But seriously: alone? a singularity? in the ENTIRE universe? Not Bloody Likely. The mere fact that we speculate about it is an artifact of the colossal self-centered arrogance of homo sapiens.
If benthic tube-worms were (are?) self-conscious, I'm sure they'd wonder similarly.
It's not the thought of being alone which we find so disturbing; it's the thought of NOT being "special".
There are other pressure points to use. I'm sending the following to:
twoodman@us.ibm.com euffer@us.ibm.com jennie.allen.01@bbc.co.uk mary.renouf@bbc.co.uk rod.granger@pearsoned.com liebmant@wharton.upenn. edu joanna.prior@penguin.co.uk
It would be nice if someone else can research the contacts and major business partners of the following: www.ftinteractivedata.com www.comstock-interactivedata.com www.esignal.com The Economist Group ==== To All Addressees: All of you work for the plexus of firms which includes Pearson Education (Penguin Books, Financial Times, FT-Comstock, eSignal, The Economist), or work for a firm which maintains a significant relationship with them (IBM Press, Wharton Books, BBC Children's Books).
Effective immediately, I'm refraining from doing business with (or otherwise patronizing) any of the named firms, because of the manner in which Penguin Books is attempting to steal the domain name of Katie.com from its rightful owner.
For instance, I won't be buying any of Penguin/Pearson's 75+ computer titles, or buying the Financial Times or Economist, or books from Wharton or IBM Press, or the services of eSignal.
I'm also publishing this letter to all the internet mailing-lists and discussion groups in which I participate, such as SlashDot and Yahoo Groups, and encouraging my peers their to do the same.
1. reverse-rated the existing reviews, as suggested -- ALL EIGHTY-ONE OF THEM.
2. added a bad review of my own. actually not my own -- i just copied yours and fixed your spelling.;-) contradictive != contradictory pendant != penchant litterature != literature
I really wish you hadn't posted as AC. I'd like to make contact with more people like yourself, i.e. moderates and conservatives who dislike the current ragged state of civil liberties in the USA.
See "The Curve Of Binding Energy", by John McPhee, about Theodore Taylor, who worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project and long thereafter, and who did some work on this idea.
"If there were such a thing as "flea pox" and it wasn't dangerous to pets or humans, I'd have loaded up at the local Bio-WeaponsMart. I want the nasty little vampires dead."
Actual example: "BT" (bacillus thuringensis) is sold at most gardening centers, for killing garden pests.
I didn't mean that I think that '5' is the number. I was just saying, "schedule the Detroit change to be phased-in at 'x' years, where 'x' = the time to build a plant."
Isn't Vonage a black-box turn-key solution? And so wouldn't it be easier for users to add encryption to Skype? And who would want to us VOIP *without* encryption after this news?
"a low level radiation source and a thermocoupler to generate electricity from the heat coming off the radiation source. I've heard that they're legal for civilian use in the Northern Territories of Canada- and it's easy to put in enough lead shielding"
YIKES! That's what I call getting up-close-and-personal with nuclear. Personally, I'd NEVER feel safe about all that radioactive stuff being carried around in cars. And there isn't enough lead on the planet to get the public to accept it.
I much prefer my nuclear, even "passive" designs, to be centralized at a remote uninhabited site, thank you very much.
"sorry if I've come across as dogged" It was objectionable only in respect to the hyper-focus on the reference to hydrogen as energy source versus distribution system.
Thanks for the link. I read (skimmed) it, but found no place where they make the link between human/software failures and the *kind* of risks exposed, in the context of passive designs.
Certainly, no one would say that even a "perfect" passive design would mean that there are no residual risks of any kind: if a plant fails but safely "fizzles", it may still mean that there are enormous risks of financial loss, of "opportunity cost" and disruption from having to abandon the site, etc., and of risks to loss of credibility and public confidence.
But it's not clear to me that passive designs still involve a risk to life and health and non-local environment, which are different matters.
