That's simply not true. Some repulsively unattractive people may never find a mate; similarly, extremely shy people.
Have you seen any repulsively unattractive people, whose unattractiveness was not caused by a genetic or prenatal defect (not simply a bad mutation, but a messed up fertilisation or prenatal development), trauma or bad lifestyle? I haven't.
And what evidence do you have that extreme shyness is genetic? And, of course, even autistic people can marry and procreate, so I don't know how extreme that shyness must be...
Anyone can potentially breed. Yes, some are less likely to do it, but if you manage to grow up without profoundly messing yourself up (like weighting 400 kg or something), you can procreate.
I am glad that you found some of my everything write-ups, that frees me from the need to repeat whatever arguments I made there already. I will also add that one of my writeups there was arbitraly deleted by the site owner as too controversial (which is why I lost interest in e2 and moved on), though you still might be able to find it somewhere by applying your well-honed detective skills.:)
But first things first. I disagree with you that panty shots are unnatural. For example, Hayao Miyazaki regularly includes panty shots of prepubescent girls just for the sake of it. Yeah, he directs anime, not real films, but this still suggests that may be, just may be a panty shot of a small girl is not evil (though some people like yourself immediately resort to calling Miyazaki a pedophile). As far as I remember my school years, the boys certainly weren't above oogling girls and (when opportunities arose) looking at their panty-covered areas. I heard that it's not uncommon in schools all over the worlds. While this doesn't prove that panty shots are good, it suggest that they are rather natural and probably not very harmful (if at all). And please don't use the slippery slope fallacies. We are not talking about rectums, we are talking about panty shots. There can be a gradation of disgusting photographs face->bare hands->belly->breasts->pubic area->vaginal lips->spread vagina->deep photo->endoscopic photo->x-ray scan.:) Just because a certain stage is bad taste doesn't prove that the one before it is too.:)))
Oh, so now I'm a closet child molestor because I disapprove of people ogling little girls? Very very interesting. I wonder if you'd have the balls to make that kind of accusation to my face, internet warrior. Yes, I do and yes, you may be. Note, how I didn't say "closet child molestor", I said "latent pedophile" (i.e. the guy who may not even be consciously aware of it).
Tell you what - get into a relationship with someone messed up by childhood diddling But not everyone, who has childhood diddling develops problems. One of my well-adjusted female friends first had sex in her tweens (pre-13), albeit not with an adult. Sex is not necessarily harmful and the only thing I object to is arbitrary statutory restrictions on sex. If someone tries to "mess up" a child, of course, arrest the guy/gal and try them at court. But first there has to be some evidence of "messing". I would even support compulsory psychiatric testing for each child-adult couple, but if the testing shows that both partners are fine, they should be allowed to pursue their relationship.
see at 15 your 15 year old female classmates who are supposedly mature, supposedly with it, hip and together modern women manipulated and screwed up by older men. So what? I don't understand this one.
I've never seen a man of the age of consent, esp. in his 20s, who was interested in sniffing around the high school who didn't have some kind of serious problems relating to other people. But they do exist. Yes, I admit that some pedophiles have psychological problems, but some do not. The fact is that the vast majority of cases of child abuse are perpetrated by non-pedophiles. So sex with kids is not necessarily connected with pedophilia, which is not necessarily connected with psychological problems. It's the same as with, say, gays. You can have sex with men and not be gay, you can be gay and not be mentally ill (though as recently as 50 years ago homosexuallity was barbarically "treated" with sex hormones).
I am still not happy with your strong suggestion I molest my daughter. It is not fully serious.:) It's half an attempt to make you angry and half a bad-taste joke.
And by the way, you might get away with that in Russia, but here most people would violently assault you for makin
What I never understood is how tech support/technicians can even think about erasing customer's data. From the famous old recommendations of formatting the drive and reinstalling Windows to this. Are we supposed to store all our personal files on floppies or what?
I know that if anyone re-images my HDD, I am going to re-image his brain with a baseball bat as soon as I find out about it.
Small children by nature want what feels good not necessarily what's best for them. As opposed to adults, who always to what is best for them. Yeah, sure. Do you believe in the Easter bunny too?
