Steve Jobs has large wads of cash as that is what we give people who prove themselves to be great assets to the economic system. No doubt, Steve Jobs is exactly that, but should your value to the economic system be the primary factor behind the level of medical care you receive? I would say no. Steve Jobs has no more right to the best standard of care than does somebody who has been in the police force, or a teacher (for example) their entire lives. In fact, I would say that anybody who has lived a moral, decent life should receive the same level of medical care, and that should be the highest available at the time. The only people that I would say might not deserve this are serious/career criminals.
I'm all for socialized medicine, but when his ass is on the line I support Jobs's desire to go the distance to survive. I wouldn't condemn him to death just to prove a point.
You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types;o), but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't believe that is a fault with the system, but a fault with the people running it.
There we disagree, those people are "The System". If your system works perfectly with 1000 honest men, but you can't get your hands on those; then your plan is flawed. Regardless of how it would work in theory.
Want to grow up to become an athlete? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function.
Want to grow up to become a model? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.
Which would be MUCH worse that how it is now where you can't do any of those things because of sheer luck. In this country even the useful nootropic drugs are banned because people are worried it will isolate groups from one another. Want to insure that this stuff doesn't discriminate? Make it free. Otherwise you're always going to have people who are genetically prevented from one thing or another.
The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.
I don't see the tough ethical choice here. Obviously we want the best for our children, so unless there are horrifying side effects, the answer is yes. Of course others will get all emo about it, sucks to be them. I wouldn't crush a child's potential just because having him succeed will stir up self-important idiots.
A valid point, however anyone had the opportunity to do something like this before and not one person took up the challenge. Not one of those highly experienced lawyers could be bothered or was willing to take the risk; so as he is the first to step up to the plate, he can take the swing.
There have been some military projects, but the problem is that anything which can lift over a tonne one-handed requires a power supply too big to attach to the suit itself.
Without OIL a western power would be unable to power basic infrastructure like transporting food from farms to market. It's quite essential if the plans of your country include feeding your people and mobilizing your army.
That makes no sense whatsoever. None. Emotions release a chemical process, but that has very little energy in it, it's function is to trigger receptors in the brain and adjust physical properties.
Let me put it directly. There is no such thing as psy power, we've been looking for years and while aliens may have abilities we have not considered, they will not have abilities that contradict physics; nor will they be able to feed on non-existant energy fields.
What's the rationale for requiring world harmony before galactic-expansionism?
The idea that equality between genders or "races" (which I can agree, is nonsense) can/should exist, is presupposition.
The sanctity of some prehistoric environment is not a given.
Well put, as much as I want peace and love and all that, I'm not going to go on complaining how we're so pathetic and evil and unworthy because not ALL humans practice it yet. That's too pitiful for words, however there IS one thing that bothers me...
Star Trek has poisoned your mind, imo.
That we might meet other alien civlizations and then inflict the "Space Hippies" on them, they will never forgive us.
Didn't say they were. If they aren't, then why would WE want to know them? Remember the movie Independance Day? Want to get THEIR attention???:p What if WE look like the aliens in Independance Day to some other alien race? What makes you think THEY would want to know US, then?
We would want to know them because they are our fellow living creatures. The self-hate runs strong in you.
By definition any creature that gets into space must have harnessed a good proportion of the resources of their home world. The only way that's happening is if they are the strongest. Whatever they are, they won't be pacifists (probably).
Hey, my next door neighbor has beer, and I'm too broke to buy any. I asked politely but he doesn't want to share it with me, so I'll go conk him on the head with a stick and TAKE a beer from him. Oh and by the way: I'll post in my own style, TYVM, and if you don't like it, tough; don't presume to instruct ME on what style to post in.:p
Spoken like a man who has never wanted for anything. Obviously you would never fight for beer. However if there was a famine going on and your life was on the line, I suspect you too would strongly consider violence. People fight for economic resources for similar reasons. No-one looks favorably on the idea of existing at another's whim for their entire lives.
That's naive. We have no advantage; in fact, we have a huge disadvantage: we're at the bottom of a gravity well. They can throw rocks at us far more easily than we can throw nukes at them.
All the same, I wouldn't want them knowing what weapons we have. Although on that note, we really should end the space-weapons ban sometime and start developing tactics for space warfare. Preparation and all that.
