The actual application of the new material might be different, instead of building trains out of steel, you build airplanes out of aluminum. However, the airplane is also a replacement for the train. How many people fly around the country now, as opposed to taking a train?
The whole point of advancing technology isn't just to use new materials, it's to use new materials in new devices and new ways.
I disagree, I think Carlin's material is great for children. I first heard some of his material when I was about 12, and it actually helped in forming my opinion of the world. If you're referring to the actual language of the words, let me paraphrase the man by saying that if the kids hadn't heard the words before, they wouldn't know what the words mean, but if they have heard the words, and know what they mean, it's not going to cause any harm to hear them yet again.
I prefer Penn Jillette's method of referring to the two big parties: The Crips and The Bloods. It shows their duopoly is more sinister than they would have us believe.
Well, if Barr has actually grown a Libertarian bone in his body, his voting record certainly doesn't show it but he might have changed, he would probably be pro-nuclear. The market will seek out the cheapest most efficient method available, and that'd be nuclear hands down. As for the Greens, they take the nut-job environmentalist approach to nuclear power, and have always been against it, at least that's what the people who run on their ticket seem to think according to ontheissue.org.
I doubt that we would be facing an oligarchy if the Supreme Court assumed the role of interpretation. We the people still have all the authority over the government, and twenty years after the end of the revolution, if things were taking a downward spiral again, we might have ended up shooting at military types again, just to get the point across.
The author obviously has no knowledge of the function of a battery, or microwaves. A directed blast of microwave radiation would do nothing to a car's battery, and if it were, the battery won't mysteriously recharge itself, because it would require the alternator in the car to recharge it. Since the engine was off, the alternator wasn't doing its job.
Quite so. In fact, the furthering of the arts is actually a good thing. If you were to disallow new forms of artistic expression, or digging up old ideas that "caused the downfall of old societies" the Renaissance would never have happened, or the great Enlightenment which molded the philosophy of the founding fathers of the United States, which in turn caused a huge resurgence of rule by the people around the world.
I can think of a number of positive effects caused by art, such as those two examples, or the invention of the printing press which increased literacy rates to ridiculously high levels, but if artistic expression has caused a society to rot from the inside, I'm either blissfully ignorant, or those events were lost to history because they were completely over shadowed by the political corruptions which usually cause a civilization to collapse, or they don't exist.
I don't know what state you live in, but in Florida teachers get pretty decent wages. They make more than double minimum wage, and they're only required to work for a little less than 10 months. When the kids go away from the summer, and the teachers want to take a summer vacation too, they're able to collect unemployment AND get a part time job on top of it.
Are they making the same amount of money as, say, an engineer who has a similar amount of school? Probably not, but nobody should become a teacher and expect to be rich because of it. Teaching is a feel good job, not a lucrative one.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that. The Constitution does not say "you can say what you want, but you can't offend anybody", it says "the government can not, under any circumstances, make it illegal to say what you want.
Ah yes, the good ol' commandments. What about the graven images? Or the anti-freedom "no other gods before me", or keeping holy the sabbath day, or honoring your parents?
I could continue, but the fact is we're talking about "Judeo-Christian" values here, and aversion to murder, stealing, and lying are universal, they are not restricted to Christians or Jews. Also, using that same list, where's the rule against rape? Ah right, it's only a crime to rape someone who is married.
And as far as sex with another person's spouse, so long as you arn't raping them, there's no harm there. It might piss off the spouse of the person in question, but that's not an ethical issue, because it would vary from person to person.
I'm not ripping on dead people, I'm questioning the whole concept of "Judeo-Christian" ethics. The only overlap of those two religions would be the Old Testament in the Christian Bible, and there's nothing ethical about that book. People are ethical today because of our greater society, and because we don't live in a theocracy as we did back in the dark ages. Science and suffrage have given us a reason to be nice to each other, couple that with the idea of freedom of speech, and instead of people torturing each other until somebody agrees or dies with you, you can simply shout at each other in a debate, until both sides get tired of shouting and go home.
