Well, the main reason i dont use firefox is because of the google toolbar. Firefox is slightly better than IE, but that sort of thing keeps me from using it.
The idea is that by preventing the military from engaging in politics, you deter any sort of coup d'etat
Because military officials dont voice their opinions, especially the brass and such, we can be relatively sure that they will obey anyone whom the people elect.
And on the whole "enjoying the same rights" thing, i believe the idea is that being in the military gives you certain privileges and duties, but giving up certain civilian freedoms, like speech, movement, and the like.
They see that we are building these defense systems, so they think that we will soon not have a reason not to nuke them. So, they act sooner rather than later, with their own nukes, on the logic that those nukes will soon be useless (when did i ever say they would use conventional forces, btw?). Either that, or they start their own defense program, i.e. an arms race, which leads to an increase of tensions, which increases the possibility of war.
You honestly think that there is still as large scale an arm race now as there was during the cold war?
You're making this about who's right again, not about reality.
MAD means the nuclear-armed "evil" countries have a good reason not to launch their nukes, because they know that both sides will be wiped out. Like in the cold war. Or are you saying that we wouldnt respond with nukes to nukes?
Lets say we make this shield, or are about to make this shield perfect. THEY see that the US has no reason not to nuke them. So they act.
Christ, just because the you're righteous doesnt mean you are above simple logic.
And i guess you dont have a problem with arms races either?
"The other guys are 'hostile', but it's the US's fault. hmmmm." When will people learn that being righteous is not always a good enough reason to do something. Pissing off someone with nukes and reasons to use them is a bad thing. Being right wont matter when you're dead.
"As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventories."
MAD is irrelevant, eh? What about china? What about power shifts in unstable countries,like Russia. Some intelligence even says North Korea has ICBMs capable of hitting the west coast. even if they dont, you should never bet your security on the delusional hope that the other side will never make any progress in their weapons systems.
Oh and its a good thing we're building down those inventories, now we'll only be able to kill each other 2 or 3 times over, and not 6 or 7.
For one thing, it could remove the assurance of mutual destruction in the event of a nuclear war, at least in theory, at least for a short while.
It could also lead to another arms race, which is never a good thing.
Plus you could buy individual DVDs for 10 bucks with 3 to 5 episodes on them, that way you could get just what you wanted, or buy em as you could afford them.
Its the only sci-fi dvd set i have for just that reason.
Oh please.
People bitch all the time when people attempt to bring religion into debate about laws, instead of focusing on the constitution, contemporary law, and the precedents derived thereof.
If the article said that the topic should only be be discussed in lieu of the moral systems of the majority, and fuck the law, then there would be an army of Big Brother and The Sky is Falling! posts.
Morality is relative, the law is not.
"Violence is a part of the Human Subconcious, and Shielding kids from Violence will only make them unprepaired when their put in a violent situation."
How is this a fact? Do you have any clinical (or even anecdotal) experience to back this up? OF course not.
First of all, yes, some violence is probably a part of our sub-conscious. But it is also a part which civilized man endeavors to suppress in our conscious mind when it is not needed. Because it leads to problems in civilized society. Just because something is in part present in our sub-concious mind does not mean it should be embraced, just recognized.
If anything (i think) being desensitized to simulated violence would only make the reaction worse when you're exposed to the real thing, because it has to break through that barrier as well as the normal aversion to gruesome physical violence that exists in most un-desensitized (or sensitized if you'd prefer) people. Playing Call of Duty and killing lots of nazis would not have made me a better soldier in WW2.
"when they start realizing that video games and movies are, in essence, equivalent forms of entertainment."
I disagree. I think anyone who has ever been bored to death by an FMV has to agree. One medium is passive, the other is interactive. Because of this, equivalent events will have different impact in either medium. For example, when a child sees a guy get his head blown off by a sniper in Saving Private Ryan or some other war duty, a child would be at least surprised if not shocked and disgusted at the reality of war (one of the major focal points of alot of war movies lately)whereas in Call of Duty or BF 1942 or some such other game and the child GETS a headshot, the reaction is "awesome shot" or whatever. (On a sidenote, i think war games have to some extent led to a reglorification of war, or at least to distancing it from it's grim reality.)
I think i am fairly desensitized to violence due to my exposure to videogames of a graphic violent nature. I'm not sure yet whether or not my kid should be as well.
Personally i think it should go something like with (ironic, since i spent the first half of my post seperating the two mediums) R rated movies. The default is that a kid is not allowed, but if the parent says otherwise than thats it.
"Yes, you are. Right to a fair and speedy trial, right to due process, innocent until proven guilty, any of these ring a bell?"
Well, thats not entirely true. These are (mostly)civil trials remember, where there is a heavier burden on the accused than in criminal trials. Defendants have less powerful rights; i.e. they can be forced to testify against themselves, proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesnt hold, and neither does "innocent until proven guilty."
