Imagine finding out after the fact that your charge "POTUS" was being electronicly tracked through a structure with such bad security that a name and a 2 min fake id can overcome.
I would really hate to be the fellow in charge of that detail. His ulcers are probably having ulcers...
Mind you I honestly don't care how things are spelled as long as the purpose of language is achieved and the communication occurs.
But with that said...
Do you really want to set a precedent here that simple majority should rule on setting standards.... *shudder* And I do speak from knowledge as I come from the american bible belt.
I suspect we should be more concerned with who the fellows replacement will be. Although the RIAA might like to conduct personal raids they don't yet have the legal right to do so.
The ATF on the other hand not only does but has a nice long history of being a bit heavy handed.
Regardless of which side of the various debates you weigh in on most reasonable people will admit that those we entrust with enforcing the laws SHOULD be held to a higher standard of conduct and a higher level of public oversight.
O.K. Calling the attendants to turn up my thorazine drip now...
Sadly the level of incompetence will move from the legal arena to something a bit more personal. The gentleman will be expected to provide a more forceful and possibly more provocative level of activity.
I wouldn't be greatly surprised if he's the beginning of a push toward an "active" defense. The battle may be moving onto hard drives that are far to personal to some here.
*chuckle* Close. I'm not assuming it's and error, it's a change, for good or ill I've no evidence to define. With that in mind my original post is where I have made the assumption that the "change" or the apparent direction of change is not desirable. And as you've pointed out, It may be quite another kettle of fish.
With any change in environment there are going to be those who find it to be a positive and those that consider it to be a negative. I'm hoping someone (Or Group, Please feel free to volunteer your resources...) can take a reasonably objective view and decide on the necessary actions or lack thereof. (And as a point of contention, I've no confidence in any politically based organization being in any fashion or form involved in such a decision.)
I do appreciate your calling me on this so I could/should define my position and thoughts better.
Gee the last time I commented on this I was modded troll. I'll have to do better, perhaps this time double troll.
Before I even read down to the part where people are claiming it's warming, it's cooling, it's your fault, no it's yours...
Fsck all of you.
If the evidence shows that things are changing I don't give a rat's ass who was responsible. I do want to know what the most reasonable estimates are on the results and it would even be nice if they started thinking on how to correct things.
As an added bonus, yes toss in the various disaster scenario's and just for giggles, perhaps an off the cuff estimate on the odd's of things going that badly. Even though I know the odds are very very low it's interesting and I might need interesting if I can't go out because it's to hot and humid or to cold and dry.
Excuse me while I convince the keepers I need much more thorazine...
You don't need to strike a child to discipline him. Any parent who strikes a child for punishment is either a) sadistic, b) stupid, c) incompatent or d) all of the above. Time-outs, groundings and other denial of enjoyable activities makes for adequent negative reinforcment.
Actually if you read the rest of my post you may have noticed that I've only had to use corporal punishment on a very few occasions. The methods you mentioned are preferable, but physical pain is natures way of telling us we did something wrong and in a few cases where it's important enough to get the message across in a fashion that won't be forgotten then it's effective. It is however a method that has reduced effectiveness if used often.
Also, negative reinforcement doesn't work as well as positive reinforcement as anyone who owns a cat can tell you and I would submit that most children are more intelligent and independent than a cat.
There is plenty of literature and studies with a variety of species that shows that reinforcement is most effective when used as a combination of positive and negative. Next on the list of effectiveness is strictly negative reinforcement. Last and least effective is strictly positive reinforcement. If your interested I suggest a few web search's. Note: pay attention to the source of the articles you read, I recommend reasonably well known scientific publications as being the least likely to be slanting in favor of a particular agenda.
Actually cats aren't very bright at all but perseverance pays off, for that matter you can train flea's (by the way, I'm actually very fond of cat's). Neither of which is applicable to children except in the most basic fashion. Children on the other hand are quite the opposite, very bright and intelligent in almost any measurement category. They learn best in an environment where they feel safe but have the freedom to explore. You can be overprotective of them though, it's actually very hard not to be, although there are natural mechanisms that attenuate that over time for the average parent. *chuckle* Which is a good thing or we would still be sitting in tree's afraid to venture out into the swamp and flooded terrain that likely molded our present form.
