But you forget! Anything on television or in movies is blessed and brings families together so they can bake lamingtons and have barbies together (with shrimp!). Anything on the internet is evil because it isn't controlled by personal friends of the politicians and it Must Be Stopped.
I'm an Aussie! But I don't want your money - I'll do it for free as a public good. Virtually no one here wants this crap - it's just the nanny-state nitwits voted in by the over-60s, who probably don't even know what the internets are only that they're full of Terrible Things because Today Tonight told them so.
It's strange, but when I saw the story about the upcoming launch, my first thought was "If there's one mission that I could predict failure of, this is it." Maybe I'm paranoid, but there are so many vested interests in not having accurate data like that, that even short of downright sabotage this mission had the odds stacked against it. When I saw the story this morning, I also got that sinking feeling.
While no current forces are 'irresistible', the idea of strategic deterrence is quite real - nuclear warheads, for instance. In that case they could not be deployed fast enough because the materials to build them were so difficult to refine. Hence, the USSR had time to develop their own bombs and balance the equation.
Imagine that a robot army could be built by a technological power fast enough that potential adversaries could not develop parity - do you really believe that the controlling government would not use it?
I would also like to point out that constraints on the behaviour of militaries is a quaint notion that does not survive contact with the enemy, or occupation of a populace. Even the US military, paragon of enlightenment and thought that it is, has been known to commit atrocities (see the documentary Convoy of Death, for an example).
Dehumanisation is a method used to make killing an enemy palatable when you have to look him in the eye. Consider how much easier it would be to kill dehumanised enemies from behind a joystick at a control console with a red button marked "Kill".
As for Cuba, well, it was a political pawn between the US and the USSR. The Cold War writ small, if you will. The cost to US agriculture of Cuban nationalisation probably wouldn't cover the cost of mobilising a force to take it back. The Bay of Pigs invasion, you will recall, was by exiles at the behest of the CIA - not an assault by foreign soldiers at all.
I do love the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Conspiracy nuts always blame this and that on the CIA as if they're pulling strings everywhere. Yet the one really good example of it happening was such a flop.
If it is possible to bring in a "more irresistible force" than presumably your initial force was not "irresistible" in the first place. Allying with another superpower (assuming there are any) does you no good if they don't field an equally capable army (in which case, neither force would meet the criteria of being unstoppable). While there are lots of options for non-militarily resisting an overwhelming occupying force, it's impossible to do so whilst maintaining political autonomy. Propaganda is the best way to resist, perhaps - fighting a hearts and minds campaign - but if the media is controlled by the occupying force then you have very little power to publicise your plight. Also, regarding Cuba, I suspect that they haven't been invaded simply because they have nothing worth taking; things would be very different if they had oil.
I used to think the same thing about robotic supersoldiers. If we had unstoppable robot killing machines, so I thought, no army in their right mind would fight against them - it would be suicide. Absolute deterrent, no more wars, no more deaths.
But then I realised that if you had an irresistible force, nothing would stop its commanders from using it. They would be able to roll into anywhere and take whatever they wanted - and it still wouldn't stop the killing. Suicide bombers are plenty of evidence that desperate determined people are prepared to kill themselves (and innocent people) to further their political goals, especially when they feel oppressed and disenfranchised.
Unstoppable marines in their super spaceplanes will not stop killing. All it will do is enable the US to enter conflicts it otherwise might not have done.
Sorry - that doesn't constitute a 'meeting of minds' as required by contract law (in Australia, at least). There's ample case-law for that sort of thing and it won't hold up in court. IANALBITAC (I Am Not A Lawyer, But I Took A Class)
Actually, I'm something of a hot spicy food enthusiast - living in Thailand gave me a taste for curries and spicy food. I held the record at my old university for eating the most hot peppers without water (they actually ran out of things to challenge me with). I deliberately chose tabasco because I thought the odds of readers being familiar with it was higher.
You obviously haven't applied for a patent recently. Copyright vests automatically with any creative work you produce. To get a patent on the other hand requires lawyers (money), applications (money), review (money), sometimes contestation (money), probation (no money actually), and, if you want a useful term or global scope for it, extension (lots and lots of money). The two are vastly different protections; the barrier to entry for copyright is so low that even this post qualifies for protection (even says so at the bottom of this webpage). I've invented a few valuable things in my time as a research engineer, but the cost of getting protection is so prohibitive that unless I invent the Philosopher's Stone it's not worth it.
Actually, I would expect workers to use whatever vehicle is most appropriate in the execution of their work. I want my tradesmen need trucks, paramedics need ambulances, you need a car. Ok, that's fine. But using a vehicle to do your job is not necessarily the same as commuting to your place of work. I expect my airline pilots to fly an aeroplane, but that doesn't mean they can't take public transport to the airport. I doubt many overweight office workers absolutely need to drive their commute.
Damn straight, I say. Cars bring out the worst in people. They consume valuable fuel, produce excessive waste gasses and alienate us from our fellow man.
I walk 30 mins to and from work and it's the best exercise in the world. When I lived farther from work, I used to do an hour cycling after hours and it just took up my time. Now I combine my commute with my workout.
People who talk about fear of being mugged: take the bus, or perhaps actually get to know your neighbors for a change and form a neighborhood watch.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you appreciate how frightening Monsanto actually is. They make the *IAA look like cuddly pussycats in comparison.
*sniff* Yes he does. He loves each and everyone of us, just as we are.
But you forget! Anything on television or in movies is blessed and brings families together so they can bake lamingtons and have barbies together (with shrimp!). Anything on the internet is evil because it isn't controlled by personal friends of the politicians and it Must Be Stopped.