While a display of martial might would serve to make the earth look less available, it also risks making us appear savage and again, unintelligent. It might make them feel justified in subjugating us and colonizing earth.
Safest is probably a policy of partial isolation. We should greet others firmly, while revealing little of our own cultures and history. Be respectful, and allow visitors to see a strictly controlled show. Given time, this can be relaxed. If they do seem interested in colonization, prepare for war. Demand commitments to peace and respect for our territory that, if broken deliberately, will give us moral high-ground in counterattacking. But if this should occur, act quickly to establish laws of war--display an aura of civility and discipline. Conversely, if they are interested in an exchange of knowledge, be open and willing--say nothing of atrocities and wars, and let the borders be opened slowly. Control their perception of us, so that we may appear to be a mixture of cultures that they could ally themselves with, rather than merely subjugate.
A brilliant plan that does seem to cover all the bases. Since we can't be sure of what they will be like, a policy of limited information sharing is the best tactic to insure they won't use our information against us in some way we have not considered. But I'd go even further, I'd be firm, but not display any violent potential. The best knife is one that is hidden after all and if they harbor the desire to conquer us anyway this will give us an advantage in the initial confrontation. On the flipside if they're peaceful then they won't consider actual violence. The only downside is the edge-case where they are violent, but only towards apparent pacifists, which still gives us an advantage in battle after which they may well retreat. Assuming they have something resembling human psychology.
Personally whenever I see those Hollywood movies with friendly aliens, I wonder if ET's mates aren't waiting in orbit around Pluto with "planet cracker" bombs in case things turn nasty.
I don't think that's a given. The only two things we're lacking in order to make a slow-boat colonization ship to another planet is:
1) Hibernation technology
2) The economic dedication required to do so
Well we're also lacking the technology to build a structure that can withstand the trip and take all the stuff it needs with it. Even if we had the technology, we'd still need to design and scale up smaller models till we got to a point where we can build it. But that isn't my point, my point is that we'd be hard pressed to build a colony ship even if we dedicated the planet's whole productive and economic capacity into it. Even if we optimized it with those "keep me awake for a week" drugs and 100 hour work weeks. That means that even a low tech STL ship that comes in to Earth implies a level of mass production several orders above ours. That is a scary thing. It means that if they actually wanted to fight us, they could out produce us in terms of Armor and Planes. If they have a high level of automation, they won't even need many personnel.
Bill Gates has the right idea of what to do when you have too much money. He is doing so much good right now.
He is indeed and when you have money you too can give it away. Me? I give to charity but I also want the human race to expand outwards.
I've also been bothered by the amount of poverty in the world. We as First world nations do give massive amounts of charity to other nations and provide safety nets for our own people. However, unless your stance is that all the third world nations are made up of children who need to listen to us; you cannot dump all responsibility on the people already giving charity. At which point are the people on the receiving end held accountable for refusing efficient GM crops, committing inter-tribal murders and revenge killings, printing money and causing rapid inflation, piracy and banditry, etc?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a charity collector outside the local University. They contended that many Aboriginal communities in Australia didn't have clean water or proper electrical connections, I asked why not, since it's been over a century since westerners set up shop. She told me they didn't want any. I asked how she was proposing to get everything set up if these people didn't want what she was offering. She told me they would petition local leaders.
Cue fat nerds who have never experienced hardship explaining why the poor should die and why this is actually more important than saving human lives back on earth.
Of course, it's also possible you're simply a better person than the rest of us and wise enough to see the truth. However since you're posting anonymously and won't stand behind your words, I'm doubting it.
Compensation for what? In the modern Western world, quaint notions of property rights and due process have been deprecated in favor of civil forfeiture, eminent domain for transfer to other private parties, stare decisis, and political connections.
You're right, things were better and fairer in the past where the king owned everything and allowed other people to manage things for him, the Barons; who had a legal ownership of everything on their land up to and including the Serfs living on it.
Optionally, make the adult world understand that stupid things done at earlier age do not mean that they are guaranteed to repeat said stupidity at a later age...
I suspect the adult world already understands that, after all, they were once Uni students as well.
So your solution is to stick to ground soldiers there so they can be shot to bits as a sacrifice to appease our enemies. I don't buy it. You're forgetting that the speed that an army adjusts to tactics depends on the speed of their communications; it doesn't happen instantly. During the time they are adjusting, you have an opportunity to win. If we learn anything from WW1 and WW2, it's that new tactics can break stalemates long enough to deliver a blow.