Sex is not a funtime pastime it's a game with consequences. AIDS, pregnancy, hurt feelings, lifelong trauma. Oh, really? May I suggest that you are doing it wrong? I certainly didn't experience any of the above because of sex. Why should a 10-year old kid?
So what if we destroy our industry? That's what is wrong with you. You don't have a coherent argument. You just through random unrelated tidbits and hope that something will make sense. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but nothing does so far. How are the imagined decline of our society and the shortcomings of corporations related to the issue we are discussing?
There's quite a LOT of justifications. Would you mind telling us about SOME of these? You are so evasive in this discussion, I suspect you don't really know about ANY justifications and just blow hot air.
If ya can't trust a 12 year old to raise a baby you can't trust her to be doing them things which will result in a baby. Do you think her adult partner might be able to do something about it? Like wear a condom may be? Or choose not to have penetration, but oral sex instead?
Humans are sexual beings - but there's time, place and appropriateness for behaviour. Some of us learn this. Some of us don't. Some of us have irrational beliefs that they can't justify, but too comfortable with to abandon them. But some of us are sceptical, question these beliefs and prefer to have rational justifications for important rules that we set in our society. Apparently, you are one of the former.
When did I say this? Right where you implied that panty shots of an underage girl are somehow bad. Or do you mean that it is perfectly natural for a girl to wear panties, but this fact should be hidden from anyone and any demonstration of these panties is bad. But that makes even less sense.
Of an underage girl? Tons, especially with perverts like you around, scumbag. Could you be more specific instead of tossing insults around?
I'm the one arguing against em. Of course. Just lake latent homosexuals are the worst homophobes. Tone down your indignation, that's giving you away. And please, warn your daughter that most cases of child abuse are perpetrated by relatives, such as uncles or fathers. She ought to know.
I do feel dirty. I recognize this problem that I am having, that due to a number of factors it's easier to read a quick online story and a number of comments that do not really challenge your mind, memory, intelligence of imagination than to invest 1-2 hours into watching a documentary movie or 3-10 hours into reading a good thought-provoking book. Yes, I am guilty. And yes, I am doing something about it. For example, before posting this I watched two Bittorrented documentaries (one about "The Method", the lost and found book by Archimedes and the Episode 2 of "The Corporation"). But then again, Slashdot is a socialisation channel in a sense - I get to communicate with others and that can't be replaced with a film.
I'd actually be interested in hearing about how Harry Potter books affected the lifes of many people, because, frankly, I find it rather unlikely.
Age of consent laws are wrong. Why don't you live it to the judge (or jury) to determine whether the kid was molested and harmed? If there is evidence that there was rape, that the child was forced to have sex - guilty. If there is evidence that the adult tricked the child, lied to him, intimidated him - guilty. Basically if the child was harmed - guilty. But if a 10-year old kid had a healthy sexual relationship with an adult with the consent of the child's parents, why is it wrong simply because the child is underage?
Age of consent are wrongs, because they contradict reality, because there is no scientific, factual basis behind them, only religious and moral justification. Children are sexual beings and that they should not be sexually abused doesn't mean they should not have sex at all. Furthermore, many countries accept that a child can have sex with another child, but then it makes no sense that the older partner becomes a criminal simply by virtue of being 2 years and one day older instead of 2 years.
What? Do you suggest that underage girls should not wear panties? What's wrong with panty shots, you, sicko? Do you think that they give hardons to every male? Nope, only to latent pedophiles like yourself.
something like that about my daughter
This is a dead giveaway of a guy with a lot of personal problems who would really mess up his kids. I pity your daughter (if you already have one).
The fact that they are enjoyable doesn't make them worth reading. I am guilty myself, having read all of them, but I wouldn't recommend others do that, as long as there are truly great classical work and scientific books that can profoundly change who you are, how you perceive yourself, the world and its destiny.
It's like masturbation. Yes, it's enjoyable, yes, we all do it, but... recommending others that they spend time masturbating instead of doing sports, reading or talking with others?
This is a lose-lose situation. I don't like either young vandals or police states. I'd rather have a society where people were happy, creative, intelligent and honest and where the idea of a surveillance camera was completely alien and ridiculous to everyone.
Furthermore, you should realise that a police state is interested in silencing the dissenters, not vandals. The NYC police would rather have the whole city vandalized by illiterate morons with "FUCK" and "KILL NIGGERS" sigs or pointless graffiti than have someone use his bike to print anti-Bush messages on the sidewalks.