The genetic manipulation that they refer to in this article is the idea of taking a gene(s) from a completely different species, and putting it into whatever they are manipulating. The breeding they refer to is not the traditional breeding we've practiced for thousands of years, but rather looking at all the genes available for all possible breeds of a plant and tagging it. Then they do crossbreeds and check for the gene, and if it is present, then growing the plants outside of a lab. Because you arent actually changing the genes, just bringing out latent genes of the species, it is less likely there will be side effects. Because of this fact, its cheaper to do, quicker to produce, and easier to test than GM products.
...I don't really see what exactly inherently outrageous about this. Granted, its a slippery slope, having unions finance educations...but come on, who can really defend pirating whole movies? Dont give me that shit about "its not worth 10 bucks to see it in a theatre or the 20 bucks for the DVD," either. If you don't want to PAY for something, you dont deserve to have it. And if you have an honest problem with the pricing system, then refuse to pay. Just because you might think a car is over expensive doesnt mean you just jack it and ride, do you?
(And of course i'm referring to blatantly luxury items like movies.)
The bottom line here is that most people just dont have any respect for other people's work. And thats where it's really at, respecting another person's product enough to, if not purchase, then at least not blatantly steal.
Just because something is in an easily transferable medium does not mean that it should be free. Thats bullshit.
The article says that personal e-mail will be ran through this as well, as a student about to go to college in the fall, this is truly disturbing. Is anyone else angry about the idea of their school looking through their e-mail? What if i'm sending a legal copy?
But you're already paying for it, in the form of higher premiums, because the one person who hurts themselves constantly means the company needs to put out more money for them, which comes from your payments as well as everyone elses. Its not as though they only use the money you paid when you hurt yourself. Thats the way health care works.
Or do you just pay cash for whenever you need medical assistance?
At least if the health care is state run, everyone gets an equal piece(in theory, at least).
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the main reason i dont use firefox is because of the google toolbar. Firefox is slightly better than IE, but that sort of thing keeps me from using it.
When does it come out for the chronicly lazy?
Or tongue builders?
Isn't it enough that they already get the good spaces...
Isn't this the same thing as going after google for dsiplaying ads for another company when LL bean's name comes up?
Honestly, we'd probly all be rooting for google in this case.
Just a thought.
Huh.
So what is evil?
Killing hundreds of thousands of people isn't enough, apparently.
What about rape? Is that evil?
Just because something is widely believed doesnt mean its wrong.
Has anyone actually determined what good they've done?
This has tought me the difference between PETA and rats:
Rats contribute something to society.
The idea is that by preventing the military from engaging in politics, you deter any sort of coup d'etat Because military officials dont voice their opinions, especially the brass and such, we can be relatively sure that they will obey anyone whom the people elect. And on the whole "enjoying the same rights" thing, i believe the idea is that being in the military gives you certain privileges and duties, but giving up certain civilian freedoms, like speech, movement, and the like.
NO.
They see that we are building these defense systems, so they think that we will soon not have a reason not to nuke them. So, they act sooner rather than later, with their own nukes, on the logic that those nukes will soon be useless (when did i ever say they would use conventional forces, btw?). Either that, or they start their own defense program, i.e. an arms race, which leads to an increase of tensions, which increases the possibility of war.
You honestly think that there is still as large scale an arm race now as there was during the cold war?
You're making this about who's right again, not about reality. MAD means the nuclear-armed "evil" countries have a good reason not to launch their nukes, because they know that both sides will be wiped out. Like in the cold war. Or are you saying that we wouldnt respond with nukes to nukes? Lets say we make this shield, or are about to make this shield perfect. THEY see that the US has no reason not to nuke them. So they act. Christ, just because the you're righteous doesnt mean you are above simple logic. And i guess you dont have a problem with arms races either?
"The other guys are 'hostile', but it's the US's fault. hmmmm."
When will people learn that being righteous is not always a good enough reason to do something. Pissing off someone with nukes and reasons to use them is a bad thing. Being right wont matter when you're dead.
"As to the MAD part, MAD is presently kind of irrelvant. US, Britain, France, & Russia have nukes and the long range, accurate delivery systems. And currently, we are all more or less friendly. and building down the nuke inventories."
MAD is irrelevant, eh? What about china? What about power shifts in unstable countries,like Russia. Some intelligence even says North Korea has ICBMs capable of hitting the west coast. even if they dont, you should never bet your security on the delusional hope that the other side will never make any progress in their weapons systems.
Oh and its a good thing we're building down those inventories, now we'll only be able to kill each other 2 or 3 times over, and not 6 or 7.
For one thing, it could remove the assurance of mutual destruction in the event of a nuclear war, at least in theory, at least for a short while. It could also lead to another arms race, which is never a good thing.
Thats like saying that because a handgun cant be effectively used against airborne targets, its useless.
You need different defense systems for different offensive systems.
This is for use againt missiles, mortar shells, and the like.
Plus you could buy individual DVDs for 10 bucks with 3 to 5 episodes on them, that way you could get just what you wanted, or buy em as you could afford them. Its the only sci-fi dvd set i have for just that reason.