On that subject; it's pretty depressing when I'm confronted with the theory that if we purposefully suck at fighting, people will lay off us. I doubt it works like that. Many military leaders from Sun-Tzu onward recognized that the secret to staying safe is having a solid military power. There are many small countries the word over that are fighting in open battles, but no-one attacks China, Russia or England simply because it would be silly to do so. I do want peace on earth; and I believe the way to achieve that is through reasonable two-way negotiations and discussion as well as the power to defend ourselves. If we lack the defensive aspect, all negotiations that come from us appear totally self-serving. So I support military research.
You forgot Sharks, they eat us too. Constrictor snakes have been killing people in several countries. Hyenas, although not that often. Panthers, pretty often.
I've been using it on my laptops for a few days now and I think it's pretty good. Certainly the online driver downloads are the BEST feature. That's basically it, search is good, themes are nice but I suspect that it's silently corrupting my FTP transfers; I'm almost certain that it's due to paging on the low-ram server. Still the fact that it happens without printing a warning is pretty disturbing. Beyond that, it's really no better than XP.
Btw, the president has asked for help from the FBI and international bodies, from the article.
Oh, I bet.
You're right, it does sound stupid. This guy's mate got executed after claiming he could prove government corruption, now Mr. Rosenberg says; "Before my mate died, he told me what he knew" and WOW, he ALSO turns up dead. It's a total mystery who would have the motive. Now a video shows up where he explicitly states "The government is planning to kill me for what I know." and you actually claim that this doesn't prove anything. Now I raised my eyebrows when the first guy got shot, let alone Mr. Rosenberg's death.
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs has large wads of cash as that is what we give people who prove themselves to be great assets to the economic system. No doubt, Steve Jobs is exactly that, but should your value to the economic system be the primary factor behind the level of medical care you receive? I would say no. Steve Jobs has no more right to the best standard of care than does somebody who has been in the police force, or a teacher (for example) their entire lives. In fact, I would say that anybody who has lived a moral, decent life should receive the same level of medical care, and that should be the highest available at the time. The only people that I would say might not deserve this are serious/career criminals.
I'm all for socialized medicine, but when his ass is on the line I support Jobs's desire to go the distance to survive. I wouldn't condemn him to death just to prove a point.
You can probably guess I one of those evil socialist types ;o), but I come from a country where we have socialised medicine. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't believe that is a fault with the system, but a fault with the people running it.
There we disagree, those people are "The System". If your system works perfectly with 1000 honest men, but you can't get your hands on those; then your plan is flawed. Regardless of how it would work in theory.
Want to grow up to become an athlete? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to select genes that predispose you to becoming tall / strong / better cardiovascular function. Want to grow up to become a model? Sorry, your parents couldn't afford to give you a slender physique, blond, and blue eyes.
Which would be MUCH worse that how it is now where you can't do any of those things because of sheer luck. In this country even the useful nootropic drugs are banned because people are worried it will isolate groups from one another. Want to insure that this stuff doesn't discriminate? Make it free. Otherwise you're always going to have people who are genetically prevented from one thing or another.
The challenging part is that yeah, if I have the choice to prevent my future kids from developing life-shortening diseases, I've got to do it.
I don't see the tough ethical choice here. Obviously we want the best for our children, so unless there are horrifying side effects, the answer is yes. Of course others will get all emo about it, sucks to be them. I wouldn't crush a child's potential just because having him succeed will stir up self-important idiots.
A valid point, however anyone had the opportunity to do something like this before and not one person took up the challenge. Not one of those highly experienced lawyers could be bothered or was willing to take the risk; so as he is the first to step up to the plate, he can take the swing.
I did say "power", but what I was referring to was the systems meant to support the suit's hydraulics. It would be more like a hose.
There have been some military projects, but the problem is that anything which can lift over a tonne one-handed requires a power supply too big to attach to the suit itself.
That is profound; I have been enlightened.
Without OIL a western power would be unable to power basic infrastructure like transporting food from farms to market. It's quite essential if the plans of your country include feeding your people and mobilizing your army.
That makes no sense whatsoever. None. Emotions release a chemical process, but that has very little energy in it, it's function is to trigger receptors in the brain and adjust physical properties.
