"wouldn't this money be better spent on combatting terrorism"
There are many who agree, and to some extent the pentagon has restructured it's spending (for example scaling back orders of new air superiority fighters, and warships, as well as cutting the budget for the new mobile artillery platform). The problem is that many people in the pentagon still fear a conventional attack and want to be prepared for that possibility. What they end up doing is spending more money on both rather than sacrificing one in favor of the other.
The difference is that the media almost always depicts violence as a terrible thing (and they do tend to get in trouble for glorifying it). On the other hand, sex is not not portrayed realistic light. Sex if often portrayed as a glamourous, and fun act. This is realistic in the case of most adult relationships, but is often not the case with teenage relationships. For teenagers, sexual relationships more frequently lead to feelings of confusion, jealousy, and rage.
It is easy to see why people don't want young persons to see "adult" content. If sex were depicted to teenagers as a accurate reflection of what a sexual experience might be for them, it would not be as much of a problem.
And, you should know that parental groups like these usually come down just as hard on glamourous interpretations of violence as they do for sex. These groups are not trying to prevent adults from watching porn (thought there are feminist groups that advocate such an unreasonable viewpoint) or violence, they are simply trying to protect young people from inaccurate portrayals of sex and violence.
It's just that the next big thing is a ways off. That's because he have much further to go before we've fully implemented the technologies we already have. For example, we have the tech to replace automobiles with mag-lev PRT systems today, but we still have to build it and figure out the best way to implement it. Also, computer technology it far from fully implemented. Moreover, we are still using old legacy power generation systems, when newer technology exists. I could think of dozens current technologies that still need to be fully implemented.
Until the existing technologies have played out, we have more to gain by implementing and refining current technologies than from trying to develop new ones.
An F-15 could also probably kick the ass of an F-35, but it's hardly a fair comparison because the planes serve different purposes. Now, if you want to compare the SU-35 to the F-22 be my guest, but there's no mystery as to why a larger, heavier fighter can best a smaller, lighter one.
The only purpose of the law is to allow outside parties to be prosecuted when they knowingly disclose classified information, but outside parties are never whistle-blowers (since they do not have access to the secret information) and they do not always disclose classified information out of a feeling of moral duty. Whistle-blower protections will be the same as before.
"Congress is going to pass a law making it a crime to disclose illegal spying by the government."
Not exactly, they're going to make it a crime to knowingly circulate classified information (such as information about the spying program, which is not necessarily illegal). The idea is that the press should be held accountable for the security breaches they facilitate/encourage.
The claim that the program is illegal is based on the notion that congress did not have enough information about it, and did not grant it approval. Given congress' continuing support for the program, I think it's safe to say they had ample knowledge. I don't think it's realistic to argue that the program is illegal. You should let your congressional representative know that you have a problem with the program, and then, maybe, they'll make it illegal.
This is ridiculous. People have a fundamental right to hold and express their opinions, and no government has the authority, or even the capability say otherwise.
I've found that most people are of average intelligence. I suppose you're one of those people that thinks you're so much smarter and more special than everyone else. If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be able to look around you and analyze your surroundings objectively. When you really consider the points of view of others, you realize that every one is basically the same intelligence. Usually those who reach the conclusion that the vast majority of people are idiots have only considered one kind of intelligence, like scientific knowledge or mathematical ability. I'd hate to live in world populated solely by scientists and engineers, we wouldn't survive very long.
It's the new technology. It used to be that image quality and overall experience were better in movie theaters, but a modern home theater experience is vastly superior to any movie theatre experience. They should probably just go straight to a DVD release, charge $15 and use DRM to disable to movie after a couple weeks, then charge people another $15 to upgrade to a permanent license.
It's time to rethink the movies theatre experience. Movie theaters should be a more private, on demand experience, and should be tied to other forms of entertainment like arcades and restaurants.
"It is not feasible unless you think that Americans are vastly intellectually supperior on average"
No, it's just that american corporations are forward thinking and profitable enough to spend money on R&D. Other countries regulate and tax their industries so heavily that innovation is impossible.
