And so many people on Slashdot think the solution to the issue of how dangerous flying cars would be is basically automating them to be drones. It's good to have a reference example that self-driving, flying cars wouldn't magically create anti-gravity. Just imagine if it were a car with people in it instead.
Why do people keep bringing up self-driving cars? Unless self-driving cars combined with flying cars produce anti-gravity, electrical or mechanical failures still create falling death machines. It's not suddenly less dangerous from falling because it's self-driving, just removes user mistakes.
I have 5 million GitHub accounts and at least 3 million on Stackoverflow. I have a phobia about doing more than one commit or pull request with the same account, and I have to do all my question asking, answering, and voting with all different accounts. So the original estimates are correct, there's just a few people like me.
Interesting I was just talking to my wife about how with the rise of the ocean you could/would have to turn Manhattan into a new Venice, and with our apartment being on the 10th floor, we may be sitting on some water-level real estate. The worst part is it's only half a joke and a real future issue to deal with, just look at what happened with the subways during the last major storm, it doesn't take much of a rise to sink the city.
And not only will there be no fossil fuel cars on the road -- I mean how many cars older than 8 years do you really ever see -- but also they'll be flying cars! Because that's another dumb ass incessant claim that resurfaces every couple of years.
So I assume when full disclosure does not happen, or any other predicted event doesn't happen, you will admit you're wrong? After all conspiracy theorists are known for being honest and not totally ignoring the absolute lies they tell when they get shown to be total bullshit. I guess we'll see you back in 2020, right? Not just making some other dumb ass claim?
Wasn't this or a related reason as to why John Titor came back in time? If we get rid of COBOL wouldn't that mean he would not have a reason to come back... or wait does he come back because we get rid of it?
* The danger of overpopulation. If old people don't die, and young people keep making babies, our planet will become overcrowded soon. Which system should be implemented? A policy where you need permit by the government to have babies? Will we make a gigantic ponzi scheme where we put those extra humans on mars, then on other plantes, colonizing the galaxy? What when the whole galaxy is colonized? Intergalactic travel outside of our local group is quite hard, as expansion of space will make those galaxies leave us faster than light before we can get to them.
If overpopulation is really the biggest issue, why don't we just kill a lot of people? This isn't flamebait, I'm serious. If it truly is the worst possible problem, then let's just handle it, have a lottery or something.
I hear this all the time and it's so stupid. Nobody complains about overpopulation thanks to vaccines, cleaner water, cleaner/better food, etc, but start talking about keeping people from getting old suddenly it's a big deal. Do you think people in horrific places in the third world say "well, clean water would be nice, but then less children would die, and that would mean overpopulation!"
You can encourage birth control, you can send people to space eventually, you can encourage birth control, you can promote birth control, fucking birth control. And while we're at it, let's stop with this fantasy that children are a legacy as if we own vast farm land that need to be inherited.
And nobody is stopping a bus from hitting you, or a car accident, or anything else, it will catch up to you eventually, and hell as you even say without any irony at all:
* The danger of cancer. Often when rejuveniating cells you put them in a mode where they like to multiply. You artificially increase the likelihood for cancer with this to an extent of almost certainity.
As opposed to now where it's damn near certain as you get older anyway? If anything this helps your overpopulation problem, why the hell are you complaining!?
There's no such thing as "call[ing in] the debt", that's far-right, paranoid nonsense. Debt is bought through bonds, it's like saying you're calling in Google's debt to you by putting your stock up for sell on etrade or whatever. What you're suggesting is essentially the same as saying you own 10% of Google's stock (how much US debt China owns) and so you selling it all at once will make you "own" Google.
While it will drive the price down for sure, it will make you look desperate for money, and even if it did hurt the US in some way, it'd be way worse for China. You don't exactly look stable by saying "sell! sell! sell!" on your bonds which mean more to you than to the country you invested in.
90% of US debt is not owned by China. Also, they are really god awful at organising their huge society. WWII in the US was a different story, where people who largely already had some connection to, or lived near, factories could get jobs in them for the war effort. The factories also already existed as well. With China much of the population is still rural, not any better off or more educated than they were 50 years ago, and live no where near any factories. What you're talking about is pure fantasy dreamed up by people who have no idea what US debt even is.
If they really wanted to destroy the US economy, or hurt it very badly, all they would have to do is raise the price of trade. They artificially keep their currency low against the USD to help encourage trade and the US is extremely dependent on trade with China, far more than bonds.
Come off it, many documents like that exist in the past. Besides the fact that it was written by a single person as a suggestion, and therefore can hardly be proof of anything other than a single general is a fucking nut. The "Operation Northwoods" thing is oversimplified to show that somehow the government was ready to take us all out, mostly for conspiracy theorists.