Similarly, the proles in 1984 had certain freedoms precisely because they were harmless and could not use these freedoms for anything.
Right now the CCTV cameras in London may not intended to stop crime, but when they are used to stop free thought, free meetings and free expression, gangs and vandals will probably be the last on the minds of the government.
Iraq was not a threat even to its neighbours, much less to the USA. And it never "challenged" the USA in any way. An alternative explanation is that neocons needed a myth about evil terrorists or evil Saddam to "unite the country" and grab more power. BBC's The Power of Nightmares discusses this.
Much easier way to take down an airliner: at night, fly a bunch of black kites with kevlar lines at the end of the runway.
Considering that in congested urban areas you can stand on a freeway overpass or in long - term parking and easily take down an airliner, it s actually somewhat surprising that someone hasn t tried this yet.
The WP fronts a piece pointing out that commercial cargo on passenger planes is rarely inspected and thus a big juicy target for terrorists looking to take down an airliner.
If a wacko wants to take down an airliner, he sure will, no matter how many points you close.
There are more than enough stories about posters on various websites visited by SS because of comments, which clearly weren't actual threats. You can find a lot of posts here on Slashdot, on Kuro5hin and in others places, not just at Fark. There are also some reports in the mainstream media about the same problem.
See, the world is not black and white. The US is not a totalitarian dictatorship, but it's trying. However, the legal system is very strong. The US government can't just kill and torture people at will like they would so somewhere in Africa. It must maintain the illusion of legality. The illusion is wearing thinner and thinner each year, but they still have to act in some accordance with the laws.
That's why people "threatening" Bush are still relatively safe. But we all know that enough bad things happened that this safety is not too reliable (an unprovoked attack on Iraq, when everyone know there was no WMD, sanctioned torture of inmates in Iraq and Guantanamo, sending people for torture to Uzbekistan, where they can be boiled to death, sponsoring terrorism and harboring terrorists such as Posada in the US, supporting anti-democratic violent regimes, etc.). If you look at it objectively, the USA can be as bad as some of the ugliest governments.
Yes, if you want to measure the risk to an average American, it is probably rather low. But if you want to determine how dangerous would it be for you to express openly a very unpopular opinion, it is different. Yes, there are many sanctioned opinons that you can have, but if you move outside of the allowed spectrum of dissent, you may be unplesantly surprised.
Self-luminous signs contain a number of individual tritium filled tubes contained within a protective case. The tubes in signs are shock-mounted inside a high-impact plastic case designed to be tamper and vandal resistant. A clear high-impact plastic shield across the face of the sign provides additional protection and serves as another barrier against accidental damage. To meet the regulations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, signs are extensively tested to ensure that, when properly installed they will not fail under normal usage conditions.
If the protective shield and case are penetrated and a Tube should break, releasing the tritium gas, there is no hazard. Because it is hydrogen and therefore lighter than air, when released, the tritium gas is dispersed rapidly and harmlessly into the atmosphere to join the naturally occurring tritium already dispersed. In the highly improbable event that all of the multiple tubes should fracture, the effect is still less than half of that received from naturally occurring radioactive sources during a year, and is similar to the difference between living at sea level and moving to an elevation of 5,000 feet. The chart below compares the unlikely complete release of all tritium gas in a self-luminous exit sign to some familiar comparisons we encounter in our daily lives.
Just use a program that displays images using overlays (that's what many media players use for faster screen access) so that a screenshot doesn't capture them.
In countries where you can stand up and say your government is a bunch of idiots, there is no harm in not being anonymous.
You can say that the "government is a bunch of idiots", but dissidents don't do just that. How about you state that you believe USA should be a communist state and you will work to make this happen, even if that involves breaking local laws. I am sure you will soon be sitting in a comfortable prison cell and will be discussing your ideas with a friendly Commettee^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDepartment of State^H^H^H^H^HHomeland Security officer.
But if this can lead to prison, death, torture, disappearance, or all sorts of ahem inconvenience cough, then anonymity is what you want.
Please show me the country where someone was "inconvenienced" for saying that his "government is a bunch of idiots" or even for disagreeing with its policies. Dissidents actively work to destroy the social order and deserve what they get.
