Not only would painting guns pink keep men from buying guns to look cool... [and make each gun] have a minimum amount of flair in order to be legal.
LOL!
But you couldn't just paint it pink, it would need to be a ceramic surface that paints and dye's wouldn't affix to, so no matter how many times you tried to paint or color it, the paint would just flake off, and the dye's would rub off.
How about a law stating that all gun owners must wear "Hello Kitty" T-Shirts at all times, (which are to be available ONLY in sizes for young children), and that when shooting or transporting weapons in any manner, you MUST bedazzle your clothing, and carry your ammo and accouterments in a Dora The Explora back-pack. (And of course, whenever they accessed, picked up, or set down the backpack, that they had to sing the "Backpack! Backpack!" song, or repeat 6 times "Swiper, no swiping!" 4 times in a row.
...15 years after the Police, FBI, CIA, and Army have adopted them (but only if they didn't drop them), and throwaways are all computer checked bio-metrics too.
I'm assuming that, even if the police and military for some reason beyond my ken become early adopters, 15 years will be enough to iron out the bugs.
Though I may be over-optimistic.
A weapon is something that you really don't want to fail when you NEED it to work.
I can imagine adjusting and readjusting your grip trying to get it to recognize you in the heat of a gunfight.
Seems to me the guy could sue for vandalism (for the deletion of the video), and if they claim that there was no video and win, then sue for false arrest and abuse of power. Because if the video didn't exist, then they had no right to confiscate the camera, and had no legitimate reason the arrest him .
The problem is it is almost never their best friend. I was told by a criminal attorney in my state that the state decided to discontinue video recording police encounters because 99.9% of the time it was losing cases for them. The video evidence was almost never in their favor. So they stopped. The number of violent, dangerous, angry, sadistic cops on the force is nothing but an embarrassment for the state. Police brutality and perjury is not just routine it is expected by almost everyone.
All the more reason to record ALL interactions with the police.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Turn-about is fair play. Sewing what you reap. Reaping the whirlwind. Your chickens are coming home to roost. You've made your bed, now lay in it.
Hypocratic basterds.
I'm pleased to see them getting a small fraction of what they've got coming.
Not having read TFA, I hope that the summery given is a simplified version of what he meant.
The world is too complex and interdependent for something to be all good (with no drawbacks), or all good (with no benefits), and he seems to be insinuating that GMO foods have no drawbacks, which is just as wrong as saying the have no benefits.
But, other than that, I basically agree with his assessment that we NEED (or will need) it.
The world population is growing too fast for our current food production methods to keep pace with demand forever, and unless we are willing to sit passively by during mass starvation on scales never before seen, wars breaking out over farmland, crops, seeds and food animals, and extinction as local peoples turn to endangered species for food, we will REQUIRE GMO foodstuffs that can mature faster, grow larger, and sustain themselves on less, and/or in different environments.
Otherwise we will outstrip our planet's ability to support us.
We've already stripped the oceans of their most bountiful harvests, and are eating and passing off fish we once called "Junk Fish", as the high-demand fish become scarcer and scarcer.
But we must keep in mind and learn from our experiences with adding new substances and quantities to diets, such as plastics imitating estrogen, and causing population crashes and mutations in animals like frogs, and crocodiles. Also brain diseases like BSD / Scrapie / CJD / Kuru.
BSE (Mad Cow), first appears in 1984 and makes clear that there are dangers to radically changing the long-term diets of animals and humans by introducing substances and quantities of substances that have never before been seen in their diets. In this case, the introduction of massive amounts of proteins from meat (and brains) to replace vegetable sourced proteins in low quality animal feed, deniers point out that cattle have likely eaten meat proteins (via bugs) from time immemorial, though never in the quantities found in modern feed.
