"Mainstream science" aka the ones that get all the credence around here have a huge double standard in that a testable hypothesis derived from the idea of interventionism is automatically discredited where as a non-testable idea from the naturalism school of thought is given a fair look.
You seem to have forgotten to post this much sought after hypothesis "derived from the idea of interventionism" (whatever that means).
Or, from another perspective, maybe these medieval asshats will be less likely to think that they'll get away with attacking America if they know that even a Democratic Party president will see to it that the military pays them a proper visit, such as after the WTC was first bombed in 1993.
"medieval asshats" ? Well there's a fine example of critical reasoning. Do you think it's ok to punish a whole country for the actions of a few extremists ? Do you think that by bombing civilians in a sovereign country, you actually gain the respect you think you deserve ? Do you think that the "asshats" concerned actually give a fuck what you do to a country while they escape after inflicting major damage and loss of life for minimal loss on their side ? You just make their point for them.
I do think kickstarting democracy in Iraq and hoping that Iraq's example is enough to put the Iranian political dissidents over the top and bring down their dictatorship, followed by the rest of the region, is our best chance of permanent peace in the Middle East. The rule that democracies don't attack other democracies should hold.
Again, what the fuck has it got to do with you ? If you weren't so dependant on oil your country wouldn't be anywhere near the Middle East. If some of your citizens would actually stop lobbying on Israels behalf and stop sending vast amounts of money to them, maybe the Israelis would have to start behaving like good neigbours instead of claiming they own the damn area. It was after all, the US who first recognised Israel after they declared their state unilaterally. Then maybe, some of the extremists would be left without a cause. But no, you seem intent on imposing your values on a foreign country/culture and being surprised when they don't like it, or want it and start fighting back. These civilisations have been trundling along quite happily for countless generations, but because they don't follow the almighty dollar (or buy enough US goods) they have to be "educated".
Godwin_alert So the "rule" that democracies don't attack democracies is something that happened after Hitler and Mussolini took power via public elections then attacked the rest of democratic Europe ?
I don't see you mentioning Saudi Arabia anywhere - does that count as a dictatorship too ? Oh, you can't attack them because they let you use their territory as a military base and because Bush is in bed with their leaders/money men.
Your last sentence should read "it's a shame" period.
I'm not a Christian, but I was brought up with vaguely Christian values, and I'm sure the relevant quote is something like -
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.
So carry on treating others like shit - then wonder why they give it back.
</rant>
PS. I agree with the posters that say this is a bad idea (military automation). If you want a war, go to war, but you better be prepared to bleed and die like the rest of us, or we are all fucked. No sci-fi involved here, it would be far too easy to issue an "executive" command and destroy thousands of people without so much as a twinge of guilt or compassion, because you never have to see the results, and your public will most likely never even know about it, so your job's safe.
I'm fully expecting to see a box of something on the supermarket shelf that's half the size of the regular box with bold lettering on its front declaring "NOW! TWICE AS SMALL!"
Except that these days, it would probably say "Two times as small !"
Espcially something the size of a golf ball that will have a transmitter withing millimeters of the GPS recieving antenna swamping the recievers in the gps as well as not having a way to right it's self so the GPS antenna is aiming at the sky.
Where does it say it needs to find its position ?
It only has to transmit a signal, which is located using satellites. Aeroplanes have a positioning system that transmits a signal so that ATC can locate them, no gps needed on the plane.
Your driving down the motorway/freeway minding your own business, driving carefully at around the speedlimit and some speed freak comes tearing past and undertakes you.
For them to undertake you, you must be in the wrong lane. Keep Left (UK), Keep Right (US)
You take out your Tag rifle and aim it at the car in front.
The device is fixed to the vehicle.
Lean out of the window and take aim, but whilst you are doing this you swerve and take out 3 cyclists also minding their own business.
Cyclists are not permitted on the Motorway (UK), I'm not sure about the US regulations. They certainly won't be in the outside lane.
In the case of Google, trying to access google.com will usually force you to google.co.uk if it detects your IPs geographical origin as being in the UK.