Well, if it doesn't work, we can always produce goods here, they only reason we don't now is people here don't want to work manufacturing jobs and will choose make money other ways if they can. But it's working pretty well right now.
"It is reducing the US economy to one of consumption"
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the end goal of an economy? Or do you think we should produce a bunch of goods just for the sake of having them around?
"the US will be an economic hostage to those who buy US debt securities"
That is flat out wrong. First of all, US debt securities are owed mainly to the US government and to other US citizens. Second of all, if the US economy stops producing enough new value to cover our new debts, the value of US currency will drop, making foreign debt less meaning-full. The problem is that government spending crowds out private spending. It doesn't matter where the money nominally comes from. If it comes from taxes, it prevents private citizens or companies from spending it. If it comes from bonds, it prevents money from being invested in private companies, or being given out as loans to private citizens.
"More and more of America's cash is leaving the country"
That is true in nominal dollars, but not as a percentage of our GDP. US GDP growth has always outpaced growth in US debt. The federal budget should always be compared to the GDP, raw numbers in this case are meaningless.
It's kind of like that book report you have due tomorrow. You know that it can be better, should you wait to turn it in until it's as good as it can possibly be, then turn it in, or should you turn in what you have now? They must have the renewal passed before the old one expires.
Not really, your municipal recycling center has to collect the paper, sort it, then ship it to a facility where they grind it up, bleach it, and turn it back into paper. It's essentially the same process as making new paper from the beginning, though it produces a lower grade product, which is why it is blended with new stock for most uses. So, for some applications, it's more efficient to use a blend, others it's more efficient to use new fiber.
You can tell that the benefit of recycled paper is marginal because there are very few for-profit operations that collect paper for recycling, though many for profit operations buy it from them (at extremely low cost) and use it.
Yeah, who needs entertainment? I'm going to get off of this stupid, pointless forum and do some real, important work. Thank you for pointing out the folly of my foolish ways, from now on I resolve to do nothing but work.
"I wasn't aware people robbing stores deserved the death penalty"
It should, because property rights are extremely important to our way of life. Most thieves are not one time offenders, and they each exact a high price on society in general.
"nor was I aware you were appointed head of vigilante justice"
I appointed myself head of vigilante justice, that's how it works.
"The right thing to do is fork over the money if he's got a gun"
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. This is the attitude that makes it so easy for criminals to get away with crimes. If they had to fight for their life every time they wanted to mug someone, a lot less people would be willing to do it. Not only that, but a lot of sexual assault begins with a mugging. You can never really know what someone is going to do once you begin to submit to their violent cohesion.
I really hate it when law enforcement officials say that you should just do whatever criminals say, and they'll take care of it. The police are not a powerful enough enforcement body to protect everyone, everywhere (and I would be afraid of any law enforcement system that was powerful enough to). The fact of the matter is that we have to protect ourselves.
"We can't stop every rapist either, but even a 10% reduction in rapes is worth pursuing."
But doing that by removing the penis of every law abiding male is probably not a good solution. Why would you try a similar approach with guns? Isn't a drastic reduction in personal freedom to help with what is, by comparison, a small problem.
Plus, there is the fact that the settlements take money from people who legally should've paid and give it to the people who legally should've been paid. Isn't that the purpose of the civil legal system? To counteract the economic effects of illegal activity? They do accomplish that.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
"maybe we have just dodged the bullets"
I don't think so. The have been open air nuclear weapon tests that have released more radioactive waste than these small RTG's possibly could. Not to mention nuclear power station accidents that have released Tons of radioactive material. I think at this point the risks are pretty well understood by nuclear engineers and the scientific community in general. The consensus, which is based on this experience, is that RTG's do not pose a real threat to society.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"no fewer than nine have resulted in the radioactive material being returned to earth."
And yet, no major ecological disaster has ensued. Perhaps the danger is overstated?
Slashdot Mirror
"wouldn't this money be better spent on combatting terrorism"
There are many who agree, and to some extent the pentagon has restructured it's spending (for example scaling back orders of new air superiority fighters, and warships, as well as cutting the budget for the new mobile artillery platform). The problem is that many people in the pentagon still fear a conventional attack and want to be prepared for that possibility. What they end up doing is spending more money on both rather than sacrificing one in favor of the other.