On a side note about intelligence. Humans are one of the few species on this planet that have the capability (and probably the most successful at it) of learning from other's experiences. I've often thought that the degree of that particular capability is the most indicative single trait of overall intelligence. I don't however believe that intelligence is anything less than a gestalt of at least dozens of factors and it could easily run into the hundreds. Every person is different and unique with individual strengths and weaknesses and I've yet to review an "IQ" test that more than scratches the surface.
Your last sentence has prompted a few questions in an alternative direction if I may:
What actions are appropriate for a child aged 9 to 12 who has deliberately committed a violent assault on another person?
Are there any situations where you would consider this appropriate?
Are there any situations where you would consider that there can be no mitigating circumstances?
In light of the above questions, please consider from your personal viewpoint and from a viewpoint of society at large.
We can restrict the spread, that's what this thread is all about. What we can't do is make that restriction granular enough to stop the technology from getting into the hands of someone determined. Which is one of the major characteristics of anyone who will be a bioterrorist.
If you agree that the cat can't be put back in the bag then some things follow. At least they do in my opinion. So we will be targeted by such monster(s), with that understanding:
If you have only a few people that are working with the latest tools then you've a very small pool for idea's, new concepts, new tools, and procedures. A very talented pool but still small. And keep in mind that researchers bootstrap off each other's ideas. The more you limit the flow of information the slower the technology advances.
If however you have an open model. The technology is going to advance much faster because you have a huge pool for not only advancement but a pool that is available to react to and recognize a bioterror incident.
I agree that this will increase the risk of and possibly the quantity of bioterror incidents but I believe that the good far outweighs the added risk. I also believe that the realistic risks of bioterror incidents are limited to a technological window, one I might add we've already entered. So as an additional benefit, the open knowledge plan gets us through that window much faster.
Keep in mind we're currently entering another such window for nanotechnology. Actually I see the two technologies merging or more accurately the nanotech field absorbing the biotech one. Think of General chemistry and Organic chemistry as a conceptual model. The windows will merge and the safety mechanisms that will evolve will cover both.
Note: I'm talking about things going along a direction I see as likely but forecasting the future although interesting is not conductive to anything close to perfection. Take everything I've said with a large block of salt as anything is possible.
Well time to turn up the thorazine drip... Naptime.
I have a nice library of 3+ gigs of mp3's I regularly listen to. All of which I have ripped from my own media.
I have had occasion to receive mp3's via the net from friends and such, which I used to "demo" them. If the content was pleasing then I went out and bought the cd and ripped my personal copies from that.
If you considering the outrageous price for cd's combined with the annoying fact that it's rare that more than 20% of the cd contents is worth listening to then you may find that itune's price of.99 ea is a good deal.
The only thing that is holding me back from using the service is I'm not happy with the DRM of itunes, but with the advent of a fair use crack for that I may subscribe. Of course I would be taking a risk that apple will battle against that crack and the associated aggravation that will be unavoidable.
The point is that I respect other people's intellectual achievements and have no objection to paying a fair price for the benefits. I pay for shareware I use. I pay for music I use. Legality is a negligible inclusion in those decisions. I do so because it's the proper thing to do.
I really need to get the thorazine dosage upped...
Actually I disagree. I'm not in favor of letting the government decide what is permissible for my children. Mind you I'm a realist so I'm not inclined to defy the rules unless I thought I had a good chance of winning. So being as it may I've a truckload of examples of the government doing my job for me.
As to what level of violence I consider reasonable for a video game, well, I suspect that many would disagree. To be honest I enjoy or have enjoyed many of the first person shooter games and I haven't had reason to raise my hand against another person in many years. If you exclude the 4 spankings my daughters have collected over the last 18 years I've been non-violent for much longer.
On the other hand I've no objection to my children knowing about violence and being capable and trained in applying it if it's necessary. Just as I've no objection to them learning how to butcher a pig, plant a garden, pluck a chicken, string barbed wire, skin a cow, or cure a ham. Many of such activities would cause a great deal of "stress" for some and will no doubt prompt comments of cruelty for subjecting my children to such.
Again, I'm a realist. And part of my job as a parent is to introduce my children to the realities of life. Some of which are unpleasant but it's my job to prepare them as best I can because some things in this world are considerably worse and I can't guarantee they won't encounter them. With any luck I'll have done my part in such a fashion as to produce intelligent thoughtful people that can react appropriately to whatever life and circumstance decide to toss their way.