Let me put it directly. There is no such thing as psy power, we've been looking for years and while aliens may have abilities we have not considered, they will not have abilities that contradict physics; nor will they be able to feed on non-existant energy fields.
What's the rationale for requiring world harmony before galactic-expansionism? The idea that equality between genders or "races" (which I can agree, is nonsense) can/should exist, is presupposition. The sanctity of some prehistoric environment is not a given.
Well put, as much as I want peace and love and all that, I'm not going to go on complaining how we're so pathetic and evil and unworthy because not ALL humans practice it yet. That's too pitiful for words, however there IS one thing that bothers me...
Star Trek has poisoned your mind, imo.
That we might meet other alien civlizations and then inflict the "Space Hippies" on them, they will never forgive us.
Didn't say they were. If they aren't, then why would WE want to know them? Remember the movie Independance Day? Want to get THEIR attention??? :p What if WE look like the aliens in Independance Day to some other alien race? What makes you think THEY would want to know US, then?
We would want to know them because they are our fellow living creatures. The self-hate runs strong in you.
By definition any creature that gets into space must have harnessed a good proportion of the resources of their home world. The only way that's happening is if they are the strongest. Whatever they are, they won't be pacifists (probably).
Hey, my next door neighbor has beer, and I'm too broke to buy any. I asked politely but he doesn't want to share it with me, so I'll go conk him on the head with a stick and TAKE a beer from him. Oh and by the way: I'll post in my own style, TYVM, and if you don't like it, tough; don't presume to instruct ME on what style to post in. :p
Spoken like a man who has never wanted for anything. Obviously you would never fight for beer. However if there was a famine going on and your life was on the line, I suspect you too would strongly consider violence. People fight for economic resources for similar reasons. No-one looks favorably on the idea of existing at another's whim for their entire lives.
That's naive. We have no advantage; in fact, we have a huge disadvantage: we're at the bottom of a gravity well. They can throw rocks at us far more easily than we can throw nukes at them.
All the same, I wouldn't want them knowing what weapons we have. Although on that note, we really should end the space-weapons ban sometime and start developing tactics for space warfare. Preparation and all that.
While a display of martial might would serve to make the earth look less available, it also risks making us appear savage and again, unintelligent. It might make them feel justified in subjugating us and colonizing earth. Safest is probably a policy of partial isolation. We should greet others firmly, while revealing little of our own cultures and history. Be respectful, and allow visitors to see a strictly controlled show. Given time, this can be relaxed. If they do seem interested in colonization, prepare for war. Demand commitments to peace and respect for our territory that, if broken deliberately, will give us moral high-ground in counterattacking. But if this should occur, act quickly to establish laws of war--display an aura of civility and discipline. Conversely, if they are interested in an exchange of knowledge, be open and willing--say nothing of atrocities and wars, and let the borders be opened slowly. Control their perception of us, so that we may appear to be a mixture of cultures that they could ally themselves with, rather than merely subjugate.
A brilliant plan that does seem to cover all the bases. Since we can't be sure of what they will be like, a policy of limited information sharing is the best tactic to insure they won't use our information against us in some way we have not considered. But I'd go even further, I'd be firm, but not display any violent potential. The best knife is one that is hidden after all and if they harbor the desire to conquer us anyway this will give us an advantage in the initial confrontation. On the flipside if they're peaceful then they won't consider actual violence. The only downside is the edge-case where they are violent, but only towards apparent pacifists, which still gives us an advantage in battle after which they may well retreat. Assuming they have something resembling human psychology.
Personally whenever I see those Hollywood movies with friendly aliens, I wonder if ET's mates aren't waiting in orbit around Pluto with "planet cracker" bombs in case things turn nasty.
I don't think that's a given. The only two things we're lacking in order to make a slow-boat colonization ship to another planet is: 1) Hibernation technology 2) The economic dedication required to do so
Well we're also lacking the technology to build a structure that can withstand the trip and take all the stuff it needs with it. Even if we had the technology, we'd still need to design and scale up smaller models till we got to a point where we can build it. But that isn't my point, my point is that we'd be hard pressed to build a colony ship even if we dedicated the planet's whole productive and economic capacity into it. Even if we optimized it with those "keep me awake for a week" drugs and 100 hour work weeks. That means that even a low tech STL ship that comes in to Earth implies a level of mass production several orders above ours. That is a scary thing. It means that if they actually wanted to fight us, they could out produce us in terms of Armor and Planes. If they have a high level of automation, they won't even need many personnel.
