What a joke. We commit an international war crime because we say the leader is bad. We start a war against a country that did not attack us by lying about WMD. Then we killed and displaced more Iraqis than Hussein ever did. We destroyed the country. If you ask the Iraqi people who was worse and did more harm, Bush or Hussein they would overwhelmingly say Bush, because that is the truth.
It is really hard to believe that intelligent people can believe such nonsense.
Well, Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship too, are we going to attack them? 19 of the 911 hijackers were from there, but we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq instead. You know that every place we attacked is in much more turmoil now than before we invaded. How many hundreds of thousands of people are dead now that would not have been otherwise? How many war refugees? The US is very selective in which "dictatorships" we decide require US imposed regime change.
It is for geopolitical control and great profit. Even our own government admits that we have created more terrorists than we kill, which I assume is not because our government and military are incompetent, it is just a form of job security. There wasn't nearly as much bloodshed and civil war in the Middle East until we went in with our military and intelligence agencies to institute "regime change" by way of war. Now there are civil wars (e.g., Libya, Syria and Iraq) where there had not been before we intervened militarily. We were not attacked by any of those countries, and it is an international war crime to commit unprovoked military aggression. Millions of refugees are fleeing the fighting. None of it had to be, and none of it has brought about any type of peace or stability, not even in Afghanistan where we have been the longest (who also did not attack the US).
You know full well that the US is the most aggressive country on the planet. We are not keeping the peace, we are making sure that peace can not happen and that the wars will go on indefinitely, thus keeping the region in turmoil, and keeping the profits flowing. Please point to one place where our military has produced "peace" since the first Gulf War. I just pointed to a number of places where we undid the peace, and created endless war.
It is people who think like you, anonymous coward, that have made human history so violent and bloody. Savagery is not greatness, it is primitive, violent behavior. Only a psychopath would think that violence was required for "greatness".
I'm wondering if humans will ever shake off their extremely violent ancestry and wind down the war and militarism. The US is the greatest exporter of weapons and the most militarily aggressive country in the world with military action in over 100 countries.
If we can't lead by example in toning down endless warfare, and instead provide the cover that other countries need to justify and build their own drone and robot armies, then the world of the future is going to be a very dismal place indeed.
This is what happens when you let individuals accumulate too much money. What could possibly go wrong? I want to see what insurance company steps up to cover this thing. The funniest part is that I remember these things from planet patrol back in the early 60s. This is an old sci-fi idea being turned into a dangerous reality by an eccentric billionaire.
The push to force Windows 10 has now reached absurd proportions. Windows 7 is going to be my last version of Windows, and that means I won't be buying new Intel or AMD processors if they are going this route. Windows 10 is not particularly popular in its current form, so I am not at all sure why other companies would want to jump on that shit wagon.
Sad but true. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't try and make things better. It's not like these things are unavoidable natural disasters, they are the results of plotting, greedy sociopaths. We can fight back, and that, thankfully, seems to be a recurring theme in this election cycle.
This is why mergers and buyouts are such a problem. People need to start boycotting companies that do this kind of thing. Also time to bring back anti-trust laws and break up any companies that are "too big to fail".
For some reason many people seem to question internet related technology less and less, when they obviously they should be questioning it more and more. Most things do not need to be hooked to the internet. The dubious benefits do not even come close to compensating for the potential downsides.
We all know that it could have been different if MS had chosen a wiser path, and worked with their customer base. The whole Windows 10 insider program was a sham from the beginning. They listened to the sycophants that agreed with everything they were doing, and ignored all the input from long time power users who hated the new direction. Someday we may all wake up and be shocked to find that suddenly companies actually started to act like members of the community, rather than evil overlords. At least we can dream.
Agreed, but Windows updates can still be managed if you do due diligence in checking into each of them before installing. That's the beauty of having control over your updates in Windows 7. You are still in control. Woody on Windows over at InfoWorld does a great job of keeping track of the bad vs. the good patches. Of course we shouldn't have to think twice about installing updates to our OS, and shouldn't have to spend one minute checking if they are adware or spyware, but that is the deal with the devil that MS made. We will see if they change their minds when their market share slips more and more. They assumed everyone would capitulate and just allow the "upgrade" because it was "free" (except for the forced ads). They assumed wrong. They are probably in for more pain in the future as the lawsuits work their way through the courts. They have pretty much squandered any good will from their customers, and now they will have to live with the blow-back from their poor decisions. They deserve everything bad that ensues.