Mad Cow (and it's human variant vCJD [not CJD]) came from the well known, and well contained, disease called "Scrapie" (because it caused, among other things, the infected to rub up against things and scrape off their fur) in sheep and goats. The source of the disease was not known, but what WAS known was that it was common in some places, had been known of for at least 250 years, and that the meat AND brains of the Scrapie infected were human edible with no ill effects.
Scrapie remained a rare, species specific, disease that had no effect on predators UNTIL the introduction of industrial farming methods, specifically the use of low quality feed (farming byproducts, rather than valuable crops) that needed it's protean content supplemented by slaughterhouse waste. This introduced the Scrapie Prion into cattle feed, and eventually produced "Mad Cow Disease". But something changed in the transfer of disease from one species to another. It changed from a single species, predator resistant disease, to a food transmissible disease to which predators were not immune. (FSE, the feline version was first discovered in the 1970's, when domestic cats developed it after eating BSE infected cat-food. FSE is also found in captive big cats, thought to have been feed BSE infected meat. As far as we know FSE is unknown in the wild.)
My own theory is that all natural predators have a natural immunity / resistance to "Spongiform Diseases", the prion's of which are found almost exclusively in nerve tissue. This means that catching i
"We believe the orders are without merit, a waste of German taxpayers' money and we will fight it vigorously"
Sounds like someone that has a complete lack of respect for the law in general. "We don't agree with the law, we don't want you trying to enforce the law on us, and we're going to fight it even though it's law."
I do hope the German court decides to haul them out back behind the woodshed and explain how legislature, laws, and law enforcement work.
It's a typical attitude for corporations to have, "I will only obey the laws that I don't violate in the course of doing my business the way I want to.Laws that limit my profit, limit my manufaturing techniques, limit my advertising options, limit my product quality options, or force me to fufill contracts with consumers are illigitamet."
"Besides, everyone knows that something's only illegal when you get caught."
It would be interesting to read something about the unconscious hook zombie apocalypses have on us.
Easy.
All apocolypse fiction / fantasy is about dissatisfaction with the real world and how it works. It's about breaking down society and starting fresh. It's about second chances.
When I grew up it used to be Nuclear Apocolypse burning the world's sin clean. Then it was technology that destroyed us and our sinful ways. Or just ate us. Now it's themindless dead returning to consume our world.
And, of course there arre the religious versions, be them Christian or Mayan or whatever.
OUR facination with apocolypse, as I said, speaks to widespread dissatisfaction with our society, it's lack of justice and fareness, it's admiration and promotion of sociopaths, it's inharent injustice, it's dehumanization of the individual, it's open hostility to criticism, ect.
Once you have your e-Reader do more than just display text, you naturally want them to do more and more. This leads to graphics @ music, leading to games, leading to ebook stores, leading to internet access, leading to web browsing, leading to text editors, leading to instant messaging, leading to video chat and VOIP, leading to more powerful apps, leading to working and emailing, leading to office apps, leading to.... tablets.
So, as you can see, it's not an either/or question. Ereaders will become more powerful, and tablets will become smaller and easier to read, until the only difference between them is the name. If that.
Actually, in all likelyhood is that the real difference between ereaders and tablets is that ereaders are more likely to push most of it's heavy CPU work, and the bulk of it's storage off into the net, like with Dropbox, Google Docs, etc. And make those services more intagrated.
Well, at least it's an inexpensive rifle... You know, after you pay for the printer, and material, and... uh...
Well, it's not as if you can just run down to the local gun shop and plunk $450 down for a REAL AK-47... oh wait.
Well, at least you can control the quality...
I'm surprised someone with access to a 3D printer would be stupid enough to pull a plastic lower receiver up to his face, put his hand on it and pull the trigger until it failed.
Well...
If these guys want to be taken seriously, they probably should 3D print something that will prevent them from winning a Darwin award.
If you don't want to read my entire post, here is a summery:
Eugenics was/is NOT science.