Bill Gates has the right idea of what to do when you have too much money. He is doing so much good right now.
He is indeed and when you have money you too can give it away. Me? I give to charity but I also want the human race to expand outwards.
I've also been bothered by the amount of poverty in the world. We as First world nations do give massive amounts of charity to other nations and provide safety nets for our own people. However, unless your stance is that all the third world nations are made up of children who need to listen to us; you cannot dump all responsibility on the people already giving charity. At which point are the people on the receiving end held accountable for refusing efficient GM crops, committing inter-tribal murders and revenge killings, printing money and causing rapid inflation, piracy and banditry, etc?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a charity collector outside the local University. They contended that many Aboriginal communities in Australia didn't have clean water or proper electrical connections, I asked why not, since it's been over a century since westerners set up shop. She told me they didn't want any. I asked how she was proposing to get everything set up if these people didn't want what she was offering. She told me they would petition local leaders.
Cue fat nerds who have never experienced hardship explaining why the poor should die and why this is actually more important than saving human lives back on earth.
Of course, it's also possible you're simply a better person than the rest of us and wise enough to see the truth. However since you're posting anonymously and won't stand behind your words, I'm doubting it.
You knew it would happen.
I knew it would happen.
Things that live under rocks on the floor of the Pacific Ocean knew it would happen.
Something like this won't get off the ground as long as there are people willing to fight against it, and we've got no shortage of those around here.
Compensation for what? In the modern Western world, quaint notions of property rights and due process have been deprecated in favor of civil forfeiture, eminent domain for transfer to other private parties, stare decisis, and political connections.
You're right, things were better and fairer in the past where the king owned everything and allowed other people to manage things for him, the Barons; who had a legal ownership of everything on their land up to and including the Serfs living on it.
Optionally, make the adult world understand that stupid things done at earlier age do not mean that they are guaranteed to repeat said stupidity at a later age...
I suspect the adult world already understands that, after all, they were once Uni students as well.
So your solution is to stick to ground soldiers there so they can be shot to bits as a sacrifice to appease our enemies. I don't buy it. You're forgetting that the speed that an army adjusts to tactics depends on the speed of their communications; it doesn't happen instantly. During the time they are adjusting, you have an opportunity to win. If we learn anything from WW1 and WW2, it's that new tactics can break stalemates long enough to deliver a blow.
On that subject; it's pretty depressing when I'm confronted with the theory that if we purposefully suck at fighting, people will lay off us. I doubt it works like that. Many military leaders from Sun-Tzu onward recognized that the secret to staying safe is having a solid military power. There are many small countries the word over that are fighting in open battles, but no-one attacks China, Russia or England simply because it would be silly to do so. I do want peace on earth; and I believe the way to achieve that is through reasonable two-way negotiations and discussion as well as the power to defend ourselves. If we lack the defensive aspect, all negotiations that come from us appear totally self-serving. So I support military research.
You forgot Sharks, they eat us too. Constrictor snakes have been killing people in several countries. Hyenas, although not that often. Panthers, pretty often.
I've been using it on my laptops for a few days now and I think it's pretty good. Certainly the online driver downloads are the BEST feature. That's basically it, search is good, themes are nice but I suspect that it's silently corrupting my FTP transfers; I'm almost certain that it's due to paging on the low-ram server. Still the fact that it happens without printing a warning is pretty disturbing. Beyond that, it's really no better than XP.
Toonol is thinking about it. But if he loses interest, I'd consider it.
Btw, the president has asked for help from the FBI and international bodies, from the article.
Oh, I bet.
You're right, it does sound stupid. This guy's mate got executed after claiming he could prove government corruption, now Mr. Rosenberg says; "Before my mate died, he told me what he knew" and WOW, he ALSO turns up dead. It's a total mystery who would have the motive. Now a video shows up where he explicitly states "The government is planning to kill me for what I know." and you actually claim that this doesn't prove anything. Now I raised my eyebrows when the first guy got shot, let alone Mr. Rosenberg's death.
That is a profoundly brilliant idea. You could run a service that hooks into youtube to provide this capability.
They did not like hanging around in the afternoon drinking coffee, but those same people also stopped coming around for the evening meal.
Pretty unsurprising, customers are less likely to come back when they realize you view them only as mobile wallets.