But given how completely opposite this is to Judeo-Christian ethics, it wouldn't bet on seeing this on any kind of scale any time soon. Judeo-Christian ethics? Like slavery, burning witches, heretics, or anybody who disagrees with the Bible? Putting a scientist on house arrest because his observations are in direct conflict with the Bible and the word of the Church? What's the Book of Revelation say about the number of people who are going to die on Judgement Day? Nevermind the paltry number who are going to get into paradise, but the vast majority of the planet will be sentenced to immense suffering for all eternity, and those people are otherwise healthy and productive, they just don't share the same deity.
Natural selection in humans isn't a viable means of doing something because we humans have the ability to feel emotions to those members of our species. These emotions predate Christianity, and Judaism. Hell, the idea of working together within our families predates our species, it was a trait that was used by a number of proto-human apes who have gone the way of the Dodo.
There are more species alive now than there EVER have been EVER. Thanks to evolution the planet gets more diverse all the fucking time, humans are not in any way standing in the way of that. It wouldn't be financially viable to bring the planet's species diversity to similar levels of, say, even the late Jurassic period, let alone some kind of hypothetical diversity crisis people keep whining about.
If an animal isn't born with an instinct for some kind of behavior, it stands to reason that the parents teach it through their environment and adapting to it. Given enough time with similar environmental conditions that the extinct members had, the modern reproductions would eventually evolve to have the same behavior, if it were beneficial to the survival of the species.
Electric guitars don't have the newest and greatest processors, tons of super fast memory, and all kinds of other bits in them. You find me an electric guitar that could play some Led Zeppelin, AND render a highly complex video game scene at 30 frames per second without catching on fire, and your point would be valid.
Your post shows exactly why the founder of Greenpeace left the organization he helped found. Greenpeace has become less about the environment and more about anti-corporatism and pro-socialism.
Like everybody else on Slashdot, I'm an arm chair expert on most every article that's posted here, which is to say not qualified at all.
But Africa's population certainly doesn't seem to be influenced by the severe lack of food, in about a decade Africa's population will be higher than Asia.
Let's not forget the large shipment of grains the United States sent over to Africa back in the 90's that was later destroyed, because Greenpeace told the country's leaders that the food was "poisoned", while it was merely just genetically engineered. If we were serious about feeding the entire world, we'd stop growing this organic food garbage, switch all those farms to the most radically genetically modified crops we can grow, and ship them all over the place, but then the racists who think they know more than genetic scientists who have studied this stuff for decades would be up in arms.
No, afraid not. Immersion is the company which sued Sony. They also didn't sue Microsoft, because Microsoft paid them a license for their patent. Nintendo wasn't involved, because Nintendo's vibration technology doesn't infringe upon Immersion's patent.
If I were interested in protesting at a political rally of some sort, I'm not going to do so in a designated barricaded region a few blocks away from the rally. I'm going to protest outside the front door where the pricks I want to talk to are going in. If I'm arrested for my actions, so be it, you can be sure the charges won't stick.
If you're allowed to be tax exempt because you're a religious organization, then you should also sacrifice the ability to copyright any of your works. You don't pay taxes, but you're still allowed to call the cops if there's a break in, or the fire department if there's a fire, and on top of that you want to get copyright protections too?
Fuck that, I declare myself a tax exempt entity, but I'm still allowed full access of the perks that those very taxes fund.
There is no such thing as a "free-speech zone". Public schools are not free-speech zones, but neither are libraries, or the steps outside the Capitol building in the District of Columbia. If you're on government controlled property, you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, and nobody else has any authority to make you stop. They can bitch about it until they're blue in the face, much like I can say whatever I wish, but they can't stop me from offending them anymore than I can stop them from offending me for attempt to suppress my rights.
Since only Congress may pass laws which have any influence, and since Congress is forbidden to stifle free speech according to the First Amendment, the government has no authority in limiting what a person says. Just remember the old adage "actions speak louder than words" and you'll realize that stifling free speech is only a method of controlling how a person thinks. I think the idea of murder is quite undesirable, but I should be free to talk about the mass slaughter of lawyers all I want.