Why? 01) Science requires use of the "Scientific Method" 02) Science requires repeatable results. 03) Took hearsay as evidence. 04) Took prejudices as evidence. 05) Took folk-tales as evidence. 05) Preformed no experiments. 06) Produced no repeatable results. 07) Took scientific data from other studies, and applied it without testing it first. 08) Produced ZERO "superior" or even improved people. 09) Eugenics never produced any "new" or revolutionary theories. 10) Eugenics never overturned any old prejudices. 11) Eugenics ever only reenforced the old prejudices.
The rest ===========
Did you actually READ the link you posted?
The FIRST two sentences (both the subtitle and the Editor's Note) called Eugenics a PHILOSOPHY, which is exactly what it was.
Here they are:
Our editorial from 1911 praising the new science of eugenics also hints at the darker side of this philosophy
Editor's note: This editorial was written and published in 1911. Although our editors of a century ago pondered some lofty aspirations for the orderly future of humans, it was only three decades later that the brutal reality of a Nazi social order suffused with a eugenicist ideal brought home the practical shortcomings of the philosophy.
Philosophy. Not Science.
Here is a link for you to read: Science and Eugenics. And here is the first paragraph:
The truth about the science of eugenics is that there is no science to eugenics. What passed for scientific method in the eugenics movement is almost laughable now; if it were not so disturbing. Eugenicists were trying to explain complex human behaviors based on second hand accounts and in some cases heresy.
Eugenics was based on principles of plant biology and its evolution
You are falling prey to the thought error of false equivalency. Engeneering too is based on science, but Engineering is NOT science. Science Fiction, also based on science, is not science.
Just because something is based on a science does not make it science.
Besides, goal of science is knowledge, and nothing else. (Some scientists may have goals that extend beyond knowledge, but not science itself.) Physics, biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, quantum physics, astronomy, etc. all only have the discovery of new knowledge about how the universe works as their goal.
Eugenics, on the other hand, ALWAYS had 2 goals. Neither of them being the quest for knowledge. The first (and stated) goal was to create the "Perfect Man". (A nebulous and poorly defined concept to begin with.) The second (and unstated), but more important goal of Eugenics was to justify the already existing prejud[g]eses held by those with wealth and power, and to justify their places in society as leaders.
Your "proof" even states that the goal of Eugenics was the creation of a "Perfect Man" (in itself a logical fallicy), a concept they don't even bother to define. What would a "Perfect Man" be? First, being realistic, the definition of a "Perfect Man" is different in different times, different cultures, and different situations. The definition even will vary from person to person. (BTW, the Christian bible defines being human as living in a state of IMPERFECTION, with God being the only perfect being, so if you're Christian, there's that.)
We may not be able to use the article to define what a "Perfect Man" IS, but taking the talking-points of the article, we can defi
No, all of Japans trans species genetic experiments involve actual physical breeding. Just ask the squid monster.
Actually, the only trans-specieal breeding project (other than the typical human+sheep/dog/cow/horse/ect) was done in Russia, where a doctor convinced a woman to have sex with a Gorilla in hopes of creating some kind of super-warriors for Stalin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov
Slashdot Mirror
Not only would painting guns pink keep men from buying guns to look cool... [and make each gun] have a minimum amount of flair in order to be legal.
LOL!
But you couldn't just paint it pink, it would need to be a ceramic surface that paints and dye's wouldn't affix to, so no matter how many times you tried to paint or color it, the paint would just flake off, and the dye's would rub off.
How about a law stating that all gun owners must wear "Hello Kitty" T-Shirts at all times, (which are to be available ONLY in sizes for young children), and that when shooting or transporting weapons in any manner, you MUST bedazzle your clothing, and carry your ammo and accouterments in a Dora The Explora back-pack. (And of course, whenever they accessed, picked up, or set down the backpack, that they had to sing the "Backpack! Backpack!" song, or repeat 6 times "Swiper, no swiping!" 4 times in a row.