I seem to remember a time to go into Cuba, hell even an excuse to exchange nuclear missiles with Russia (actually several times). Where was the evil government that wanted to kill everyone then? In bunkers ready to press buttons? No, they were trying to prevent problems.
Stop spreading bullshit, you're turning the Internet into a bastion of mediocrity.
I'm not really sure if that's really a valid argument, considering 200 years ago, many could have argued that humans weren't meant to live longer than 30 or so years or have clean teeth.
In the end, I guess I just don't condone sentencing 100,000 people a day to death for no reason other than getting old.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to have invested that money into the highway fund, green projects or any number of infrastructure upgrades that would employ people right here in the United States instead of giving people money to go spend on Chinese crap at Wally World? No way! I loved that $600, I got a lot of hookers and porno, without it having to come out of my own pocket.
In all seriousness, most of the people I know put their checks in savings, which seems to be the opposite of what the intended usage was. I did buy a new flat screen and some other stuff, but for the most part I kept it floating around in my checking account.
Like borders, facebook is a people-made creation, that is hopefully one day we can unmake networks where teens congregate and spread stupidity like conspiracy theories and rumors about each other. That and reality shows, I pray for the day they end.
I worked in the computer repair business for a long time, and even now I do it about half the day, and spend the other half with web development. In the last 8 years or so I have had a long, trying time with Norton and its anti-virus software. One of the biggest problems is the fact that it makes people pay for updates, which in turn makes people believe they have a quality product.
For example, people come into my store, and say they have some kind of problem and I check it out, and its a virus or a lot of spyware. If they have Norton, they usually say "Well, I have Norton, so I shouldn't have any viruses". I typically respond "Yes, that would be the best thing, but in reality, if Norton actually worked, I would only get about half the business I do now."
And, that's the truth, most of the computers I fix virus and other malware problems on nearly always have Norton installed, and to date I have seen less than 10 with AVG, Spybot S&D installed. Perhaps its also the users, but Norton surely has something to do with it.
Typically, I just recommend a format and Windows reinstall over uninstalling Norton and removing the viruses, because after all the biggest virus of them all is Norton and many of its affects on windows are irreversible.
I was on my way to work when I heard about his death on the radio; and of course I leaned out of the car window and yelled "FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!" to passers by on Main street.
This might be slightly off topic from the parent post, but it is the closest I can find to be on topic. I'll be honest and say I don't drink (ever) or smoke marijuana or do other drugs (ever), except maybe any caffeine that I consume through soda or from the chocolate in swiss rolls.
That said, it is surprising to me when people mention the alcohol prohibition and talk about how it was ended because of crime. I'd hate it break it to everyone, but crime really hasn't gone down, the mob still exists, so do gangs, and the number one killer on the road is death by a drunk.
However, there is still something that separates alcohol from other drugs like marijuana. The primary thing is that when one consumes alcohol it only affects them directly, however if someone smokes marijuana, everyone in the room, and possibly surrounding rooms, has to deal with it.
I live in an apartment, and my neighbor kept smoking marijuana, the smell and such kept coming into my residence, and bothering me. That really dismisses the whole argument about doing it in private, is perfectly fine, because it did bother me, and that's why I called the police on him repeatedly. It'd be no different than if he came over to my house and poured vodka or something on me.
I've tried to explain this argument to others before, a few marijuana users told me that it's harmless, and that I should just deal with it. The problem arises here is that while they think it may be *harmless*, it still is infringing on my right NOT to do it. I find it odd people who say people should have the right to do it, never mention the other side.
We know how the search engine will work, if anyone has ever used Wikipedia's search function, you're almost destined not to find what you're looking for, especially if you're one letter off.;]
Not to Flaimbait or anything, because that's not my intention. However I must comment that in America a lot of Americans see the same points related to people coming from South America.
* Learn English and speak it, at least be able to communicate and read
* Shirt and shoes
* Even some Americans need to learn to keep their property neat
* A lot of Americans noticed that Mexican nationals protested against America with Mexican flags.
So, the points aren't the same, but some are similar. I think it's important to note when foreigners come to a country, demand it's social welfare and help from the state, and then get mad and protest against it because they believe they somehow deserve it.
That's just my two cents.
Actually to clarify nobody will killed for believing in God at Columbine. Two different families claim that their daughter was the one, mostly to make money from books no doubt, however official investigations say that the girl who was asked is still very much alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall
In my post I didn't take into account facial recognition software. That being that case, if the "anti-terror police" had the ability to watch any street at any time (live), I don't see how it would change the fact that there are millions of people to watch, and they'd have to put a lot of resources into tracking every single person.