I'm not sure that it need be. How long does it take to build a new nuc plant? Let's say 5 years. Then we could legislate today, that we start building enough plants to replace all the energy from Middle East petro, and that, starting 5 years from now, there will be an extra tax on every NEW petro car sold in the USA, for every maker who hasn't sold its "fair share" of the number of electric cars needed to remove the need for that amount of Middle East petro.
sorry, i have no idea what you mean by "nuclear battery". I was thinking of batteries charged by nuc-gen'd electric coming over conventional power-lines.
"They'll profile with or without the profilee's consent." Which is no reason to reinforce the behavior.
"You're arguing illogicaly. DNA testing, if anything, would make profiling LESS harmful."
Now *you're* being illogical... The act of profiling consists of selecting WHOSE dna is to be solicited. If the suspect is selected based on profiling, then the harm has ALREADY occurred at the moment the selection is made, before the DNA is even tested. There's no way that the outcome of that DNA test can reach back in time and magically undo the harm that was comprised of the MERE ACT of profiling. It's just like the discredited doctrine of "separate but equal". Regardless of how the investigation turns out, NOTHING can undo the injury of having being detained for DWB.
"So, which one did YOU guess?" Actually, none of those.
"There you go again" Shades of RR. And it still doesn't speak to my point, i.e.: "There's probably NEVER been a case of an LE institution becoming MORE considerate of individual rights, as a consequence of LESS insistence on observance of those rights."
"thinking that L.E. is on the opposite side of "maintaining rights."" Please speak to what I actually say, not to what you think that I think. And it's not that they're on the "opposite" side: they merely place greater importance in catching perps. For crying out loud, do you think things like Miranda simply came from out of the sky for no historical reason? Do you even grant that Miranda is a good thing?
"they are people with real rights just like the rest of us". I already granted that (see "legitimate powers").
"Fear--that is, not embracing them as fellow citizens but treating them as a thing apart from you"
You speak as though I came into the world with some kind of mysterious a_priori predisposition to mistrust LEOs. Yes, they have rights too -- but THEY'RE the ones who have badges and guns, and powers which are sometimes abused. My reservations -- and those of an un-ignorably sizable population of other human-rights activists -- are based on demonstrable historical patterns of LEO behavior.
It's all very well to speak of LEO's as perpetually maintaining the (hoped-for) dewy idealism of the new academy graduate, the Serpicos of the world. But -- precisely because they ARE humans, with an incredibly tough job to do -- whatever "better nature" they once had frequently gets worn away by the daily grind of their experiences. To put it charitably, think of them as "walking wounded" afflicted by PTSD. And it's no secret that the profession tends to attract a certain populace with self-righteous militaristic personae.
I happen to know the kind of LEO you're describing. The father of my childhood best friend was that kind, an L.A. "beat cop" who rose to sergeant and never lost his original idealistic mentality. But that type isn't the norm, at least not anymore.
"If my child has done something so bad that the police are after him, then i would probably want to find him and ensure that, if he did what they say he did, he was punished for it"
Wow. That's scary. And you don't even see what you just did: "the police are after him, so he MUST have done something bad" -- and "if he did" is an after-thought. You don't even admit the possibility that his life might be ruined by a wrongful conviction, because *you* failed to protect his rights.
You seem adamantine in not conceding even the slightest validity to anything I've said. I'm going to try mightily to resist the temptation to reply to your next post, and instead grant you the last word. Because I now think that we're speaking "from different planets".
Slashdot Mirror
1. Ask them to come get us and give us a lift out of here.
2. "Us" means everyone except the Islamic fundamentalists.
3. We take all our technology and $$$ with us.
4. On our way out, leave the visible side of the moon covered with this image.
our undetectable interstellar masters.
But seriously: alone? a singularity? in the ENTIRE universe?
Not Bloody Likely.
The mere fact that we speculate about it is an artifact
of the colossal self-centered arrogance of homo sapiens.
If benthic tube-worms were (are?) self-conscious,
I'm sure they'd wonder similarly.