...15 years after the Police, FBI, CIA, and Army have adopted them (but only if they didn't drop them), and throwaways are all computer checked bio-metrics too.
I'm assuming that, even if the police and military for some reason beyond my ken become early adopters, 15 years will be enough to iron out the bugs.
Though I may be over-optimistic.
A weapon is something that you really don't want to fail when you NEED it to work.
I can imagine adjusting and readjusting your grip trying to get it to recognize you in the heat of a gunfight.
I think he was being sarcastic.
Seems to me the guy could sue for vandalism (for the deletion of the video), and if they claim that there was no video and win, then sue for false arrest and abuse of power. Because if the video didn't exist, then they had no right to confiscate the camera, and had no legitimate reason the arrest him .
The problem is it is almost never their best friend. I was told by a criminal attorney in my state that the state decided to discontinue video recording police encounters because 99.9% of the time it was losing cases for them. The video evidence was almost never in their favor. So they stopped. The number of violent, dangerous, angry, sadistic cops on the force is nothing but an embarrassment for the state. Police brutality and perjury is not just routine it is expected by almost everyone.
All the more reason to record ALL interactions with the police.
I had no idea how unoriginal the "original" (liveaction) batmobiel was!
The Ford Futura. Humph.
Why not sue the government for enabeling TAX FRAUD?!
Without tax laws, there could be no tax fraud.
HEY! /. isn't obscure!
Yes, certain phrases seem to come to mind...
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Turn-about is fair play.
Sewing what you reap.
Reaping the whirlwind.
Your chickens are coming home to roost.
You've made your bed, now lay in it.
Hypocratic basterds.
I'm pleased to see them getting a small fraction of what they've got coming.
I wondered that myself.
Not having read TFA, I hope that the summery given is a simplified version of what he meant.
The world is too complex and interdependent for something to be all good (with no drawbacks), or all good (with no benefits), and he seems to be insinuating that GMO foods have no drawbacks, which is just as wrong as saying the have no benefits.
But, other than that, I basically agree with his assessment that we NEED (or will need) it.
The world population is growing too fast for our current food production methods to keep pace with demand forever, and unless we are willing to sit passively by during mass starvation on scales never before seen, wars breaking out over farmland, crops, seeds and food animals, and extinction as local peoples turn to endangered species for food, we will REQUIRE GMO foodstuffs that can mature faster, grow larger, and sustain themselves on less, and/or in different environments.
Otherwise we will outstrip our planet's ability to support us.
We've already stripped the oceans of their most bountiful harvests, and are eating and passing off fish we once called "Junk Fish", as the high-demand fish become scarcer and scarcer.
But we must keep in mind and learn from our experiences with adding new substances and quantities to diets, such as plastics imitating estrogen, and causing population crashes and mutations in animals like frogs, and crocodiles. Also brain diseases like BSD / Scrapie / CJD / Kuru.
BSE (Mad Cow), first appears in 1984 and makes clear that there are dangers to radically changing the long-term diets of animals and humans by introducing substances and quantities of substances that have never before been seen in their diets. In this case, the introduction of massive amounts of proteins from meat (and brains) to replace vegetable sourced proteins in low quality animal feed, deniers point out that cattle have likely eaten meat proteins (via bugs) from time immemorial, though never in the quantities found in modern feed.
Mad Cow (and it's human variant vCJD [not CJD]) came from the well known, and well contained, disease called "Scrapie" (because it caused, among other things, the infected to rub up against things and scrape off their fur) in sheep and goats. The source of the disease was not known, but what WAS known was that it was common in some places, had been known of for at least 250 years, and that the meat AND brains of the Scrapie infected were human edible with no ill effects.