No, not here it doesn't. You have to specifically enter google.co.uk as the address, unless they are using URL masking - which is possible as the first few results are always uk based. However, I have a gmail account so they already know where I'm located (presumably) and the first results are always paid for ad-spots anyway.
But having said that, what matters is where the end-user is located not where the page is generated (see French anti-nazi censorship story).
I have a friend who has photographic memory. She can take pictures of things with her mind, and look back at them later. If she wants, she can snap an entire textbook and read it later.
I don't think I have a photographic memory, but back when I was in school, I used to cram for exams by scanning (fast reading - not electronically) relevant books or texts. Then when I was in the exam room and read a question, I had to remember which page of the book the answer was on (or the subject was dealt with) and then I could "read" it from the mental image of the page. Seemed to work quite well. Of course, you had to know the subject quite well anyway to judge relevance, but to have the original material available gave a better starting point for your answers. I still use the same system now, and I don't think it differs much from the "Incredible Memory Man" techniques.
Back when I was a kid, parents used to keep their toddlers on a leash - no, I'm not kidding.
I think the correct term was "reins". But the screaming liberals decided it was inhumane or demeaning or something, and now you never see them being used.
Therefore what the UK Government should be doing is taking steps to alleviate the inevitable effects of climate change. e.g. Improving flood defences, moving populations out of low-lying areas such as London...
Something I have recently found interesting, and possibly more and more relevant to this whole issue, is the fact that sea levels have in fact changed quite a bit over the past 4 - 5 hundred years. I like watching history programs on TV, and time and time again, while describing a castles defences, or the layout of an old port, it is mentioned that the sea used to come right up to the town or (obviously) port. In modern times, the sea is now at least 2 miles, and sometimes 10 miles further away. I'm in the UK, and I'm not aware of any major tectonic movements that have caused Great Britain to rise further out of the water, although I did once hear of a theory that the western european landmass was depressed by the ice sheets in the last major ice age, and has been "springing back" ever since the ice receded. The town where I grew up is an excellent example, where the oldest part of the town has a road which used to be on the waters edge. The sea is now nearly 2 miles further away (and all the intervening land has been built on).
So, I guess my point is, maybe things are just going back to the way they used to be before we entered the "mini ice-age". Whether we have a significant effect on the process is almost moot if nature's hell bent on going that way anyway.
I'm all for reducing dependency on oil, and reducing emissions, but those actions benefit all our health anyway, regardless of "Global Warming". I'm a sci-fi nut like many others here, and to be honest, I can't see us getting too far in space if we have to have smoke stacks on our flying saucers ! Clean has to be better surely ? I follow the responsible code when travelling in the country, I never leave litter etc, in fact the rule of thumb is that you leave it as you found it. It's a bit too late for planet earth in that regard, but I'm pretty sure we can do better than we currently are.
Yeah, the user has to be really technically savvy to use robots.txt
User-agent: * Disallow:/
How about people who need to keep stuff private, just don't make it web accessible ? Oh that's right, they want to be published but just want to take all their toys home when they've had enough.
The web is public. There are established ways to prevent casual use by anonymous visitors. If you can't be bothered to use them, simple as they are, then I'm afraid it's tough luck. I guess you're in favour of a 2 tier internet too.
Oh, and copyright has never been as simple as "you write it, its yours". You have to catch abusers and legally defend your content before copyright has any meaning. Not so simple is it. Especially as Google has legally been found to be non-infringing in this case.
There is a program on the BBC (2) tonight called Horizon - A War on Science
Here is the write-up from the Radio Times.
Did nature do its own creating, as Darwin thought, or did the world spring from the hand of an intelligent designer? You might think it's an argument that was long since settled, but in the USA it's very much a live issue, with a recent court case in Pennsylvania provoking controversy over whether alternative views to evolution can be legally taught in the science classroom. This film does a terrific job of exploring the debate (if that's not too strong a word) and gives the proponents of intelligent design a good shout before, thankfully, demolishing them. David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins add gravitas to one of the best Horizons for a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that you ?
