be privately funded - they aren't even trying to take your tax money to do it.
I realize of course that the statistical odds of such a calamity in our lifetimes is very small, but I take a long-term view. Consider that we've been "modern humans" for perhaps 100,000 to 200,000 years, and we've been humans for approximately 2 million years. On these timescales, the odds of major catastrophic events increases and eventually approaches 1. (There are other risks too.) Just on our tiny planet, we've had not one, but several major extinction events (though it seems you adopting a Biblical "that never happened" view, in which case, well, I would first have to convince you about this thing called "science" and "evidence").
But, there are a whole host of other reasons why it makes sense to start colonizing space. Even if there were no such thing as large-scale catastrophes, I would still think it makes sense.
Plus, it's cool. Come on, you have to admit, it would be awesome for us to set foot on Mars.
You know, even a 6-year old can figure out that if dinosaurs had colonized other planets, they'd still be alive today. By "doomsday scenario" you are referring to things that actually happen in reality - and by "salvation", you are referring to something that really actually would mitigate this risk.
You don't seem to understand what a "religion" is. Things that are real do not constitute religion. You know what constitutes "religion"? Denying that real things exist.
The dinosaurs are a religion? WTF? Are you claiming this never happened? How do you explain the massive crater and heaps of other evidence for an impact?
Let me guess, that's your story and you're sticking to it?
Actually, considering the use of existing structures like caves is one of the options for consideration for missions to other bodies in the solar system, it's a worthwhile suggestion. What we should probably do is use robotic cave exploration to learn more about the nature and suitability of the caves (whether Moon or Mars). I think the point of this though is to explore the option of automated or semi-automated construction, which I suspect in the longer term may have more advantages.
What it is with the anti-space trolls on slashdot lately? I'm sure it's just 2 or 3 individuals, but every space-related article you come crawling out of the woodwork and paste the exact same crap, like calling people "space Nutters". You know what's really idiotic? Any "intelligent" species that thinks it actually makes sense to stay home and wait for the entire species to be obliterated by an impact, like the dinosaurs.
Surely the payload of a printer and materials will be greater than the prefabricated materials alone? Isn't this more costly?
Imagine for a moment that some years from now (maybe 5, 10, 15) new techniques allow for the harvesting and use of materials directly on the surface of the moon (or, imagine, another planet), perhaps even automated harvesting/mining of materials (e.g. imagine a small team of robots could scour the moon for new materials to feed into the machine). When combined with this technique, it could then become possible to far more cheaply build large numbers of such structures, with many potential applications and uses. Then the initial materials would constitute an investment of sorts.
(The latter is incorrect reasoning because "choosing" is only something individuals can do. When we say that everyone "chooses" collectively, what we really mean is that some less-than-100% percentage of individuals has chosen to do something - which reveals that some percentage of individuals have in fact not "chosen" to do so at all, but may well have objected to trying. In practice, this may either just be "linguistic shorthand" for what was really meant, or an error in reasoning.)
Actually (yes yes, I'm humorless), while it is a logical fallacy to 'anthropomorphize' society as a collective, society as a collective does actually also exist - there are some senses in which it is not a fallacy, and the GP's use of "us" is correct.
Correct: "Can't wait for us [humans] to return to the moon" .."
Incorrect: "We choose to go to the moon, not because
The techniques developed, and experience gained in doing something like this would be excellent, and applicable, for doing similar on Mars.
Sure, we can climb a mountain 'because its there' but whats the price tag?
What is the appropriate cost for mitigating against planetary-scale extinction events like the impact that killed the dinosaurs? Colonizing other planets is exactly a sensible and intelligent thing to do if you want to enhance your survival rate as a species .. if the Dinosaurs had Martian colonies, they'd still be alive today.
In any case, the costs we're talking about are comparatively incredibly miniscule. Consider that the War in Iraq ALONE cost an estimated $3.4 TRILLION. And yet a few tens of billions to potentially ensure the survival of our species in the longer term, and not have all our eggs in one basket, is "too costly"? Come on.
Those evil turds like Feinstein are not real Jews. I think it's more accurate to consider them satanists or something. I know a lot of real Jews that do not think or behave in the disgusting corrupt way that those like Feinstein behave, and I don't think the Jewish God would endorse their behavior either. They're going straight to hell.
Yes, guns kill people, they kill bad guys in self-defense. That's a good thing.
What's so shady about that?
Absolutely nothing. This entire story is just a flamebait way of trying to brainwash us with the "guns are bad" message.
Point us to an official source where Apple denies this, or revoke your claim.
Apple Wins 2010 Brandcameo Award for Most Product Placement