Anyway to get back on topic. In legislating this sort of thing and doing "favors" for those parents that need the prompting the government is in fact impeding and providing added barriers to myself. And I assure you that I can indeed find groups of people in government that would consider teaching a daughter to cure a ham, including growing it in the first place, as cruel and abusive.
The fact is that far to often they insist on doing things for my benefit that I would prefer they didn't. I've learned over the years to get very curious when I hear about "this is for your own good", or "you'll thank me later", or perhaps, "this will help so many other people you shouldn't get upset".
Ok, Back to the thorazine dispenser, must remember to get the dosage increased...
How about just taking them from the parents. After all our society neither allows a parent to discipline a child nor does it require a parent to be responsible for the child.
If I was a parent in California I might be tempted to sue the state for defacto removing my parental rights all together.
If the reading above makes you think I'm all about parental right, why yes I am. But I'm not letting the other 2/3'rds out of it either. I'm also a pretty firm believer in parents being responsible. And that includes responsible for rearing a child in a reasonable manner as well as being responsible for the child's actions and the results thereof.
*sigh* sometimes I think we should rename the country The United BubbleWrapped America. Some groups think I'm not capable of deciding for myself outside the house, other's want a say in what I do inside my bedroom (or bath, or kitchen, or...).
On the one hand I'm so tempted to agree. Simplicity is a wonderful dream.
But we forget that what is simple for you isn't for me and for a third is downright annoying.
For instance:
You want a phone that just makes calls. Your in luck, those are available.
I have a phone/pda combination. It has many many features I don't need or want. However it does keep good track of my schedule and remind me when I need to do things, meetings, calls, appointments, medication. For all practical purposes this allows me to be a productive person for if I had to depend solely on my unaided natural memory I wouldn't be employable. And one device for both is much better than multiples. In the future I will be changing to one that also incorporates an mp3 (or some such) player as that is a function I currently have a separate device for that I enjoy using on a regular basis. I could make a good argument for programming a phone to act as a multifunction remote control as well. I have a bloomin box of remotes at home.
Now I must admit that rationalizing a reason for needing gameplaying on a phone would be a bit of a stretch, but since they seem to be popular then the phone providers are going to cater to those dollars/yen/euros.
The point is that all that crap.. And yes much is in MY opinion... is useful and necessary to someone. So it's a fact of life and ergo the not so good facts that come with it. Be happy that there are and probably will be for a while very inexpensive phones that do not have these problems.
"That's a pretty darn ignorant point of view. You obviously have no idea how nasty the space environment is beyond the safety of the Earth. You suggest that if we were really serious we would just start sending people into the deadly radiation environment because, hey, you expect a few losses at first. We're not at the stage where the Europeans were when they sent out huge ships on discovery (almost all of which stayed within sight of shore). Comparitively speaking, we have dinghys, not sailing ships."
*chuckle* Ignorant, certianly. I'm reasonably well informed as to the knowledge currently available about that enviornment but I certianly don't think I know it all or even most.
I "suggest" that you've missinterpreted my words. I in no way suggested that we send people because we expect losses. Which is quite different from understanding and yes expecting losses because we send people. You may think that a simple matter of semantics but I consider it a considerable difference in concept. For a comparable understanding in risk vs. results I would suggest some study in military tactics. They have a firm understanding of the concepts of goals, and risks when human lives are part of the equation. They are of course the example all the way in one direction. But every large construction project has a similar understanding. There isn't a major construction project that hasn't cost people their lives and those who manage and create such projects factor that in.
Your sailing ship example is a bit out of context, but lets see if we can make it fit a bit better. Please examine a comparison of the Pinta and a modern cruise liner. Comparitively speaking I think I know which will apear to be a dingy. And I certianly can attest to the safety and comfort of the liner's. But if we had waited until such ships were available to safely explore away fromt the european coasts, well, things would be a bit different.
"Not only is it at present prohibitively expensive, it would be suicide to send people out on lengthy space travel without knowing how to protect them. Particularly since we don't know the environment well where they would be going. The explorers that set sail across the ocean had the confidence that they could survive on the resources when they reached their destination. We don't even know that at this point. You want expensive, start sending out floating coffin after floating coffin and see what kind of progress you'll make."