Slashdot Mirror
And so many people on Slashdot think the solution to the issue of how dangerous flying cars would be is basically automating them to be drones. It's good to have a reference example that self-driving, flying cars wouldn't magically create anti-gravity. Just imagine if it were a car with people in it instead.
Why do people keep bringing up self-driving cars? Unless self-driving cars combined with flying cars produce anti-gravity, electrical or mechanical failures still create falling death machines. It's not suddenly less dangerous from falling because it's self-driving, just removes user mistakes.
Be careful, you'll give someone the idea of remaking North by Northwest with Shia LaBeouf.
I have 5 million GitHub accounts and at least 3 million on Stackoverflow. I have a phobia about doing more than one commit or pull request with the same account, and I have to do all my question asking, answering, and voting with all different accounts. So the original estimates are correct, there's just a few people like me.
Interesting I was just talking to my wife about how with the rise of the ocean you could/would have to turn Manhattan into a new Venice, and with our apartment being on the 10th floor, we may be sitting on some water-level real estate. The worst part is it's only half a joke and a real future issue to deal with, just look at what happened with the subways during the last major storm, it doesn't take much of a rise to sink the city.
And not only will there be no fossil fuel cars on the road -- I mean how many cars older than 8 years do you really ever see -- but also they'll be flying cars! Because that's another dumb ass incessant claim that resurfaces every couple of years.
So I assume when full disclosure does not happen, or any other predicted event doesn't happen, you will admit you're wrong? After all conspiracy theorists are known for being honest and not totally ignoring the absolute lies they tell when they get shown to be total bullshit. I guess we'll see you back in 2020, right? Not just making some other dumb ass claim?
Wasn't this or a related reason as to why John Titor came back in time? If we get rid of COBOL wouldn't that mean he would not have a reason to come back... or wait does he come back because we get rid of it?
* The danger of overpopulation. If old people don't die, and young people keep making babies, our planet will become overcrowded soon. Which system should be implemented? A policy where you need permit by the government to have babies? Will we make a gigantic ponzi scheme where we put those extra humans on mars, then on other plantes, colonizing the galaxy? What when the whole galaxy is colonized? Intergalactic travel outside of our local group is quite hard, as expansion of space will make those galaxies leave us faster than light before we can get to them.
If overpopulation is really the biggest issue, why don't we just kill a lot of people? This isn't flamebait, I'm serious. If it truly is the worst possible problem, then let's just handle it, have a lottery or something.
I hear this all the time and it's so stupid. Nobody complains about overpopulation thanks to vaccines, cleaner water, cleaner/better food, etc, but start talking about keeping people from getting old suddenly it's a big deal. Do you think people in horrific places in the third world say "well, clean water would be nice, but then less children would die, and that would mean overpopulation!"
You can encourage birth control, you can send people to space eventually, you can encourage birth control, you can promote birth control, fucking birth control. And while we're at it, let's stop with this fantasy that children are a legacy as if we own vast farm land that need to be inherited.
And nobody is stopping a bus from hitting you, or a car accident, or anything else, it will catch up to you eventually, and hell as you even say without any irony at all:
* The danger of cancer. Often when rejuveniating cells you put them in a mode where they like to multiply. You artificially increase the likelihood for cancer with this to an extent of almost certainity.
As opposed to now where it's damn near certain as you get older anyway? If anything this helps your overpopulation problem, why the hell are you complaining!?
There's no such thing as "call[ing in] the debt", that's far-right, paranoid nonsense. Debt is bought through bonds, it's like saying you're calling in Google's debt to you by putting your stock up for sell on etrade or whatever. What you're suggesting is essentially the same as saying you own 10% of Google's stock (how much US debt China owns) and so you selling it all at once will make you "own" Google.
While it will drive the price down for sure, it will make you look desperate for money, and even if it did hurt the US in some way, it'd be way worse for China. You don't exactly look stable by saying "sell! sell! sell!" on your bonds which mean more to you than to the country you invested in.
90% of US debt is not owned by China. Also, they are really god awful at organising their huge society. WWII in the US was a different story, where people who largely already had some connection to, or lived near, factories could get jobs in them for the war effort. The factories also already existed as well. With China much of the population is still rural, not any better off or more educated than they were 50 years ago, and live no where near any factories. What you're talking about is pure fantasy dreamed up by people who have no idea what US debt even is.
If they really wanted to destroy the US economy, or hurt it very badly, all they would have to do is raise the price of trade. They artificially keep their currency low against the USD to help encourage trade and the US is extremely dependent on trade with China, far more than bonds.