I don't know about the UK, but I had personally witnessed seniour BBC journalists woking about how they were tired of the Mother Queen and would like the Mother Queen to die ASAP.
Don't spread your lies about other countries, please. Using the law to intimidate people is disgraceful. The situation in the US where you can't tell you hope Bush will die is sick. Even in the coutries, that are supposedly less free, such as Georgia, Russia, Belarus, Iraq, etc. you can openly say that you'd like some political figure to die and the local SS won't pay you a visit just because they can, only if it appears it's a genuine threat. Zero tolerance policies are idiotic, no matter where they are applied. And the USians seem to be particularly bad in this respect.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a liar. In case you didn't know that, he was a voluntary informant in the camps. Read [[Leonid Samutin]]'s book "Do not create an idol", for example. Leonid Samutin was a staunch anti-communist and knew Solzhenitsin since they met in the camp. In 1970s at the request of the author Samutin kept the manuscript of "The Gulag Archipelago" hiding it from KGB, so he knew how it was quite well.
Don't believe every bit of propaganda that you hear. It's bad for your mental health.
I was wondering, is there a possibility to create an unbreakable anonymity solution. Kinda like public key encryption - something that relies on mathematical laws to be practically unbreakable.
It would be great if there was a possibility to inject encrypted messages from many sources in a processor, have this processor do some math and come up with the messages without knowning who was the source of which. Is this possible? Do we know that it's impossible? Can this be possible? Is someone working on this? Any ideas?
The difference is who says that. Since most of the people are idiots, it follows that most of the people who say "it's impossible" don't have a clue. It will be this way with any technology, no matter feasible or not - if it's not possible today, 90-99% of people will say it's impossible, because it doesn't fit in their brain.
But the situation is different when you ask a person, who has a clue. But if a physicist says that it would contradict the laws of nature and doesn't make any sense, then it actually might do just that. Of course, the question is how much clue is enough and what brand of clue do they need (and then there is that whole Clark's laws thing).
Personally I think the sabres are possible (2040-2050), the hyperdrive might be possible and holograms are possible too. The guys Forbes asked about it might have a Ph.D., but they don't have a jack shit of imagination.
It's very easy to do a true 3D hologram. You just shoot lasers (several lasers at one spot to exceed the ionisation threshold) to ionise the air in required locations and then you shoot another laser to make that ion emit light. This was already possible with some wireless stun guns that I read about 5+ years ago - it produced neat glowing green rays because of the effect. This would work with wireframes easily.
Then you need to solve the problem of occlusion so that the pixels don't shine in all directions at once and you can have surfaces. This is more complicated, true, But you can feel some volume with a designed complex 3D molecule that is not magnetically neutral (forgot the word) and that have some parts that can emit photons (we had a lot of news about tiny photon emitters recently). Then add a magnetic field and they will orient themselves in a certain way. Then you shoot the lasers at the molecules. Hopefully, the part that emits the light is oriented in the predictable direction. Voila - you can force a molecule to emit a photon in the direction of your choice.
Add more lasers for paralellism, make it possible to change the magnetic field quickly in order to have a good refresh rate. Make sure it's safe (unlike as an MRI device) - you probably don't need a strong field and make the molecules non-toxic and biodegradable. Now every time you need a hologram, just release some of these molecules in the air. It might be possible to store the air inside the device or even have a small nanoassembly there to replenish the stock.
Are there any big flaws in my design? Any suggestions? Any investors?
BTW, someone, please save a reference to this. When in 2015-2020 some sick bastard attempts to patent 3D holograms, we will be able to show prior art.
When you see something useful, you tend to be glad about this particular message. Noone likes spam about seminars on accounting and employment laws, but when I got spam about logistics seminar, my sister (who is writing a diploma thesis on this subject) seriously considered attending it.
Computer geeks might have the principles to not buy anything advertised in spam, even if they need the product, but the majority of people are not like this.
Slashdot Mirror
That's simply not true. Some repulsively unattractive people may never find a mate; similarly, extremely shy people.
Have you seen any repulsively unattractive people, whose unattractiveness was not caused by a genetic or prenatal defect (not simply a bad mutation, but a messed up fertilisation or prenatal development), trauma or bad lifestyle? I haven't.