Well, considering that MS made their OS into a service as a way to push ads for the app store, which really has nothing to do with desktop computers, and took away lots of control from users, it is not surprising that half the user base stayed with Windows 7 despite Microsoft's underhanded tactics in trying to force the "service" onto people's computers. I still think they might be able to get more people to switch if they made a Windows 10 Ultimate version that people could buy that was based on the Enterprise version, just like they did with Windows 7 Ultimate. But turning the OS into an app store ad interface while taking lots of control away from users is never going to fly with the remaining Windows 7 user base. MS could not have screwed up much worse.
Yeah, what's up with that? OK, an RC Linux Kernel has a driver for the touchscreen. This does seem more like a Surface ad than an announcement about a single driver. I don't see people loading Linux on these things. It doesn't make sense.
As the article mentioned, they could not measure a difference in intellectual functioning, just a loss of white matter (nerve fibers) without a significant effect on cortex. They did not look at other brain structures, which are also involved in cognition. The loss of white matter may not relate directly to cognitive functioning because it can happen, for example, by a reduction in fiber thickness, without a loss of fiber number. Therefore, if being fatter affects nerve fiber diameter (or myelin sheath thickness) then this would show up as reduced white matter volume. But all the connections would still be there.
Thank you for bringing that up. These things are neurons in the same way hoverboards hover. They don't. It is a new trend to misname everything to make it sound way better than it really is.
It is absurd to complain about how much money goes to different areas of scientific research while not complaining even more about the money wasted on offense, er... I mean "defense". If just 5% of the military budget (over $600 billion if you count overseas contingency operations) was redirected to the NIH (somewhere around $35 billion in funding) then you would literally double the NIH budget, and put lots of out-of-work scientists back to work. Over half a million people die young from cancer, but the military budget to supposedly stop a few terrorist attacks (which never get stopped despite the wasted money) is vastly larger than the cancer budget. The military can't even audit their own books, and they have no idea where billions of dollars went. Talk about waste.
Slashdot Mirror
What a joke. We commit an international war crime because we say the leader is bad. We start a war against a country that did not attack us by lying about WMD. Then we killed and displaced more Iraqis than Hussein ever did. We destroyed the country. If you ask the Iraqi people who was worse and did more harm, Bush or Hussein they would overwhelmingly say Bush, because that is the truth.
It is really hard to believe that intelligent people can believe such nonsense.
If we can't fix our own problems, then no machine we make and program will. Our only hope is the better angles of our nature (thanks Abe).
So why did we attack Iraq? The plots were not being coordinated from there.
Especially when playing computer games, right? Or did you mean when killing lots of real people?
Well, Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship too, are we going to attack them? 19 of the 911 hijackers were from there, but we attacked Afghanistan and Iraq instead. You know that every place we attacked is in much more turmoil now than before we invaded. How many hundreds of thousands of people are dead now that would not have been otherwise? How many war refugees? The US is very selective in which "dictatorships" we decide require US imposed regime change.
It is for geopolitical control and great profit. Even our own government admits that we have created more terrorists than we kill, which I assume is not because our government and military are incompetent, it is just a form of job security. There wasn't nearly as much bloodshed and civil war in the Middle East until we went in with our military and intelligence agencies to institute "regime change" by way of war. Now there are civil wars (e.g., Libya, Syria and Iraq) where there had not been before we intervened militarily. We were not attacked by any of those countries, and it is an international war crime to commit unprovoked military aggression. Millions of refugees are fleeing the fighting. None of it had to be, and none of it has brought about any type of peace or stability, not even in Afghanistan where we have been the longest (who also did not attack the US).
You know full well that the US is the most aggressive country on the planet. We are not keeping the peace, we are making sure that peace can not happen and that the wars will go on indefinitely, thus keeping the region in turmoil, and keeping the profits flowing. Please point to one place where our military has produced "peace" since the first Gulf War. I just pointed to a number of places where we undid the peace, and created endless war.
Ah yes, the primitive attack the messenger method. Nice. Ignore what I say and attack me. How superior of you.
It is people who think like you, anonymous coward, that have made human history so violent and bloody. Savagery is not greatness, it is primitive, violent behavior. Only a psychopath would think that violence was required for "greatness".
I'm wondering if humans will ever shake off their extremely violent ancestry and wind down the war and militarism. The US is the greatest exporter of weapons and the most militarily aggressive country in the world with military action in over 100 countries.
https://www.thenation.com/arti...
If we can't lead by example in toning down endless warfare, and instead provide the cover that other countries need to justify and build their own drone and robot armies, then the world of the future is going to be a very dismal place indeed.