Come off it, many documents like that exist in the past. Besides the fact that it was written by a single person as a suggestion, and therefore can hardly be proof of anything other than a single general is a fucking nut. The "Operation Northwoods" thing is oversimplified to show that somehow the government was ready to take us all out, mostly for conspiracy theorists. I seem to remember a time to go into Cuba, hell even an excuse to exchange nuclear missiles with Russia (actually several times). Where was the evil government that wanted to kill everyone then? In bunkers ready to press buttons? No, they were trying to prevent problems. Stop spreading bullshit, you're turning the Internet into a bastion of mediocrity.
Bilzzard, huh? Well, they're much better than that company "Blizzard"
I'm not really sure if that's really a valid argument, considering 200 years ago, many could have argued that humans weren't meant to live longer than 30 or so years or have clean teeth. In the end, I guess I just don't condone sentencing 100,000 people a day to death for no reason other than getting old.
Obviously Cher, because she's the only thing *not* living on your list.
Like borders, facebook is a people-made creation, that is hopefully one day we can unmake networks where teens congregate and spread stupidity like conspiracy theories and rumors about each other. That and reality shows, I pray for the day they end.
I worked in the computer repair business for a long time, and even now I do it about half the day, and spend the other half with web development. In the last 8 years or so I have had a long, trying time with Norton and its anti-virus software. One of the biggest problems is the fact that it makes people pay for updates, which in turn makes people believe they have a quality product. For example, people come into my store, and say they have some kind of problem and I check it out, and its a virus or a lot of spyware. If they have Norton, they usually say "Well, I have Norton, so I shouldn't have any viruses". I typically respond "Yes, that would be the best thing, but in reality, if Norton actually worked, I would only get about half the business I do now." And, that's the truth, most of the computers I fix virus and other malware problems on nearly always have Norton installed, and to date I have seen less than 10 with AVG, Spybot S&D installed. Perhaps its also the users, but Norton surely has something to do with it. Typically, I just recommend a format and Windows reinstall over uninstalling Norton and removing the viruses, because after all the biggest virus of them all is Norton and many of its affects on windows are irreversible.
I was on my way to work when I heard about his death on the radio; and of course I leaned out of the car window and yelled "FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!" to passers by on Main street.
I swear to god, I don't think your sister is more beautiful, it was just a dream.
This might be slightly off topic from the parent post, but it is the closest I can find to be on topic. I'll be honest and say I don't drink (ever) or smoke marijuana or do other drugs (ever), except maybe any caffeine that I consume through soda or from the chocolate in swiss rolls.
That said, it is surprising to me when people mention the alcohol prohibition and talk about how it was ended because of crime. I'd hate it break it to everyone, but crime really hasn't gone down, the mob still exists, so do gangs, and the number one killer on the road is death by a drunk.
However, there is still something that separates alcohol from other drugs like marijuana. The primary thing is that when one consumes alcohol it only affects them directly, however if someone smokes marijuana, everyone in the room, and possibly surrounding rooms, has to deal with it.
I live in an apartment, and my neighbor kept smoking marijuana, the smell and such kept coming into my residence, and bothering me. That really dismisses the whole argument about doing it in private, is perfectly fine, because it did bother me, and that's why I called the police on him repeatedly. It'd be no different than if he came over to my house and poured vodka or something on me.
I've tried to explain this argument to others before, a few marijuana users told me that it's harmless, and that I should just deal with it. The problem arises here is that while they think it may be *harmless*, it still is infringing on my right NOT to do it. I find it odd people who say people should have the right to do it, never mention the other side.
We know how the search engine will work, if anyone has ever used Wikipedia's search function, you're almost destined not to find what you're looking for, especially if you're one letter off. ;]
Not to Flaimbait or anything, because that's not my intention. However I must comment that in America a lot of Americans see the same points related to people coming from South America. * Learn English and speak it, at least be able to communicate and read * Shirt and shoes * Even some Americans need to learn to keep their property neat * A lot of Americans noticed that Mexican nationals protested against America with Mexican flags. So, the points aren't the same, but some are similar. I think it's important to note when foreigners come to a country, demand it's social welfare and help from the state, and then get mad and protest against it because they believe they somehow deserve it. That's just my two cents.
Actually to clarify nobody will killed for believing in God at Columbine. Two different families claim that their daughter was the one, mostly to make money from books no doubt, however official investigations say that the girl who was asked is still very much alive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Bernall
In my post I didn't take into account facial recognition software. That being that case, if the "anti-terror police" had the ability to watch any street at any time (live), I don't see how it would change the fact that there are millions of people to watch, and they'd have to put a lot of resources into tracking every single person.
I guess chlorine will be added to the things you can't take on jets now.