nasa's missing "only" $2 billion. from the article: " There were hundreds of millions of dollars of "unreconciled" funds and a $2 billion difference between what NASA said it had and what was actually in its accounts."
if that be the case, then where does this $565 billion number come from? it seems that they have simply counted the same pile of money for several times, without noticing that it has already been taken into account: "a $40 billion contract that stretched over nine years and several separate NASA centers generated $120 billion worth of entries, and these were turned over to the auditors."
a tiny nitpick: there is no such thing as 'situationism.' see, for instance, the wikipedia article on 'situationist':
The journal Internationale Situationniste defined situationist as "having to do with the theory or practical activity of constructing situations." The same journal defined situationism as "a meaningless term improperly derived from the above. There is no such thing as situationism, which would mean a doctrine of interpretation of existing facts. The notion of situationism is obviously devised by antisituationists."
naah. somehow i don't believe even slashdot could be the answer to the age-old mystery of artificial intelligence. more likely, the alchemists were right and all it takes truly is a pumpkin, some horse sperm, the flesh of an unborn child, and a blue tea-pot warmer.
every single conflict going on between any two groups of people is created.
the weird thing is, the closer you look, the fuzzier the picture becomes and the only thing you can really be sure of is that things happen. for instance, we know that there was/is a war going down in iraq, but we have no idea why it happened. who knows, maybe even bush doesn't have an idea.
i don't think anyone can really create a conflict. the only thing someone can do is slightly affect the way things flow.
rubbish. no matter how educated the people forming it may be, a mass is a mass. take, let's say, a thousand liberal arts graduates to a football match and see whether they will act differently than the rest of the crowd. the odds are that they won't. flood them all with propaganda (never take them on one by one!), and they will eventually fall for it.
take note, however, that a mass is never easy to control. the situation may (and probably will) get out of hand pretty fast. and if this happens, then an educated person might even be more dangerous that an uneducated one, for he (less restrained because of his education) really is harder to control in such a situation.
Slashdot Mirror
if that be the case, then where does this $565 billion number come from? it seems that they have simply counted the same pile of money for several times, without noticing that it has already been taken into account: "a $40 billion contract that stretched over nine years and several separate NASA centers generated $120 billion worth of entries, and these were turned over to the auditors."
The journal Internationale Situationniste defined situationist as "having to do with the theory or practical activity of constructing situations." The same journal defined situationism as "a meaningless term improperly derived from the above. There is no such thing as situationism, which would mean a doctrine of interpretation of existing facts. The notion of situationism is obviously devised by antisituationists."
naah. somehow i don't believe even slashdot could be the answer to the age-old mystery of artificial intelligence. more likely, the alchemists were right and all it takes truly is a pumpkin, some horse sperm, the flesh of an unborn child, and a blue tea-pot warmer.
the weird thing is, the closer you look, the fuzzier the picture becomes and the only thing you can really be sure of is that things happen. for instance, we know that there was/is a war going down in iraq, but we have no idea why it happened. who knows, maybe even bush doesn't have an idea.
i don't think anyone can really create a conflict. the only thing someone can do is slightly affect the way things flow.
slashdot, of course, being a great example of this.
take note, however, that a mass is never easy to control. the situation may (and probably will) get out of hand pretty fast. and if this happens, then an educated person might even be more dangerous that an uneducated one, for he (less restrained because of his education) really is harder to control in such a situation.