Oh please. People bitch all the time when people attempt to bring religion into debate about laws, instead of focusing on the constitution, contemporary law, and the precedents derived thereof. If the article said that the topic should only be be discussed in lieu of the moral systems of the majority, and fuck the law, then there would be an army of Big Brother and The Sky is Falling! posts. Morality is relative, the law is not.
"Violence is a part of the Human Subconcious, and Shielding kids from Violence will only make them unprepaired when their put in a violent situation."
How is this a fact? Do you have any clinical (or even anecdotal) experience to back this up? OF course not.
First of all, yes, some violence is probably a part of our sub-conscious. But it is also a part which civilized man endeavors to suppress in our conscious mind when it is not needed. Because it leads to problems in civilized society. Just because something is in part present in our sub-concious mind does not mean it should be embraced, just recognized.
If anything (i think) being desensitized to simulated violence would only make the reaction worse when you're exposed to the real thing, because it has to break through that barrier as well as the normal aversion to gruesome physical violence that exists in most un-desensitized (or sensitized if you'd prefer) people. Playing Call of Duty and killing lots of nazis would not have made me a better soldier in WW2.
Just my thoughts on your "Fact".
"when they start realizing that video games and movies are, in essence, equivalent forms of entertainment."
I disagree. I think anyone who has ever been bored to death by an FMV has to agree. One medium is passive, the other is interactive. Because of this, equivalent events will have different impact in either medium. For example, when a child sees a guy get his head blown off by a sniper in Saving Private Ryan or some other war duty, a child would be at least surprised if not shocked and disgusted at the reality of war (one of the major focal points of alot of war movies lately)whereas in Call of Duty or BF 1942 or some such other game and the child GETS a headshot, the reaction is "awesome shot" or whatever. (On a sidenote, i think war games have to some extent led to a reglorification of war, or at least to distancing it from it's grim reality.)
I think i am fairly desensitized to violence due to my exposure to videogames of a graphic violent nature. I'm not sure yet whether or not my kid should be as well.
Personally i think it should go something like with (ironic, since i spent the first half of my post seperating the two mediums) R rated movies. The default is that a kid is not allowed, but if the parent says otherwise than thats it.
"Yes, you are. Right to a fair and speedy trial, right to due process, innocent until proven guilty, any of these ring a bell?"
Well, thats not entirely true. These are (mostly)civil trials remember, where there is a heavier burden on the accused than in criminal trials. Defendants have less powerful rights; i.e. they can be forced to testify against themselves, proof beyond a reasonable doubt doesnt hold, and neither does "innocent until proven guilty."
Sorry folks.
Did you even read the entire article?
The genetic manipulation that they refer to in this article is the idea of taking a gene(s) from a completely different species, and putting it into whatever they are manipulating. The breeding they refer to is not the traditional breeding we've practiced for thousands of years, but rather looking at all the genes available for all possible breeds of a plant and tagging it. Then they do crossbreeds and check for the gene, and if it is present, then growing the plants outside of a lab. Because you arent actually changing the genes, just bringing out latent genes of the species, it is less likely there will be side effects. Because of this fact, its cheaper to do, quicker to produce, and easier to test than GM products.
RTFA
I second that, where the hell is the actual news thats being discussed?
...I don't really see what exactly inherently outrageous about this. Granted, its a slippery slope, having unions finance educations...but come on, who can really defend pirating whole movies? Dont give me that shit about "its not worth 10 bucks to see it in a theatre or the 20 bucks for the DVD," either. If you don't want to PAY for something, you dont deserve to have it. And if you have an honest problem with the pricing system, then refuse to pay. Just because you might think a car is over expensive doesnt mean you just jack it and ride, do you? (And of course i'm referring to blatantly luxury items like movies.) The bottom line here is that most people just dont have any respect for other people's work. And thats where it's really at, respecting another person's product enough to, if not purchase, then at least not blatantly steal. Just because something is in an easily transferable medium does not mean that it should be free. Thats bullshit.
Why'd they bother posting this here? Doesnt everyone know that slashdot it American-Centric?
You'd think they read at 0 and above or something...
The article says that personal e-mail will be ran through this as well, as a student about to go to college in the fall, this is truly disturbing. Is anyone else angry about the idea of their school looking through their e-mail? What if i'm sending a legal copy?
Amen. I was pumped when Spike started showing DS9 episodes alongside TNG. I personally think its the best series.
But isn't their some crap about Avery Brooks (Sisco) being pushed out of films? Or is that just some crap i heard on slashdot?
Because khan was in fact a bio-engineered indian overlord.
see? funny.
Of course, now that i had to explain it, its not funny. Yeah, thats the reason.
*whistles*
But you're already paying for it, in the form of higher premiums, because the one person who hurts themselves constantly means the company needs to put out more money for them, which comes from your payments as well as everyone elses. Its not as though they only use the money you paid when you hurt yourself. Thats the way health care works.
Or do you just pay cash for whenever you need medical assistance?
At least if the health care is state run, everyone gets an equal piece(in theory, at least).
The Trek reference in the subject.
Duh.
Is this your first time on Slashdot, by any chance?