This is what happens when you let individuals accumulate too much money. What could possibly go wrong? I want to see what insurance company steps up to cover this thing. The funniest part is that I remember these things from planet patrol back in the early 60s. This is an old sci-fi idea being turned into a dangerous reality by an eccentric billionaire.
I would think that if they powdered or granulated Elon Musk and packed him into a rocket, all that hot air would make a great propellant.
The push to force Windows 10 has now reached absurd proportions. Windows 7 is going to be my last version of Windows, and that means I won't be buying new Intel or AMD processors if they are going this route. Windows 10 is not particularly popular in its current form, so I am not at all sure why other companies would want to jump on that shit wagon.
Sad but true. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't try and make things better. It's not like these things are unavoidable natural disasters, they are the results of plotting, greedy sociopaths. We can fight back, and that, thankfully, seems to be a recurring theme in this election cycle.
This is why mergers and buyouts are such a problem. People need to start boycotting companies that do this kind of thing. Also time to bring back anti-trust laws and break up any companies that are "too big to fail".
For some reason many people seem to question internet related technology less and less, when they obviously they should be questioning it more and more. Most things do not need to be hooked to the internet. The dubious benefits do not even come close to compensating for the potential downsides.
We all know that it could have been different if MS had chosen a wiser path, and worked with their customer base. The whole Windows 10 insider program was a sham from the beginning. They listened to the sycophants that agreed with everything they were doing, and ignored all the input from long time power users who hated the new direction. Someday we may all wake up and be shocked to find that suddenly companies actually started to act like members of the community, rather than evil overlords. At least we can dream.
OK, I admit that I failed to note their full beneficence on behalf of their loyal customers.
Agreed, but Windows updates can still be managed if you do due diligence in checking into each of them before installing. That's the beauty of having control over your updates in Windows 7. You are still in control. Woody on Windows over at InfoWorld does a great job of keeping track of the bad vs. the good patches. Of course we shouldn't have to think twice about installing updates to our OS, and shouldn't have to spend one minute checking if they are adware or spyware, but that is the deal with the devil that MS made. We will see if they change their minds when their market share slips more and more. They assumed everyone would capitulate and just allow the "upgrade" because it was "free" (except for the forced ads). They assumed wrong. They are probably in for more pain in the future as the lawsuits work their way through the courts. They have pretty much squandered any good will from their customers, and now they will have to live with the blow-back from their poor decisions. They deserve everything bad that ensues.
Well, considering that MS made their OS into a service as a way to push ads for the app store, which really has nothing to do with desktop computers, and took away lots of control from users, it is not surprising that half the user base stayed with Windows 7 despite Microsoft's underhanded tactics in trying to force the "service" onto people's computers. I still think they might be able to get more people to switch if they made a Windows 10 Ultimate version that people could buy that was based on the Enterprise version, just like they did with Windows 7 Ultimate. But turning the OS into an app store ad interface while taking lots of control away from users is never going to fly with the remaining Windows 7 user base. MS could not have screwed up much worse.
Yeah, what's up with that? OK, an RC Linux Kernel has a driver for the touchscreen. This does seem more like a Surface ad than an announcement about a single driver. I don't see people loading Linux on these things. It doesn't make sense.
As the article mentioned, they could not measure a difference in intellectual functioning, just a loss of white matter (nerve fibers) without a significant effect on cortex. They did not look at other brain structures, which are also involved in cognition. The loss of white matter may not relate directly to cognitive functioning because it can happen, for example, by a reduction in fiber thickness, without a loss of fiber number. Therefore, if being fatter affects nerve fiber diameter (or myelin sheath thickness) then this would show up as reduced white matter volume. But all the connections would still be there.
I suppose now people are so used to it that they expect misleading marketing in science too. Sad.
Thank you for bringing that up. These things are neurons in the same way hoverboards hover. They don't. It is a new trend to misname everything to make it sound way better than it really is.
It is absurd to complain about how much money goes to different areas of scientific research while not complaining even more about the money wasted on offense, er... I mean "defense". If just 5% of the military budget (over $600 billion if you count overseas contingency operations) was redirected to the NIH (somewhere around $35 billion in funding) then you would literally double the NIH budget, and put lots of out-of-work scientists back to work. Over half a million people die young from cancer, but the military budget to supposedly stop a few terrorist attacks (which never get stopped despite the wasted money) is vastly larger than the cancer budget. The military can't even audit their own books, and they have no idea where billions of dollars went. Talk about waste.
they didn't add any new useful features except to force more searches through Bing.