There is a difference between sending someone up without air and sending someone up with not only air but tripply redundent backup systems for every conceivable system. I'm by no means advocating sending anyone into danger without and understanding of the dangers and reasonable precautions to protect them from the dangers. keep in mind that I said " Colonists who want to go but will work there tails off to reduce the risk " This group is unlikely to volunteer for suicide missions.
As to your statement about past explorors... You may want to do a bit of remedial reading. While they "had the confidence that they could survive", this confidence was based on misinformation and ignorance of the real facts. A certian Mr. Columbus thought he was sailing to India. It's a lucky thing they bumped into those unexpected islands or they would have been a simple addition to the list of lost ships. But that time they had no choice on turning around, the winds were against them and their supplies were far to low if the accounts I've read are correct. I doubt if that was an isolated case. I suspect some of those missing ships weren't quite so fortunate.
I want expensive? Floating coffin after floating coffin?... Your obviously much more familiar with my thoughts than I am. Good thing I guess as I hadn't even noticed either of those floating through my head.
Impatience, Guilty I guess, it's only been 30 years since we walked on the moon so perhaps I am a bit impatient.
After the recent use's of in vehicle mounted cell phones for surveillance I would how long it will be before they (they being anyone legal or not who has a reason to listen) infect your cell phone with snoop and control software.
*chuckle* The next couple of decades are going to be interesting.
We have never HAD to go ourselves. We've always had the choice of not going, and many of us have availed ourselves of that choice. But to get back on point.
I'm in no way advocating going for no reason. Or even going for the sake of knowledge. As a matter of fact I agree that robotic's, telepresence and various other technological apendages are very useful.
However. I've been in the business of making things work reliably for a long time. One might say system reliability and survival. And the single item that will doom a system in the long run is having single point of failures.
This planet may seem to be a very large place, but only if your context is a very small pond. In the scheme of the universe we are quite small. I think the comet strike on Jupiter a few years back illistrated far better than any doomsayer how very simply and quickly all that we are could become a footnote in a history we don't share.
So while I agree that for knowledge's sake it is much safer to send the electronic critters, in the long run for our own sake we need to expand away from here. And that means going and doing in person, permenently and in quantity.
Hostile, Yes indeed! But the major problem and the reason it's still so very very hostile is that we've never commited to being there.
Explorers are always risk takers and so they should be but if we want things to be safe we need to start sending people who aren't risk takers. Colonists who want to go but will work there tails off to reduce the risk because they are THERE and the risk is personal! And by personal I mean thier and their kids hides.
As for cheap and reliable, those are adjectives that will be appropriate when it is common. They generally don't come first.
You want cheap, give someone the task of moving 50 megaton's of mass to L4 for a set price. I garruntee that they will find ways to make things much more cost effective because every 5 bucks saved is somone's martini.
Reliable, we are back to people risking their hides. That and public opinion after some disaster. And have no doubts... Disasters will happen. It's a time to buckle down and solve problems but not at the expense of not getting the job done.
Ok, I'm done ranting, Mod me down as necessary, I'll go take my medication now...
I'll have to agree, only our government is allowed to ignore things like due process and the constitution.
For the rest of us chickens we usually have to prove our claims of wrongdoing. Although to be honest, in our current legal (somehow justice being in the name doesn't seem to fit anymore) system if you don't proactively prosecute your innocence then you might as well go buy the rail, the pitch, and the feathers yourself.
Keep in mind, no matter how minor a thing you consider your reading habits to be.
The powers that be thought it important enough to specifically make access to them the law of the land, and specifically making sure you don't get to know about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine finding out after the fact that your charge "POTUS" was being electronicly tracked through a structure with such bad security that a name and a 2 min fake id can overcome.
I would really hate to be the fellow in charge of that detail. His ulcers are probably having ulcers...
Mind you I honestly don't care how things are spelled as long as the purpose of language is achieved and the communication occurs.
But with that said...
Do you really want to set a precedent here that simple majority should rule on setting standards.... *shudder* And I do speak from knowledge as I come from the american bible belt.
Donuts Thorazine
mmmm Thorazine....
No offense to the Anonomous Coward but... (gotta love that line...)
I'm more interested in the telescope/project than the astronomer.
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/observatories/tmt/
Hmmmm.... Thorazine....