The difference is that the media almost always depicts violence as a terrible thing (and they do tend to get in trouble for glorifying it). On the other hand, sex is not not portrayed realistic light. Sex if often portrayed as a glamourous, and fun act. This is realistic in the case of most adult relationships, but is often not the case with teenage relationships. For teenagers, sexual relationships more frequently lead to feelings of confusion, jealousy, and rage.
It is easy to see why people don't want young persons to see "adult" content. If sex were depicted to teenagers as a accurate reflection of what a sexual experience might be for them, it would not be as much of a problem.
And, you should know that parental groups like these usually come down just as hard on glamourous interpretations of violence as they do for sex. These groups are not trying to prevent adults from watching porn (thought there are feminist groups that advocate such an unreasonable viewpoint) or violence, they are simply trying to protect young people from inaccurate portrayals of sex and violence.
It's just that the next big thing is a ways off. That's because he have much further to go before we've fully implemented the technologies we already have. For example, we have the tech to replace automobiles with mag-lev PRT systems today, but we still have to build it and figure out the best way to implement it. Also, computer technology it far from fully implemented. Moreover, we are still using old legacy power generation systems, when newer technology exists. I could think of dozens current technologies that still need to be fully implemented.
Until the existing technologies have played out, we have more to gain by implementing and refining current technologies than from trying to develop new ones.
An F-15 could also probably kick the ass of an F-35, but it's hardly a fair comparison because the planes serve different purposes. Now, if you want to compare the SU-35 to the F-22 be my guest, but there's no mystery as to why a larger, heavier fighter can best a smaller, lighter one.
The only purpose of the law is to allow outside parties to be prosecuted when they knowingly disclose classified information, but outside parties are never whistle-blowers (since they do not have access to the secret information) and they do not always disclose classified information out of a feeling of moral duty. Whistle-blower protections will be the same as before.
"Congress is going to pass a law making it a crime to disclose illegal spying by the government."
Not exactly, they're going to make it a crime to knowingly circulate classified information (such as information about the spying program, which is not necessarily illegal). The idea is that the press should be held accountable for the security breaches they facilitate/encourage.
The claim that the program is illegal is based on the notion that congress did not have enough information about it, and did not grant it approval. Given congress' continuing support for the program, I think it's safe to say they had ample knowledge. I don't think it's realistic to argue that the program is illegal. You should let your congressional representative know that you have a problem with the program, and then, maybe, they'll make it illegal.
This is ridiculous. People have a fundamental right to hold and express their opinions, and no government has the authority, or even the capability say otherwise.
"the vast majority of people are complete idiots"
I've found that most people are of average intelligence. I suppose you're one of those people that thinks you're so much smarter and more special than everyone else. If you had any intelligence at all, you'd be able to look around you and analyze your surroundings objectively. When you really consider the points of view of others, you realize that every one is basically the same intelligence. Usually those who reach the conclusion that the vast majority of people are idiots have only considered one kind of intelligence, like scientific knowledge or mathematical ability. I'd hate to live in world populated solely by scientists and engineers, we wouldn't survive very long.
It's the new technology. It used to be that image quality and overall experience were better in movie theaters, but a modern home theater experience is vastly superior to any movie theatre experience. They should probably just go straight to a DVD release, charge $15 and use DRM to disable to movie after a couple weeks, then charge people another $15 to upgrade to a permanent license.
It's time to rethink the movies theatre experience. Movie theaters should be a more private, on demand experience, and should be tied to other forms of entertainment like arcades and restaurants.
"It is not feasible unless you think that Americans are vastly intellectually supperior on average"
No, it's just that american corporations are forward thinking and profitable enough to spend money on R&D. Other countries regulate and tax their industries so heavily that innovation is impossible.
Well, if it doesn't work, we can always produce goods here, they only reason we don't now is people here don't want to work manufacturing jobs and will choose make money other ways if they can. But it's working pretty well right now.