And what evidence do you have that extreme shyness is genetic? And, of course, even autistic people can marry and procreate, so I don't know how extreme that shyness must be...
Anyone can potentially breed. Yes, some are less likely to do it, but if you manage to grow up without profoundly messing yourself up (like weighting 400 kg or something), you can procreate.
I am glad that you found some of my everything write-ups, that frees me from the need to repeat whatever arguments I made there already. I will also add that one of my writeups there was arbitraly deleted by the site owner as too controversial (which is why I lost interest in e2 and moved on), though you still might be able to find it somewhere by applying your well-honed detective skills. :)
:) Just because a certain stage is bad taste doesn't prove that the one before it is too. :)))
:) It's half an attempt to make you angry and half a bad-taste joke.
But first things first. I disagree with you that panty shots are unnatural. For example, Hayao Miyazaki regularly includes panty shots of prepubescent girls just for the sake of it. Yeah, he directs anime, not real films, but this still suggests that may be, just may be a panty shot of a small girl is not evil (though some people like yourself immediately resort to calling Miyazaki a pedophile). As far as I remember my school years, the boys certainly weren't above oogling girls and (when opportunities arose) looking at their panty-covered areas. I heard that it's not uncommon in schools all over the worlds. While this doesn't prove that panty shots are good, it suggest that they are rather natural and probably not very harmful (if at all). And please don't use the slippery slope fallacies. We are not talking about rectums, we are talking about panty shots. There can be a gradation of disgusting photographs face->bare hands->belly->breasts->pubic area->vaginal lips->spread vagina->deep photo->endoscopic photo->x-ray scan.
Oh, so now I'm a closet child molestor because I disapprove of people ogling little girls? Very very interesting. I wonder if you'd have the balls to make that kind of accusation to my face, internet warrior.
Yes, I do and yes, you may be. Note, how I didn't say "closet child molestor", I said "latent pedophile" (i.e. the guy who may not even be consciously aware of it).
Tell you what - get into a relationship with someone messed up by childhood diddling
But not everyone, who has childhood diddling develops problems. One of my well-adjusted female friends first had sex in her tweens (pre-13), albeit not with an adult. Sex is not necessarily harmful and the only thing I object to is arbitrary statutory restrictions on sex. If someone tries to "mess up" a child, of course, arrest the guy/gal and try them at court. But first there has to be some evidence of "messing". I would even support compulsory psychiatric testing for each child-adult couple, but if the testing shows that both partners are fine, they should be allowed to pursue their relationship.
see at 15 your 15 year old female classmates who are supposedly mature, supposedly with it, hip and together modern women manipulated and screwed up by older men.
So what? I don't understand this one.
I've never seen a man of the age of consent, esp. in his 20s, who was interested in sniffing around the high school who didn't have some kind of serious problems relating to other people.
But they do exist. Yes, I admit that some pedophiles have psychological problems, but some do not. The fact is that the vast majority of cases of child abuse are perpetrated by non-pedophiles. So sex with kids is not necessarily connected with pedophilia, which is not necessarily connected with psychological problems. It's the same as with, say, gays. You can have sex with men and not be gay, you can be gay and not be mentally ill (though as recently as 50 years ago homosexuallity was barbarically "treated" with sex hormones).
I am still not happy with your strong suggestion I molest my daughter.
It is not fully serious.
And by the way, you might get away with that in Russia, but here most people would violently assault you for makin
I don't want a more detailed explanation, I want a more accessible one.
What I never understood is how tech support/technicians can even think about erasing customer's data. From the famous old recommendations of formatting the drive and reinstalling Windows to this. Are we supposed to store all our personal files on floppies or what?
I know that if anyone re-images my HDD, I am going to re-image his brain with a baseball bat as soon as I find out about it.
Small children by nature want what feels good not necessarily what's best for them.
As opposed to adults, who always to what is best for them. Yeah, sure. Do you believe in the Easter bunny too?
Sex is not a funtime pastime it's a game with consequences. AIDS, pregnancy, hurt feelings, lifelong trauma.
Oh, really? May I suggest that you are doing it wrong? I certainly didn't experience any of the above because of sex. Why should a 10-year old kid?
So what if we destroy our industry?