Perhaps off topic, but of interest none the less.
I suspect we should be more concerned with who the fellows replacement will be. Although the RIAA might like to conduct personal raids they don't yet have the legal right to do so.
The ATF on the other hand not only does but has a nice long history of being a bit heavy handed.
Regardless of which side of the various debates you weigh in on most reasonable people will admit that those we entrust with enforcing the laws SHOULD be held to a higher standard of conduct and a higher level of public oversight.
O.K. Calling the attendants to turn up my thorazine drip now...
Sadly the level of incompetence will move from the legal arena to something a bit more personal. The gentleman will be expected to provide a more forceful and possibly more provocative level of activity.
I wouldn't be greatly surprised if he's the beginning of a push toward an "active" defense. The battle may be moving onto hard drives that are far to personal to some here.
*chuckle* Should be rather entertaining...
*chuckle* Close. I'm not assuming it's and error, it's a change, for good or ill I've no evidence to define. With that in mind my original post is where I have made the assumption that the "change" or the apparent direction of change is not desirable. And as you've pointed out, It may be quite another kettle of fish.
With any change in environment there are going to be those who find it to be a positive and those that consider it to be a negative. I'm hoping someone (Or Group, Please feel free to volunteer your resources...) can take a reasonably objective view and decide on the necessary actions or lack thereof. (And as a point of contention, I've no confidence in any politically based organization being in any fashion or form involved in such a decision.)
I do appreciate your calling me on this so I could/should define my position and thoughts better.
Gee the last time I commented on this I was modded troll. I'll have to do better, perhaps this time double troll.
Before I even read down to the part where people are claiming it's warming, it's cooling, it's your fault, no it's yours...
Fsck all of you.
If the evidence shows that things are changing I don't give a rat's ass who was responsible. I do want to know what the most reasonable estimates are on the results and it would even be nice if they started thinking on how to correct things.
As an added bonus, yes toss in the various disaster scenario's and just for giggles, perhaps an off the cuff estimate on the odd's of things going that badly. Even though I know the odds are very very low it's interesting and I might need interesting if I can't go out because it's to hot and humid or to cold and dry.
Excuse me while I convince the keepers I need much more thorazine...
You don't need to strike a child to discipline him. Any parent who strikes a child for punishment is either a) sadistic, b) stupid, c) incompatent or d) all of the above. Time-outs, groundings and other denial of enjoyable activities makes for adequent negative reinforcment.
Actually if you read the rest of my post you may have noticed that I've only had to use corporal punishment on a very few occasions. The methods you mentioned are preferable, but physical pain is natures way of telling us we did something wrong and in a few cases where it's important enough to get the message across in a fashion that won't be forgotten then it's effective. It is however a method that has reduced effectiveness if used often.
Also, negative reinforcement doesn't work as well as positive reinforcement as anyone who owns a cat can tell you and I would submit that most children are more intelligent and independent than a cat.
There is plenty of literature and studies with a variety of species that shows that reinforcement is most effective when used as a combination of positive and negative. Next on the list of effectiveness is strictly negative reinforcement. Last and least effective is strictly positive reinforcement. If your interested I suggest a few web search's. Note: pay attention to the source of the articles you read, I recommend reasonably well known scientific publications as being the least likely to be slanting in favor of a particular agenda.
Actually cats aren't very bright at all but perseverance pays off, for that matter you can train flea's (by the way, I'm actually very fond of cat's). Neither of which is applicable to children except in the most basic fashion. Children on the other hand are quite the opposite, very bright and intelligent in almost any measurement category. They learn best in an environment where they feel safe but have the freedom to explore. You can be overprotective of them though, it's actually very hard not to be, although there are natural mechanisms that attenuate that over time for the average parent. *chuckle* Which is a good thing or we would still be sitting in tree's afraid to venture out into the swamp and flooded terrain that likely molded our present form.
On a side note about intelligence. Humans are one of the few species on this planet that have the capability (and probably the most successful at it) of learning from other's experiences. I've often thought that the degree of that particular capability is the most indicative single trait of overall intelligence. I don't however believe that intelligence is anything less than a gestalt of at least dozens of factors and it could easily run into the hundreds. Every person is different and unique with individual strengths and weaknesses and I've yet to review an "IQ" test that more than scratches the surface.