"It is reducing the US economy to one of consumption"
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the end goal of an economy? Or do you think we should produce a bunch of goods just for the sake of having them around?
"the US will be an economic hostage to those who buy US debt securities"
That is flat out wrong. First of all, US debt securities are owed mainly to the US government and to other US citizens. Second of all, if the US economy stops producing enough new value to cover our new debts, the value of US currency will drop, making foreign debt less meaning-full. The problem is that government spending crowds out private spending. It doesn't matter where the money nominally comes from. If it comes from taxes, it prevents private citizens or companies from spending it. If it comes from bonds, it prevents money from being invested in private companies, or being given out as loans to private citizens.
"More and more of America's cash is leaving the country"
That is true in nominal dollars, but not as a percentage of our GDP. US GDP growth has always outpaced growth in US debt. The federal budget should always be compared to the GDP, raw numbers in this case are meaningless.
Ever heard of Intellectual Property?
"but why pass what you know is flawed?"
It's kind of like that book report you have due tomorrow. You know that it can be better, should you wait to turn it in until it's as good as it can possibly be, then turn it in, or should you turn in what you have now? They must have the renewal passed before the old one expires.
Not really, your municipal recycling center has to collect the paper, sort it, then ship it to a facility where they grind it up, bleach it, and turn it back into paper. It's essentially the same process as making new paper from the beginning, though it produces a lower grade product, which is why it is blended with new stock for most uses. So, for some applications, it's more efficient to use a blend, others it's more efficient to use new fiber.
You can tell that the benefit of recycled paper is marginal because there are very few for-profit operations that collect paper for recycling, though many for profit operations buy it from them (at extremely low cost) and use it.
Yeah, who needs entertainment? I'm going to get off of this stupid, pointless forum and do some real, important work. Thank you for pointing out the folly of my foolish ways, from now on I resolve to do nothing but work.
It would be funny if it didn't have such a good chance of actually happening. Especially the shareholder lawsuit.
Who wants to move to France? That would be a real punishment for their crime!
That is a dangerous misconception to have. Copyright infringement can be prosecuted criminally.
" Steve Jobs is the owner, distribution negotiator"
I think there's some talent in that.
"I wasn't aware people robbing stores deserved the death penalty"
It should, because property rights are extremely important to our way of life. Most thieves are not one time offenders, and they each exact a high price on society in general.
"nor was I aware you were appointed head of vigilante justice"
I appointed myself head of vigilante justice, that's how it works.
"The right thing to do is fork over the money if he's got a gun"
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. This is the attitude that makes it so easy for criminals to get away with crimes. If they had to fight for their life every time they wanted to mug someone, a lot less people would be willing to do it. Not only that, but a lot of sexual assault begins with a mugging. You can never really know what someone is going to do once you begin to submit to their violent cohesion.
I really hate it when law enforcement officials say that you should just do whatever criminals say, and they'll take care of it. The police are not a powerful enough enforcement body to protect everyone, everywhere (and I would be afraid of any law enforcement system that was powerful enough to). The fact of the matter is that we have to protect ourselves.
"We can't stop every rapist either, but even a 10% reduction in rapes is worth pursuing."
But doing that by removing the penis of every law abiding male is probably not a good solution. Why would you try a similar approach with guns? Isn't a drastic reduction in personal freedom to help with what is, by comparison, a small problem.
Plus, there is the fact that the settlements take money from people who legally should've paid and give it to the people who legally should've been paid. Isn't that the purpose of the civil legal system? To counteract the economic effects of illegal activity? They do accomplish that.
"maybe we have just dodged the bullets" I don't think so. The have been open air nuclear weapon tests that have released more radioactive waste than these small RTG's possibly could. Not to mention nuclear power station accidents that have released Tons of radioactive material. I think at this point the risks are pretty well understood by nuclear engineers and the scientific community in general. The consensus, which is based on this experience, is that RTG's do not pose a real threat to society.
"no fewer than nine have resulted in the radioactive material being returned to earth."
And yet, no major ecological disaster has ensued. Perhaps the danger is overstated?