I would think we could also invoke the first clause. How long is it before Canada puts up a great firewall similar to China's where any website which violated certain criteria were blocked? And how much time after that would it be before some pro-freedom geek decided to find a way around it, and pull Canada out of the darkness?
Slashdot Mirror
The actual application of the new material might be different, instead of building trains out of steel, you build airplanes out of aluminum. However, the airplane is also a replacement for the train. How many people fly around the country now, as opposed to taking a train?
The whole point of advancing technology isn't just to use new materials, it's to use new materials in new devices and new ways.
I disagree, I think Carlin's material is great for children. I first heard some of his material when I was about 12, and it actually helped in forming my opinion of the world. If you're referring to the actual language of the words, let me paraphrase the man by saying that if the kids hadn't heard the words before, they wouldn't know what the words mean, but if they have heard the words, and know what they mean, it's not going to cause any harm to hear them yet again.
I prefer Penn Jillette's method of referring to the two big parties: The Crips and The Bloods. It shows their duopoly is more sinister than they would have us believe.
Well, if Barr has actually grown a Libertarian bone in his body, his voting record certainly doesn't show it but he might have changed, he would probably be pro-nuclear. The market will seek out the cheapest most efficient method available, and that'd be nuclear hands down. As for the Greens, they take the nut-job environmentalist approach to nuclear power, and have always been against it, at least that's what the people who run on their ticket seem to think according to ontheissue.org.
I doubt that we would be facing an oligarchy if the Supreme Court assumed the role of interpretation. We the people still have all the authority over the government, and twenty years after the end of the revolution, if things were taking a downward spiral again, we might have ended up shooting at military types again, just to get the point across.
The author obviously has no knowledge of the function of a battery, or microwaves. A directed blast of microwave radiation would do nothing to a car's battery, and if it were, the battery won't mysteriously recharge itself, because it would require the alternator in the car to recharge it. Since the engine was off, the alternator wasn't doing its job.
Quite so. In fact, the furthering of the arts is actually a good thing. If you were to disallow new forms of artistic expression, or digging up old ideas that "caused the downfall of old societies" the Renaissance would never have happened, or the great Enlightenment which molded the philosophy of the founding fathers of the United States, which in turn caused a huge resurgence of rule by the people around the world.
I can think of a number of positive effects caused by art, such as those two examples, or the invention of the printing press which increased literacy rates to ridiculously high levels, but if artistic expression has caused a society to rot from the inside, I'm either blissfully ignorant, or those events were lost to history because they were completely over shadowed by the political corruptions which usually cause a civilization to collapse, or they don't exist.
I don't know what state you live in, but in Florida teachers get pretty decent wages. They make more than double minimum wage, and they're only required to work for a little less than 10 months. When the kids go away from the summer, and the teachers want to take a summer vacation too, they're able to collect unemployment AND get a part time job on top of it.
Are they making the same amount of money as, say, an engineer who has a similar amount of school? Probably not, but nobody should become a teacher and expect to be rich because of it. Teaching is a feel good job, not a lucrative one.
Ah yes, the good ol' commandments. What about the graven images? Or the anti-freedom "no other gods before me", or keeping holy the sabbath day, or honoring your parents?
I could continue, but the fact is we're talking about "Judeo-Christian" values here, and aversion to murder, stealing, and lying are universal, they are not restricted to Christians or Jews. Also, using that same list, where's the rule against rape? Ah right, it's only a crime to rape someone who is married.
And as far as sex with another person's spouse, so long as you arn't raping them, there's no harm there. It might piss off the spouse of the person in question, but that's not an ethical issue, because it would vary from person to person.
I'm not ripping on dead people, I'm questioning the whole concept of "Judeo-Christian" ethics. The only overlap of those two religions would be the Old Testament in the Christian Bible, and there's nothing ethical about that book. People are ethical today because of our greater society, and because we don't live in a theocracy as we did back in the dark ages. Science and suffrage have given us a reason to be nice to each other, couple that with the idea of freedom of speech, and instead of people torturing each other until somebody agrees or dies with you, you can simply shout at each other in a debate, until both sides get tired of shouting and go home.