I'm an Aussie! But I don't want your money - I'll do it for free as a public good. Virtually no one here wants this crap - it's just the nanny-state nitwits voted in by the over-60s, who probably don't even know what the internets are only that they're full of Terrible Things because Today Tonight told them so.
Exactly - so if you keep it vague and fuzzy you can block things you don't like without having to publicly declare discriminatory prejudices.
My pillows are made from the skin of trusting coworkers. All it takes is "Why don't you come down to the basement and see my tanning vats?"
they have the right to limit discussions that don't pertain to games
And I insist that they do! How dare anyone talk about anything but games. It's almost as if they think they're there to socialise or have a good time.
For example: wheels.
No, I am Spart- err, God.
Damn straight - it was staged on a NASA back lot set, just like the moon landings.
It's strange, but when I saw the story about the upcoming launch, my first thought was "If there's one mission that I could predict failure of, this is it." Maybe I'm paranoid, but there are so many vested interests in not having accurate data like that, that even short of downright sabotage this mission had the odds stacked against it. When I saw the story this morning, I also got that sinking feeling.
Imagine that a robot army could be built by a technological power fast enough that potential adversaries could not develop parity - do you really believe that the controlling government would not use it?
I would also like to point out that constraints on the behaviour of militaries is a quaint notion that does not survive contact with the enemy, or occupation of a populace. Even the US military, paragon of enlightenment and thought that it is, has been known to commit atrocities (see the documentary Convoy of Death, for an example).
Dehumanisation is a method used to make killing an enemy palatable when you have to look him in the eye. Consider how much easier it would be to kill dehumanised enemies from behind a joystick at a control console with a red button marked "Kill".
As for Cuba, well, it was a political pawn between the US and the USSR. The Cold War writ small, if you will. The cost to US agriculture of Cuban nationalisation probably wouldn't cover the cost of mobilising a force to take it back. The Bay of Pigs invasion, you will recall, was by exiles at the behest of the CIA - not an assault by foreign soldiers at all.
I do love the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Conspiracy nuts always blame this and that on the CIA as if they're pulling strings everywhere. Yet the one really good example of it happening was such a flop.
If it is possible to bring in a "more irresistible force" than presumably your initial force was not "irresistible" in the first place. Allying with another superpower (assuming there are any) does you no good if they don't field an equally capable army (in which case, neither force would meet the criteria of being unstoppable). While there are lots of options for non-militarily resisting an overwhelming occupying force, it's impossible to do so whilst maintaining political autonomy. Propaganda is the best way to resist, perhaps - fighting a hearts and minds campaign - but if the media is controlled by the occupying force then you have very little power to publicise your plight. Also, regarding Cuba, I suspect that they haven't been invaded simply because they have nothing worth taking; things would be very different if they had oil.
I used to think the same thing about robotic supersoldiers. If we had unstoppable robot killing machines, so I thought, no army in their right mind would fight against them - it would be suicide. Absolute deterrent, no more wars, no more deaths. But then I realised that if you had an irresistible force, nothing would stop its commanders from using it. They would be able to roll into anywhere and take whatever they wanted - and it still wouldn't stop the killing. Suicide bombers are plenty of evidence that desperate determined people are prepared to kill themselves (and innocent people) to further their political goals, especially when they feel oppressed and disenfranchised. Unstoppable marines in their super spaceplanes will not stop killing. All it will do is enable the US to enter conflicts it otherwise might not have done.
Those would be called 'engineers'.
Sorry - that doesn't constitute a 'meeting of minds' as required by contract law (in Australia, at least). There's ample case-law for that sort of thing and it won't hold up in court. IANALBITAC (I Am Not A Lawyer, But I Took A Class)
I imagine it has something to do with entire office buildings filled with people of a certain ethnicity.
Actually, I'm something of a hot spicy food enthusiast - living in Thailand gave me a taste for curries and spicy food. I held the record at my old university for eating the most hot peppers without water (they actually ran out of things to challenge me with). I deliberately chose tabasco because I thought the odds of readers being familiar with it was higher.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
A nuclear sub would be one with extra tabasco sauce.
You've obviously never been to one of my parties.
You obviously haven't applied for a patent recently. Copyright vests automatically with any creative work you produce. To get a patent on the other hand requires lawyers (money), applications (money), review (money), sometimes contestation (money), probation (no money actually), and, if you want a useful term or global scope for it, extension (lots and lots of money). The two are vastly different protections; the barrier to entry for copyright is so low that even this post qualifies for protection (even says so at the bottom of this webpage). I've invented a few valuable things in my time as a research engineer, but the cost of getting protection is so prohibitive that unless I invent the Philosopher's Stone it's not worth it.
Actually, I would expect workers to use whatever vehicle is most appropriate in the execution of their work. I want my tradesmen need trucks, paramedics need ambulances, you need a car. Ok, that's fine. But using a vehicle to do your job is not necessarily the same as commuting to your place of work. I expect my airline pilots to fly an aeroplane, but that doesn't mean they can't take public transport to the airport. I doubt many overweight office workers absolutely need to drive their commute.
Damn straight, I say. Cars bring out the worst in people. They consume valuable fuel, produce excessive waste gasses and alienate us from our fellow man. I walk 30 mins to and from work and it's the best exercise in the world. When I lived farther from work, I used to do an hour cycling after hours and it just took up my time. Now I combine my commute with my workout. People who talk about fear of being mugged: take the bus, or perhaps actually get to know your neighbors for a change and form a neighborhood watch.
And then what are you going to do to get rid of the highly evolved electrocution-resistant rodents?