That's what is wrong with you. You don't have a coherent argument. You just through random unrelated tidbits and hope that something will make sense. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but nothing does so far. How are the imagined decline of our society and the shortcomings of corporations related to the issue we are discussing?
There's quite a LOT of justifications.
Would you mind telling us about SOME of these? You are so evasive in this discussion, I suspect you don't really know about ANY justifications and just blow hot air.
If ya can't trust a 12 year old to raise a baby you can't trust her to be doing them things which will result in a baby.
Do you think her adult partner might be able to do something about it? Like wear a condom may be? Or choose not to have penetration, but oral sex instead?
Humans are sexual beings - but there's time, place and appropriateness for behaviour. Some of us learn this. Some of us don't.
Some of us have irrational beliefs that they can't justify, but too comfortable with to abandon them. But some of us are sceptical, question these beliefs and prefer to have rational justifications for important rules that we set in our society. Apparently, you are one of the former.
When did I say this?
Right where you implied that panty shots of an underage girl are somehow bad. Or do you mean that it is perfectly natural for a girl to wear panties, but this fact should be hidden from anyone and any demonstration of these panties is bad. But that makes even less sense.
Of an underage girl? Tons, especially with perverts like you around, scumbag.
Could you be more specific instead of tossing insults around?
I'm the one arguing against em.
Of course. Just lake latent homosexuals are the worst homophobes. Tone down your indignation, that's giving you away. And please, warn your daughter that most cases of child abuse are perpetrated by relatives, such as uncles or fathers. She ought to know.
I do feel dirty. I recognize this problem that I am having, that due to a number of factors it's easier to read a quick online story and a number of comments that do not really challenge your mind, memory, intelligence of imagination than to invest 1-2 hours into watching a documentary movie or 3-10 hours into reading a good thought-provoking book. Yes, I am guilty. And yes, I am doing something about it. For example, before posting this I watched two Bittorrented documentaries (one about "The Method", the lost and found book by Archimedes and the Episode 2 of "The Corporation"). But then again, Slashdot is a socialisation channel in a sense - I get to communicate with others and that can't be replaced with a film.
I'd actually be interested in hearing about how Harry Potter books affected the lifes of many people, because, frankly, I find it rather unlikely.
Age of consent laws are wrong. Why don't you live it to the judge (or jury) to determine whether the kid was molested and harmed? If there is evidence that there was rape, that the child was forced to have sex - guilty. If there is evidence that the adult tricked the child, lied to him, intimidated him - guilty. Basically if the child was harmed - guilty. But if a 10-year old kid had a healthy sexual relationship with an adult with the consent of the child's parents, why is it wrong simply because the child is underage?
Age of consent are wrongs, because they contradict reality, because there is no scientific, factual basis behind them, only religious and moral justification. Children are sexual beings and that they should not be sexually abused doesn't mean they should not have sex at all. Furthermore, many countries accept that a child can have sex with another child, but then it makes no sense that the older partner becomes a criminal simply by virtue of being 2 years and one day older instead of 2 years.
What? Do you suggest that underage girls should not wear panties? What's wrong with panty shots, you, sicko? Do you think that they give hardons to every male? Nope, only to latent pedophiles like yourself.
something like that about my daughter
This is a dead giveaway of a guy with a lot of personal problems who would really mess up his kids. I pity your daughter (if you already have one).
The fact that they are enjoyable doesn't make them worth reading. I am guilty myself, having read all of them, but I wouldn't recommend others do that, as long as there are truly great classical work and scientific books that can profoundly change who you are, how you perceive yourself, the world and its destiny.
It's like masturbation. Yes, it's enjoyable, yes, we all do it, but... recommending others that they spend time masturbating instead of doing sports, reading or talking with others?
This is a lose-lose situation. I don't like either young vandals or police states. I'd rather have a society where people were happy, creative, intelligent and honest and where the idea of a surveillance camera was completely alien and ridiculous to everyone.
Furthermore, you should realise that a police state is interested in silencing the dissenters, not vandals. The NYC police would rather have the whole city vandalized by illiterate morons with "FUCK" and "KILL NIGGERS" sigs or pointless graffiti than have someone use his bike to print anti-Bush messages on the sidewalks.
Similarly, the proles in 1984 had certain freedoms precisely because they were harmless and could not use these freedoms for anything.