Natural selection in humans isn't a viable means of doing something because we humans have the ability to feel emotions to those members of our species. These emotions predate Christianity, and Judaism. Hell, the idea of working together within our families predates our species, it was a trait that was used by a number of proto-human apes who have gone the way of the Dodo.
Only on Slashdot can somebody call a hydrothermal vent "very cool" and get modded "interesting"...
There are more species alive now than there EVER have been EVER. Thanks to evolution the planet gets more diverse all the fucking time, humans are not in any way standing in the way of that. It wouldn't be financially viable to bring the planet's species diversity to similar levels of, say, even the late Jurassic period, let alone some kind of hypothetical diversity crisis people keep whining about.
If an animal isn't born with an instinct for some kind of behavior, it stands to reason that the parents teach it through their environment and adapting to it. Given enough time with similar environmental conditions that the extinct members had, the modern reproductions would eventually evolve to have the same behavior, if it were beneficial to the survival of the species.
Electric guitars don't have the newest and greatest processors, tons of super fast memory, and all kinds of other bits in them. You find me an electric guitar that could play some Led Zeppelin, AND render a highly complex video game scene at 30 frames per second without catching on fire, and your point would be valid.
Your post shows exactly why the founder of Greenpeace left the organization he helped found. Greenpeace has become less about the environment and more about anti-corporatism and pro-socialism.
Like everybody else on Slashdot, I'm an arm chair expert on most every article that's posted here, which is to say not qualified at all.
But Africa's population certainly doesn't seem to be influenced by the severe lack of food, in about a decade Africa's population will be higher than Asia.
Let's not forget the large shipment of grains the United States sent over to Africa back in the 90's that was later destroyed, because Greenpeace told the country's leaders that the food was "poisoned", while it was merely just genetically engineered. If we were serious about feeding the entire world, we'd stop growing this organic food garbage, switch all those farms to the most radically genetically modified crops we can grow, and ship them all over the place, but then the racists who think they know more than genetic scientists who have studied this stuff for decades would be up in arms.
Bah, I should have previewed that, they did *sue* Microsoft, but they never got to court, because Microsoft settled out of court for a license.
No, afraid not. Immersion is the company which sued Sony. They also didn't sue Microsoft, because Microsoft paid them a license for their patent. Nintendo wasn't involved, because Nintendo's vibration technology doesn't infringe upon Immersion's patent.
If I were interested in protesting at a political rally of some sort, I'm not going to do so in a designated barricaded region a few blocks away from the rally. I'm going to protest outside the front door where the pricks I want to talk to are going in. If I'm arrested for my actions, so be it, you can be sure the charges won't stick.
If you're allowed to be tax exempt because you're a religious organization, then you should also sacrifice the ability to copyright any of your works. You don't pay taxes, but you're still allowed to call the cops if there's a break in, or the fire department if there's a fire, and on top of that you want to get copyright protections too?
Fuck that, I declare myself a tax exempt entity, but I'm still allowed full access of the perks that those very taxes fund.
There is no such thing as a "free-speech zone". Public schools are not free-speech zones, but neither are libraries, or the steps outside the Capitol building in the District of Columbia. If you're on government controlled property, you are free to say whatever the fuck you want, and nobody else has any authority to make you stop. They can bitch about it until they're blue in the face, much like I can say whatever I wish, but they can't stop me from offending them anymore than I can stop them from offending me for attempt to suppress my rights.
Since only Congress may pass laws which have any influence, and since Congress is forbidden to stifle free speech according to the First Amendment, the government has no authority in limiting what a person says. Just remember the old adage "actions speak louder than words" and you'll realize that stifling free speech is only a method of controlling how a person thinks. I think the idea of murder is quite undesirable, but I should be free to talk about the mass slaughter of lawyers all I want.
I would think we could also invoke the first clause. How long is it before Canada puts up a great firewall similar to China's where any website which violated certain criteria were blocked? And how much time after that would it be before some pro-freedom geek decided to find a way around it, and pull Canada out of the darkness?