Scrapie remained a rare, species specific, disease that had no effect on predators UNTIL the introduction of industrial farming methods, specifically the use of low quality feed (farming byproducts, rather than valuable crops) that needed it's protean content supplemented by slaughterhouse waste. This introduced the Scrapie Prion into cattle feed, and eventually produced "Mad Cow Disease". But something changed in the transfer of disease from one species to another. It changed from a single species, predator resistant disease, to a food transmissible disease to which predators were not immune. (FSE, the feline version was first discovered in the 1970's, when domestic cats developed it after eating BSE infected cat-food. FSE is also found in captive big cats, thought to have been feed BSE infected meat. As far as we know FSE is unknown in the wild.)
My own theory is that all natural predators have a natural immunity / resistance to "Spongiform Diseases", the prion's of which are found almost exclusively in nerve tissue. This means that catching i
Sounds like someone that has a complete lack of respect for the law in general. "We don't agree with the law, we don't want you trying to enforce the law on us, and we're going to fight it even though it's law."
I do hope the German court decides to haul them out back behind the woodshed and explain how legislature, laws, and law enforcement work.
It's a typical attitude for corporations to have, "I will only obey the laws that I don't violate in the course of doing my business the way I want to.Laws that limit my profit, limit my manufaturing techniques, limit my advertising options, limit my product quality options, or force me to fufill contracts with consumers are illigitamet."
"Besides, everyone knows that something's only illegal when you get caught."
It would be interesting to read something about the unconscious hook zombie apocalypses have on us.
Easy.
All apocolypse fiction / fantasy is about dissatisfaction with the real world and how it works. It's about breaking down society and starting fresh. It's about second chances.
When I grew up it used to be Nuclear Apocolypse burning the world's sin clean. Then it was technology that destroyed us and our sinful ways. Or just ate us. Now it's themindless dead returning to consume our world.
And, of course there arre the religious versions, be them Christian or Mayan or whatever.
OUR facination with apocolypse, as I said, speaks to widespread dissatisfaction with our society, it's lack of justice and fareness, it's admiration and promotion of sociopaths, it's inharent injustice, it's dehumanization of the individual, it's open hostility to criticism, ect.
The Chineese love a good joke. Even the one's they don't get!
This is hardly a new phnominum, they've been re-publishing Onion stories for years.
It's a false question.
Once you have your e-Reader do more than just display text, you naturally want them to do more and more. This leads to graphics @ music, leading to games, leading to ebook stores, leading to internet access, leading to web browsing, leading to text editors, leading to instant messaging, leading to video chat and VOIP, leading to more powerful apps, leading to working and emailing, leading to office apps, leading to.... tablets.
So, as you can see, it's not an either/or question. Ereaders will become more powerful, and tablets will become smaller and easier to read, until the only difference between them is the name. If that.
Actually, in all likelyhood is that the real difference between ereaders and tablets is that ereaders are more likely to push most of it's heavy CPU work, and the bulk of it's storage off into the net, like with Dropbox, Google Docs, etc. And make those services more intagrated.
Posted from my Nook. ;)
Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!
Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)
Both gay.
With each other, no less.
LOL. I almost posted it that way! :)
And hey, it's a plastic gun.
No, it's not. It's not even close to that.
Well, at least it's an inexpensive rifle... You know, after you pay for the printer, and material, and... uh...
Well, it's not as if you can just run down to the local gun shop and plunk $450 down for a REAL AK-47... oh wait.
Well, at least you can control the quality...
I'm surprised someone with access to a 3D printer would be stupid enough to pull a plastic lower receiver up to his face, put his hand on it and pull the trigger until it failed.
Well...
If these guys want to be taken seriously, they probably should 3D print something that will prevent them from winning a Darwin award.
You just shut up! (Waaaa!)
The headline implies he got an iPad, but in fact he got an iPad and an iPhone!
Phew! I was worried they took advantage of him for a moment there!
Choo!
Don't get too close, it's catchy!
The chainloaded "Grub" boot loader is actually circumventing the secure boot,
Then it's a violation of their licence, because they specify circumvention of security features as a violation.
Meaning that, according to Microsoft, you will have no right to use their products.