It's not the thought of being alone which we find so disturbing;
it's the thought of NOT being "special".
make that
"encouraging my peers THERE to do the same"
DAMN!
see the more comprehensive email at3 &cid =9901135
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11702
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117023&cid =9901135
give some useful addresses
see the post at http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117023&cid =9901135
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=117023&cid =9901135
There are other pressure points to use.
rod.granger@pearsoned.com. edu
I'm sending the following to:
twoodman@us.ibm.com euffer@us.ibm.com jennie.allen.01@bbc.co.uk
mary.renouf@bbc.co.uk
liebmant@wharton.upenn
joanna.prior@penguin.co.uk
It would be nice if someone else can research the contacts and major business partners of the following:
www.ftinteractivedata.com www.comstock-interactivedata.com www.esignal.com
The Economist Group
====
To All Addressees:
All of you work for the plexus of firms which includes Pearson Education (Penguin Books, Financial Times, FT-Comstock, eSignal, The Economist), or work for a firm which maintains a significant relationship with them (IBM Press, Wharton Books, BBC Children's Books).
Effective immediately, I'm refraining from doing business with (or otherwise patronizing) any of the named firms, because of the manner in which Penguin Books is attempting to steal the domain name of Katie.com from its rightful owner.
For instance, I won't be buying any of Penguin/Pearson's 75+ computer titles, or buying the Financial Times or Economist, or books from Wharton or IBM Press, or the services of eSignal.
I'm also publishing this letter to all the internet mailing-lists and discussion groups in which I participate, such as SlashDot and Yahoo Groups, and encouraging my peers their to do the same.
Yours Truly...
" now proceed to fire up Opera and set it to reload the page every 30 seconds"
;-)
why 30, when you can do 5?
after all, the goal hasn't been attained until a SETTING of 5 yields a RESULT of 30
1. reverse-rated the existing reviews, as suggested -- ALL EIGHTY-ONE OF THEM.
;-)
2. added a bad review of my own.
actually not my own -- i just copied yours and fixed your spelling.
contradictive != contradictory
pendant != penchant
litterature != literature
I really wish you hadn't posted as AC.
I'd like to make contact with more people like yourself, i.e. moderates and conservatives who dislike the current ragged state of civil liberties in the USA.
See "The Curve Of Binding Energy", by John McPhee, about Theodore Taylor, who worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project and long thereafter, and who did some work on this idea.
"If there were such a thing as "flea pox" and it wasn't dangerous to pets or humans, I'd have loaded up at the local Bio-WeaponsMart. I want the nasty little vampires dead."
Actual example: "BT" (bacillus thuringensis) is sold at most gardening centers, for killing garden pests.
if it doesn't feel dirty, then you're not doing it right
case-mod stories, please
I didn't mean that I think that '5' is the number.
I was just saying, "schedule the Detroit change to be phased-in at 'x' years, where 'x' = the time to build a plant."
Isn't Vonage a black-box turn-key solution?
And so wouldn't it be easier for users to add encryption to Skype?
And who would want to us VOIP *without* encryption after this news?
"gravity-wave modeling"?
I thought that E-R was an aviation school.
Are they developing an anti-gravity levitation vehicle?
"you've already got the equivalent in a nuclear detector right inside your house. It's called a smoke detector"
Yes, but my house doesn't go rolling around the highways and exposing itself to collisions.
And don't the nuc batts carry a lot more of the stuff?
"a low level radiation source and a thermocoupler to generate electricity from the heat coming off the radiation source. I've heard that they're legal for civilian use in the Northern Territories of Canada- and it's easy to put in enough lead shielding"
YIKES! That's what I call getting up-close-and-personal with nuclear.
Personally, I'd NEVER feel safe about all that radioactive stuff being carried around in cars.
And there isn't enough lead on the planet to get the public to accept it.
I much prefer my nuclear, even "passive" designs, to be centralized at a remote uninhabited site, thank you very much.
"sorry if I've come across as dogged"
It was objectionable only in respect to the hyper-focus on the reference to hydrogen as energy source versus distribution system.
Thanks for the link. I read (skimmed) it, but found no place where they make the link between human/software failures and the *kind* of risks exposed, in the context of passive designs.