Your last sentence has prompted a few questions in an alternative direction if I may:
What actions are appropriate for a child aged 9 to 12 who has deliberately committed a violent assault on another person?
Are there any situations where you would consider this appropriate?
Are there any situations where you would consider that there can be no mitigating circumstances?
In light of the above questions, please consider from your personal viewpoint and from a viewpoint of society at large.
I'm looking forward to your reply,
We can restrict the spread, that's what this thread is all about. What we can't do is make that restriction granular enough to stop the technology from getting into the hands of someone determined. Which is one of the major characteristics of anyone who will be a bioterrorist.
If you agree that the cat can't be put back in the bag then some things follow. At least they do in my opinion. So we will be targeted by such monster(s), with that understanding:
If you have only a few people that are working with the latest tools then you've a very small pool for idea's, new concepts, new tools, and procedures. A very talented pool but still small. And keep in mind that researchers bootstrap off each other's ideas. The more you limit the flow of information the slower the technology advances.
If however you have an open model. The technology is going to advance much faster because you have a huge pool for not only advancement but a pool that is available to react to and recognize a bioterror incident.
I agree that this will increase the risk of and possibly the quantity of bioterror incidents but I believe that the good far outweighs the added risk. I also believe that the realistic risks of bioterror incidents are limited to a technological window, one I might add we've already entered. So as an additional benefit, the open knowledge plan gets us through that window much faster.
Keep in mind we're currently entering another such window for nanotechnology. Actually I see the two technologies merging or more accurately the nanotech field absorbing the biotech one. Think of General chemistry and Organic chemistry as a conceptual model. The windows will merge and the safety mechanisms that will evolve will cover both.
Note: I'm talking about things going along a direction I see as likely but forecasting the future although interesting is not conductive to anything close to perfection. Take everything I've said with a large block of salt as anything is possible.
Well time to turn up the thorazine drip... Naptime.
I have a nice library of 3+ gigs of mp3's I regularly listen to. All of which I have ripped from my own media.
.99 ea is a good deal.
I have had occasion to receive mp3's via the net from friends and such, which I used to "demo" them. If the content was pleasing then I went out and bought the cd and ripped my personal copies from that.
If you considering the outrageous price for cd's combined with the annoying fact that it's rare that more than 20% of the cd contents is worth listening to then you may find that itune's price of
The only thing that is holding me back from using the service is I'm not happy with the DRM of itunes, but with the advent of a fair use crack for that I may subscribe. Of course I would be taking a risk that apple will battle against that crack and the associated aggravation that will be unavoidable.
The point is that I respect other people's intellectual achievements and have no objection to paying a fair price for the benefits. I pay for shareware I use. I pay for music I use. Legality is a negligible inclusion in those decisions. I do so because it's the proper thing to do.
I really need to get the thorazine dosage upped...
Actually I disagree. I'm not in favor of letting the government decide what is permissible for my children. Mind you I'm a realist so I'm not inclined to defy the rules unless I thought I had a good chance of winning. So being as it may I've a truckload of examples of the government doing my job for me.
As to what level of violence I consider reasonable for a video game, well, I suspect that many would disagree. To be honest I enjoy or have enjoyed many of the first person shooter games and I haven't had reason to raise my hand against another person in many years. If you exclude the 4 spankings my daughters have collected over the last 18 years I've been non-violent for much longer.
On the other hand I've no objection to my children knowing about violence and being capable and trained in applying it if it's necessary. Just as I've no objection to them learning how to butcher a pig, plant a garden, pluck a chicken, string barbed wire, skin a cow, or cure a ham. Many of such activities would cause a great deal of "stress" for some and will no doubt prompt comments of cruelty for subjecting my children to such.
Again, I'm a realist. And part of my job as a parent is to introduce my children to the realities of life. Some of which are unpleasant but it's my job to prepare them as best I can because some things in this world are considerably worse and I can't guarantee they won't encounter them. With any luck I'll have done my part in such a fashion as to produce intelligent thoughtful people that can react appropriately to whatever life and circumstance decide to toss their way.
Anyway to get back on topic. In legislating this sort of thing and doing "favors" for those parents that need the prompting the government is in fact impeding and providing added barriers to myself. And I assure you that I can indeed find groups of people in government that would consider teaching a daughter to cure a ham, including growing it in the first place, as cruel and abusive.