They'll be crying foul.
You bet they will.
At this point, none of us have enough information to even speculate as to the eventual outcome of this case.
Look out it's the Fact Police!
You're type of input is unwanted here! Don't you know /. stands for gut-reactions, ignorant opinion and Wild-Ass-Guesses?
Also, one ball blank shootin mofo!
Anyone got anything on Ghandi or Mother Teresa? ;)
Both gay.
If you don't want to read my entire post, here is a summery:
Eugenics was/is NOT science.
Why?
01) Science requires use of the "Scientific Method"
02) Science requires repeatable results.
03) Took hearsay as evidence.
04) Took prejudices as evidence.
05) Took folk-tales as evidence.
05) Preformed no experiments.
06) Produced no repeatable results.
07) Took scientific data from other studies, and applied it without testing it first.
08) Produced ZERO "superior" or even improved people.
09) Eugenics never produced any "new" or revolutionary theories.
10) Eugenics never overturned any old prejudices.
11) Eugenics ever only reenforced the old prejudices.
The rest
===========
Did you actually READ the link you posted?
The FIRST two sentences (both the subtitle and the Editor's Note) called Eugenics a PHILOSOPHY, which is exactly what it was.
Here they are:
Our editorial from 1911 praising the new science of eugenics also hints at the darker side of this philosophy
Editor's note: This editorial was written and published in 1911. Although our editors of a century ago pondered some lofty aspirations for the orderly future of humans, it was only three decades later that the brutal reality of a Nazi social order suffused with a eugenicist ideal brought home the practical shortcomings of the philosophy.
Philosophy. Not Science.
Here is a link for you to read: Science and Eugenics. And here is the first paragraph:
The truth about the science of eugenics is that there is no science to eugenics. What passed for scientific method in the eugenics movement is almost laughable now; if it were not so disturbing. Eugenicists were trying to explain complex human behaviors based on second hand accounts and in some cases heresy.
Here is the link to the whole article: http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Spring02/Holland/Splash.htm
Eugenics was based on principles of plant biology and its evolution
You are falling prey to the thought error of false equivalency.
Engeneering too is based on science, but Engineering is NOT science.
Science Fiction, also based on science, is not science.
Just because something is based on a science does not make it science.
Besides, goal of science is knowledge, and nothing else. (Some scientists may have goals that extend beyond knowledge, but not science itself.)
Physics, biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, quantum physics, astronomy, etc. all only have the discovery of new knowledge about how the universe works as their goal.
Eugenics, on the other hand, ALWAYS had 2 goals. Neither of them being the quest for knowledge.
The first (and stated) goal was to create the "Perfect Man". (A nebulous and poorly defined concept to begin with.)
The second (and unstated), but more important goal of Eugenics was to justify the already existing prejud[g]eses held by those with wealth and power, and to justify their places in society as leaders.
Your "proof" even states that the goal of Eugenics was the creation of a "Perfect Man" (in itself a logical fallicy), a concept they don't even bother to define. What would a "Perfect Man" be? First, being realistic, the definition of a "Perfect Man" is different in different times, different cultures, and different situations. The definition even will vary from person to person. (BTW, the Christian bible defines being human as living in a state of IMPERFECTION, with God being the only perfect being, so if you're Christian, there's that.)
We may not be able to use the article to define what a "Perfect Man" IS, but taking the talking-points of the article, we can defi
I call dibs on Australia.Sucks!
Then I guess that I'll just have to settle for http://AustraliaSucks.Baby/
No, all of Japans trans species genetic experiments involve actual physical breeding. Just ask the squid monster.
Actually, the only trans-specieal breeding project (other than the typical human+sheep/dog/cow/horse/ect) was done in Russia, where a doctor convinced a woman to have sex with a Gorilla in hopes of creating some kind of super-warriors for Stalin. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov
She never got pregnant. (Like THAT'S news)