Certainly, no one would say that even a "perfect" passive design would mean that there are no residual risks of any kind: if a plant fails but safely "fizzles", it may still mean that there are enormous risks of financial loss, of "opportunity cost" and disruption from having to abandon the site, etc., and of risks to loss of credibility and public confidence.
But it's not clear to me that passive designs still involve a risk to life and health and non-local environment, which are different matters.
"it will continue to be a slow, gradual change."
I'm not sure that it need be.
How long does it take to build a new nuc plant?
Let's say 5 years. Then we could legislate today, that we start building enough plants to replace all the energy from Middle East petro, and that, starting 5 years from now, there will be an extra tax on every NEW petro car sold in the USA, for every maker who hasn't sold its "fair share" of the number of electric cars needed to remove the need for that amount of Middle East petro.
sorry, i have no idea what you mean by "nuclear battery".
I was thinking of batteries charged by nuc-gen'd electric coming over conventional power-lines.
"The issue is that vehicles using advanced batteries or fuel cells are not available and probably won't be for several years."
This surprises me. I thought that battery cars are available (or at least feasible) today.
"They'll profile with or without the profilee's consent."
Which is no reason to reinforce the behavior.
"You're arguing illogicaly. DNA testing, if anything, would make profiling LESS harmful."
Now *you're* being illogical...
The act of profiling consists of selecting WHOSE dna is to be solicited. If the suspect is selected based on profiling, then the harm has ALREADY occurred at the moment the selection is made, before the DNA is even tested.
There's no way that the outcome of that DNA test can reach back in time and magically undo the harm that was comprised of the MERE ACT of profiling.
It's just like the discredited doctrine of "separate but equal".
Regardless of how the investigation turns out, NOTHING can undo the injury of having being detained for DWB.
"So, which one did YOU guess?" Actually, none of those.
"There you go again"
Shades of RR. And it still doesn't speak to my point, i.e.:
"There's probably NEVER been a case of an LE institution becoming MORE considerate of individual rights, as a consequence of LESS insistence on observance of those rights."
"thinking that L.E. is on the opposite side of "maintaining rights.""
Please speak to what I actually say, not to what you think that I think.
And it's not that they're on the "opposite" side: they merely place greater importance in catching perps.
For crying out loud, do you think things like Miranda simply came from out of the sky for no historical reason?
Do you even grant that Miranda is a good thing?
"they are people with real rights just like the rest of us".
I already granted that (see "legitimate powers").
"Fear--that is, not embracing them as fellow citizens but treating them as a thing apart from you"
You speak as though I came into the world with some kind of mysterious a_priori predisposition to mistrust LEOs.
Yes, they have rights too -- but THEY'RE the ones who have badges and guns, and powers which are sometimes abused.
My reservations -- and those of an un-ignorably sizable population of other human-rights activists -- are based on demonstrable historical patterns of LEO behavior.
It's all very well to speak of LEO's as perpetually maintaining the (hoped-for) dewy idealism of the new academy graduate, the Serpicos of the world.
But -- precisely because they ARE humans, with an incredibly tough job to do -- whatever "better nature" they once had frequently gets worn away by the daily grind of their experiences.
To put it charitably, think of them as "walking wounded" afflicted by PTSD.
And it's no secret that the profession tends to attract a certain populace with self-righteous militaristic personae.
I happen to know the kind of LEO you're describing. The father of my childhood best friend was that kind, an L.A. "beat cop" who rose to sergeant and never lost his original idealistic mentality.
But that type isn't the norm, at least not anymore.
"If my child has done something so bad that the police are after him, then i would probably want to find him and ensure that, if he did what they say he did, he was punished for it"
Wow. That's scary. And you don't even see what you just did: "the police are after him, so he MUST have done something bad" -- and "if he did" is an after-thought.
You don't even admit the possibility that his life might be ruined by a wrongful conviction, because *you* failed to protect his rights.
You seem adamantine in not conceding even the slightest validity to anything I've said.
I'm going to try mightily to resist the temptation to reply to your next post, and instead grant you the last word. Because I now think that we're speaking "from different planets".