The fact is that far to often they insist on doing things for my benefit that I would prefer they didn't. I've learned over the years to get very curious when I hear about "this is for your own good", or "you'll thank me later", or perhaps, "this will help so many other people you shouldn't get upset".
Ok, Back to the thorazine dispenser, must remember to get the dosage increased...
*sigh*
...).
How about just taking them from the parents. After all our society neither allows a parent to discipline a child nor does it require a parent to be responsible for the child.
If I was a parent in California I might be tempted to sue the state for defacto removing my parental rights all together.
If the reading above makes you think I'm all about parental right, why yes I am. But I'm not letting the other 2/3'rds out of it either. I'm also a pretty firm believer in parents being responsible. And that includes responsible for rearing a child in a reasonable manner as well as being responsible for the child's actions and the results thereof.
*sigh* sometimes I think we should rename the country The United BubbleWrapped America. Some groups think I'm not capable of deciding for myself outside the house, other's want a say in what I do inside my bedroom (or bath, or kitchen, or
And away I go... Time to find my thorazine.
You forgot:
4 Rinse and repeat.
he hehe.
On the one hand I'm so tempted to agree. Simplicity is a wonderful dream.
But we forget that what is simple for you isn't for me and for a third is downright annoying.
For instance:
You want a phone that just makes calls. Your in luck, those are available.
I have a phone/pda combination. It has many many features I don't need or want. However it does keep good track of my schedule and remind me when I need to do things, meetings, calls, appointments, medication. For all practical purposes this allows me to be a productive person for if I had to depend solely on my unaided natural memory I wouldn't be employable. And one device for both is much better than multiples. In the future I will be changing to one that also incorporates an mp3 (or some such) player as that is a function I currently have a separate device for that I enjoy using on a regular basis. I could make a good argument for programming a phone to act as a multifunction remote control as well. I have a bloomin box of remotes at home.
Now I must admit that rationalizing a reason for needing gameplaying on a phone would be a bit of a stretch, but since they seem to be popular then the phone providers are going to cater to those dollars/yen/euros.
The point is that all that crap.. And yes much is in MY opinion... is useful and necessary to someone. So it's a fact of life and ergo the not so good facts that come with it. Be happy that there are and probably will be for a while very inexpensive phones that do not have these problems.
Welcome to reality!
*chuckle* Since this is a rapidly evolving area of the language it's likely that there are multiple right answers with some depending on the audience.
The function of language is however to allow communication so if you understood what it meant then that function was successfully achieved.
Welcome to reality.
"That's a pretty darn ignorant point of view. You obviously have no idea how nasty the space environment is beyond the safety of the Earth. You suggest that if we were really serious we would just start sending people into the deadly radiation environment because, hey, you expect a few losses at first. We're not at the stage where the Europeans were when they sent out huge ships on discovery (almost all of which stayed within sight of shore). Comparitively speaking, we have dinghys, not sailing ships."
*chuckle* Ignorant, certianly. I'm reasonably well informed as to the knowledge currently available about that enviornment but I certianly don't think I know it all or even most.
I "suggest" that you've missinterpreted my words. I in no way suggested that we send people because we expect losses. Which is quite different from understanding and yes expecting losses because we send people. You may think that a simple matter of semantics but I consider it a considerable difference in concept. For a comparable understanding in risk vs. results I would suggest some study in military tactics. They have a firm understanding of the concepts of goals, and risks when human lives are part of the equation. They are of course the example all the way in one direction. But every large construction project has a similar understanding. There isn't a major construction project that hasn't cost people their lives and those who manage and create such projects factor that in.
Your sailing ship example is a bit out of context, but lets see if we can make it fit a bit better. Please examine a comparison of the Pinta and a modern cruise liner. Comparitively speaking I think I know which will apear to be a dingy. And I certianly can attest to the safety and comfort of the liner's. But if we had waited until such ships were available to safely explore away fromt the european coasts, well, things would be a bit different.
"Not only is it at present prohibitively expensive, it would be suicide to send people out on lengthy space travel without knowing how to protect them. Particularly since we don't know the environment well where they would be going. The explorers that set sail across the ocean had the confidence that they could survive on the resources when they reached their destination. We don't even know that at this point. You want expensive, start sending out floating coffin after floating coffin and see what kind of progress you'll make."