Right now the CCTV cameras in London may not intended to stop crime, but when they are used to stop free thought, free meetings and free expression, gangs and vandals will probably be the last on the minds of the government.
Iraq was not a threat even to its neighbours, much less to the USA. And it never "challenged" the USA in any way. An alternative explanation is that neocons needed a myth about evil terrorists or evil Saddam to "unite the country" and grab more power. BBC's The Power of Nightmares discusses this.
how to take down an airliner?:
Much easier way to take down an airliner: at night, fly a bunch of black kites with kevlar lines at the end of the runway.
Considering that in congested urban areas you can stand on a freeway overpass or in long - term parking and easily take down an airliner, it s actually somewhat surprising that someone hasn t tried this yet.
The WP fronts a piece pointing out that commercial cargo on passenger planes is rarely inspected and thus a big juicy target for terrorists looking to take down an airliner.
If a wacko wants to take down an airliner, he sure will, no matter how many points you close.
There are more than enough stories about posters on various websites visited by SS because of comments, which clearly weren't actual threats. You can find a lot of posts here on Slashdot, on Kuro5hin and in others places, not just at Fark. There are also some reports in the mainstream media about the same problem.
See, the world is not black and white. The US is not a totalitarian dictatorship, but it's trying. However, the legal system is very strong. The US government can't just kill and torture people at will like they would so somewhere in Africa. It must maintain the illusion of legality. The illusion is wearing thinner and thinner each year, but they still have to act in some accordance with the laws.
That's why people "threatening" Bush are still relatively safe. But we all know that enough bad things happened that this safety is not too reliable (an unprovoked attack on Iraq, when everyone know there was no WMD, sanctioned torture of inmates in Iraq and Guantanamo, sending people for torture to Uzbekistan, where they can be boiled to death, sponsoring terrorism and harboring terrorists such as Posada in the US, supporting anti-democratic violent regimes, etc.). If you look at it objectively, the USA can be as bad as some of the ugliest governments.
Yes, if you want to measure the risk to an average American, it is probably rather low. But if you want to determine how dangerous would it be for you to express openly a very unpopular opinion, it is different. Yes, there are many sanctioned opinons that you can have, but if you move outside of the allowed spectrum of dissent, you may be unplesantly surprised.
OT, but I liked the marketlingo at the linked page:
"Can be clearly seen in total darkness from up to 30 ft!"
Translation: the light is not noticeable normally. Even in darkness you will have a hard time seeing it from more than a few metres away.
Here is a better action plan:
- Do absolutely nothing
Self Luminous Tritium Exit Sign Questions:What If A Tube Breaks?
Self-luminous signs contain a number of individual tritium filled tubes contained within a protective case. The tubes in signs are shock-mounted inside a high-impact plastic case designed to be tamper and vandal resistant. A clear high-impact plastic shield across the face of the sign provides additional protection and serves as another barrier against accidental damage. To meet the regulations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, signs are extensively tested to ensure that, when properly installed they will not fail under normal usage conditions.
If the protective shield and case are penetrated and a Tube should break, releasing the tritium gas, there is no hazard. Because it is hydrogen and therefore lighter than air, when released, the tritium gas is dispersed rapidly and harmlessly into the atmosphere to join the naturally occurring tritium already dispersed. In the highly improbable event that all of the multiple tubes should fracture, the effect is still less than half of that received from naturally occurring radioactive sources during a year, and is similar to the difference between living at sea level and moving to an elevation of 5,000 feet. The chart below compares the unlikely complete release of all tritium gas in a self-luminous exit sign to some familiar comparisons we encounter in our daily lives.
Just use a program that displays images using overlays (that's what many media players use for faster screen access) so that a screenshot doesn't capture them.
Spoken like a true Westerner too.
In countries where you can stand up and say your government is a bunch of idiots, there is no harm in not being anonymous.
You can say that the "government is a bunch of idiots", but dissidents don't do just that. How about you state that you believe USA should be a communist state and you will work to make this happen, even if that involves breaking local laws. I am sure you will soon be sitting in a comfortable prison cell and will be discussing your ideas with a friendly Commettee^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDepartment of State^H^H^H^H^HHomeland Security officer.
But if this can lead to prison, death, torture, disappearance, or all sorts of ahem inconvenience cough, then anonymity is what you want.