I think they are starting to smell a bit now though.
The OP said "on average, 7 years longer, not 57 years longer.
Insightful ... hah!
Please respond with links, quotes etc etc.
TIA
But if you do, refuse any unexpected offers to use a strange hot tub.
Bottom fallen out of your world ?
Have a Vindaloo curry, and watch the world fall out of your bottom !
Godwin_alert
So the "rule" that democracies don't attack democracies is something that happened after Hitler and Mussolini took power via public elections then attacked the rest of democratic Europe ?
I don't see you mentioning Saudi Arabia anywhere - does that count as a dictatorship too ? Oh, you can't attack them because they let you use their territory as a military base and because Bush is in bed with their leaders/money men.
Your last sentence should read "it's a shame" period.
I'm not a Christian, but I was brought up with vaguely Christian values, and I'm sure the relevant quote is something like -
So carry on treating others like shit - then wonder why they give it back.</rant>
PS. I agree with the posters that say this is a bad idea (military automation). If you want a war, go to war, but you better be prepared to bleed and die like the rest of us, or we are all fucked. No sci-fi involved here, it would be far too easy to issue an "executive" command and destroy thousands of people without so much as a twinge of guilt or compassion, because you never have to see the results, and your public will most likely never even know about it, so your job's safe.
Who put you in charge of the planet?
me too !
Mod -1 Redundant.
It only has to transmit a signal, which is located using satellites. Aeroplanes have a positioning system that transmits a signal so that ATC can locate them, no gps needed on the plane.
Keep Left (UK), Keep Right (US)The device is fixed to the vehicle.Cyclists are not permitted on the Motorway (UK), I'm not sure about the US regulations. They certainly won't be in the outside lane.
Anything else you want to clear up ?
turns out it was just the eggs hatching !
But having said that, what matters is where the end-user is located not where the page is generated (see French anti-nazi censorship story).
Seemed to work quite well. Of course, you had to know the subject quite well anyway to judge relevance, but to have the original material available gave a better starting point for your answers. I still use the same system now, and I don't think it differs much from the "Incredible Memory Man" techniques.
Just as there is no "Fast lane". A fact that seems to escape virtually every BMW driver on the UK roads.
I think the correct term was "reins". But the screaming liberals decided it was inhumane or demeaning or something, and now you never see them being used.
Say what you like, but your (defenseless) kid can't walk off in shopping centres or run out into the path of the passing traffic.
Kids are kids, and they are not predictable or enlightened enough to run free in public places at that age.
So, I guess my point is, maybe things are just going back to the way they used to be before we entered the "mini ice-age". Whether we have a significant effect on the process is almost moot if nature's hell bent on going that way anyway.
I'm all for reducing dependency on oil, and reducing emissions, but those actions benefit all our health anyway, regardless of "Global Warming". I'm a sci-fi nut like many others here, and to be honest, I can't see us getting too far in space if we have to have smoke stacks on our flying saucers ! Clean has to be better surely ? I follow the responsible code when travelling in the country, I never leave litter etc, in fact the rule of thumb is that you leave it as you found it. It's a bit too late for planet earth in that regard, but I'm pretty sure we can do better than we currently are.
6000 RPM of pure cleaning power.
(You might need to get an anti-splash screen installed too)
How about people who need to keep stuff private, just don't make it web accessible ? Oh that's right, they want to be published but just want to take all their toys home when they've had enough.
The web is public. There are established ways to prevent casual use by anonymous visitors. If you can't be bothered to use them, simple as they are, then I'm afraid it's tough luck. I guess you're in favour of a 2 tier internet too.
Oh, and copyright has never been as simple as "you write it, its yours". You have to catch abusers and legally defend your content before copyright has any meaning. Not so simple is it. Especially as Google has legally been found to be non-infringing in this case.
So we're still Unforgiven then ?
Here is the write-up from the Radio Times.
I'll try and record it and maybe break a bit of © tomorrow