There is a difference between sending someone up without air and sending someone up with not only air but tripply redundent backup systems for every conceivable system. I'm by no means advocating sending anyone into danger without and understanding of the dangers and reasonable precautions to protect them from the dangers. keep in mind that I said " Colonists who want to go but will work there tails off to reduce the risk " This group is unlikely to volunteer for suicide missions.
As to your statement about past explorors... You may want to do a bit of remedial reading. While they "had the confidence that they could survive", this confidence was based on misinformation and ignorance of the real facts. A certian Mr. Columbus thought he was sailing to India. It's a lucky thing they bumped into those unexpected islands or they would have been a simple addition to the list of lost ships. But that time they had no choice on turning around, the winds were against them and their supplies were far to low if the accounts I've read are correct. I doubt if that was an isolated case. I suspect some of those missing ships weren't quite so fortunate.
I want expensive? Floating coffin after floating coffin?... Your obviously much more familiar with my thoughts than I am. Good thing I guess as I hadn't even noticed either of those floating through my head.
Impatience, Guilty I guess, it's only been 30 years since we walked on the moon so perhaps I am a bit impatient.
Enough of this foolishness, Putting words in
After the recent use's of in vehicle mounted cell phones for surveillance I would how long it will be before they (they being anyone legal or not who has a reason to listen) infect your cell phone with snoop and control software.
*chuckle* The next couple of decades are going to be interesting.
We have never HAD to go ourselves. We've always had the choice of not going, and many of us have availed ourselves of that choice. But to get back on point.
I'm in no way advocating going for no reason. Or even going for the sake of knowledge. As a matter of fact I agree that robotic's, telepresence and various other technological apendages are very useful.
However. I've been in the business of making things work reliably for a long time. One might say system reliability and survival. And the single item that will doom a system in the long run is having single point of failures.
This planet may seem to be a very large place, but only if your context is a very small pond. In the scheme of the universe we are quite small. I think the comet strike on Jupiter a few years back illistrated far better than any doomsayer how very simply and quickly all that we are could become a footnote in a history we don't share.
So while I agree that for knowledge's sake it is much safer to send the electronic critters, in the long run for our own sake we need to expand away from here. And that means going and doing in person, permenently and in quantity.
Hostile, Yes indeed! But the major problem and the reason it's still so very very hostile is that we've never commited to being there.
Explorers are always risk takers and so they should be but if we want things to be safe we need to start sending people who aren't risk takers. Colonists who want to go but will work there tails off to reduce the risk because they are THERE and the risk is personal! And by personal I mean thier and their kids hides.
As for cheap and reliable, those are adjectives that will be appropriate when it is common. They generally don't come first.
You want cheap, give someone the task of moving 50 megaton's of mass to L4 for a set price. I garruntee that they will find ways to make things much more cost effective because every 5 bucks saved is somone's martini.
Reliable, we are back to people risking their hides. That and public opinion after some disaster. And have no doubts... Disasters will happen. It's a time to buckle down and solve problems but not at the expense of not getting the job done.
Ok, I'm done ranting, Mod me down as necessary, I'll go take my medication now...
Nutz!
Unclench your sweaty hand from the crack pipe, deposit it carefully on the table in front of you and then slowly back away.
I'll have to agree, only our government is allowed to ignore things like due process and the constitution.
For the rest of us chickens we usually have to prove our claims of wrongdoing. Although to be honest, in our current legal (somehow justice being in the name doesn't seem to fit anymore) system if you don't proactively prosecute your innocence then you might as well go buy the rail, the pitch, and the feathers yourself.
An effective way to get a congress critters attention without cash on the barrelhead does exist. A LOT of work is involved though.
A Petition that clearly and concisely states your issue with real signatures from his/her district or state (for senator type critters).
You send them a letter and photocopies of a petition with signatures from a real percentage of their voter base and you will get attention.
Keep in mind the news value of such a stack of signatures as well. Publicity is a significant factor.
Keep nit'ing.
Keep in mind, no matter how minor a thing you consider your reading habits to be.
The powers that be thought it important enough to specifically make access to them the law of the land, and specifically making sure you don't get to know about it.
Can't speak for the author, but I can be pretty ignorant. It's especially noticable when I talk about something I don't know anything about...
*chuckle*
I'ld bet your bottom dollar on both being true.