Please show me the country where someone was "inconvenienced" for saying that his "government is a bunch of idiots" or even for disagreeing with its policies. Dissidents actively work to destroy the social order and deserve what they get.
I don't know about the UK, but I had personally witnessed seniour BBC journalists woking about how they were tired of the Mother Queen and would like the Mother Queen to die ASAP.
Don't spread your lies about other countries, please. Using the law to intimidate people is disgraceful. The situation in the US where you can't tell you hope Bush will die is sick. Even in the coutries, that are supposedly less free, such as Georgia, Russia, Belarus, Iraq, etc. you can openly say that you'd like some political figure to die and the local SS won't pay you a visit just because they can, only if it appears it's a genuine threat. Zero tolerance policies are idiotic, no matter where they are applied. And the USians seem to be particularly bad in this respect.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a liar. In case you didn't know that, he was a voluntary informant in the camps. Read [[Leonid Samutin]]'s book "Do not create an idol", for example. Leonid Samutin was a staunch anti-communist and knew Solzhenitsin since they met in the camp. In 1970s at the request of the author Samutin kept the manuscript of "The Gulag Archipelago" hiding it from KGB, so he knew how it was quite well.
Don't believe every bit of propaganda that you hear. It's bad for your mental health.
I was wondering, is there a possibility to create an unbreakable anonymity solution. Kinda like public key encryption - something that relies on mathematical laws to be practically unbreakable.
It would be great if there was a possibility to inject encrypted messages from many sources in a processor, have this processor do some math and come up with the messages without knowning who was the source of which. Is this possible? Do we know that it's impossible? Can this be possible? Is someone working on this? Any ideas?
The difference is who says that. Since most of the people are idiots, it follows that most of the people who say "it's impossible" don't have a clue. It will be this way with any technology, no matter feasible or not - if it's not possible today, 90-99% of people will say it's impossible, because it doesn't fit in their brain.
But the situation is different when you ask a person, who has a clue. But if a physicist says that it would contradict the laws of nature and doesn't make any sense, then it actually might do just that. Of course, the question is how much clue is enough and what brand of clue do they need (and then there is that whole Clark's laws thing).
Personally I think the sabres are possible (2040-2050), the hyperdrive might be possible and holograms are possible too. The guys Forbes asked about it might have a Ph.D., but they don't have a jack shit of imagination.
It's very easy to do a true 3D hologram. You just shoot lasers (several lasers at one spot to exceed the ionisation threshold) to ionise the air in required locations and then you shoot another laser to make that ion emit light. This was already possible with some wireless stun guns that I read about 5+ years ago - it produced neat glowing green rays because of the effect. This would work with wireframes easily.
Then you need to solve the problem of occlusion so that the pixels don't shine in all directions at once and you can have surfaces. This is more complicated, true, But you can feel some volume with a designed complex 3D molecule that is not magnetically neutral (forgot the word) and that have some parts that can emit photons (we had a lot of news about tiny photon emitters recently). Then add a magnetic field and they will orient themselves in a certain way. Then you shoot the lasers at the molecules. Hopefully, the part that emits the light is oriented in the predictable direction. Voila - you can force a molecule to emit a photon in the direction of your choice.
Add more lasers for paralellism, make it possible to change the magnetic field quickly in order to have a good refresh rate. Make sure it's safe (unlike as an MRI device) - you probably don't need a strong field and make the molecules non-toxic and biodegradable. Now every time you need a hologram, just release some of these molecules in the air. It might be possible to store the air inside the device or even have a small nanoassembly there to replenish the stock.
Are there any big flaws in my design? Any suggestions? Any investors?
BTW, someone, please save a reference to this. When in 2015-2020 some sick bastard attempts to patent 3D holograms, we will be able to show prior art.
Can't be bothered, sorry. I'll wait for Nokia or Microsoft to take care of it for me.
Defragmenting might make sense as well.
When you see something useful, you tend to be glad about this particular message. Noone likes spam about seminars on accounting and employment laws, but when I got spam about logistics seminar, my sister (who is writing a diploma thesis on this subject) seriously considered attending it.
Computer geeks might have the principles to not buy anything advertised in spam, even if they need the product, but the majority of people are not like this.