last reply was about the guy saying only canadians should be upset if they get blown up in a train.
fighting a war can be a neccessary evil, but wars aren't always guys lining up in 2 rows with shiny armor and pretty horses. we fought a huge war with russia, and the poor and marginalized were the fighters and casualties. the people pinochet and his predecessors "disappeared" were often innocents, and much more than the 5k america has lost in terrorism, and we endorsed that, if only by not saying to our lapdog "hey you. stop killing people.".
my whole argument has to do with somebody actually recognizing that this sudden burst of terrorism isn't new, or strange, or sudden just because this was the first time people were killed who wore designer clothes and had nice shoes.
we shouldn't have left them, but if we were truly moral we probably shouldn't have supported and glorified (at the time) a group of the greatest monsters and generally evil people of the modern era because we wanted to show russia that "no, we're right and you're wrong, stupid!".
if your government trained, funded, armed and supported the bombers for 10 years to fight what they considered a holy war against someone who just happened to be your enemy too at the time, then, after your use for them is over, you just let these rather unstable and ridiculously dangerous people loose in parts of the world they could nearly conquer with the skills you gave them, you probably shouldn't be too surprised when they suddenly show up at the other end of the table from you.
This is not just saddam, or OBL, or fuck, how many others did we set up, like kabila, who killed millions after we set up his government then let him go because we didn't need him anymore? pinochet? ANY OF THESE NAMES RING ANY BELLS?
the american people were not aware of the horrible acts being done in their names, but those acts were done none the less, with a callousness that sartre would relish.
so, its wrong, its horrible, the terrorists should die horrible, painful deaths, especially in their pee-pees, but moral outcry? yeah, but its shallow.
our civilians are dying, our innocents... what were the hundreds of thousands in chechnya? rwanda? chile? vietnam?
nobody cries, it's not on fox, nothing.
i'll say it again, they should die, they are evil.
the point is you are all evil, sins of the past, sins of the future, tell me how a suicide bomb is more evil than a mob lynching?
block their sites, hunt them down and kill them, i don't care, but don't act so completely holy and righteous on your quest for peace and liberty as though they don't feel equally justified in doing all the disgusting shit they do.
and you are both right, but they want the best for their group (devout muslims) according to their beliefs, as we do for our group, and we tend to screw other people to get what benefits us too.
pakistan and north korea have nukes, iran wants them. we already have them, and are the only country to have used nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon in the history of humanity. while i think the last thing this world needs is a bunch of nuked up countries with centuries old grievances against each other, how do we have the moral authority we always claim to not allow them to have any? honestly, the "we are doing whats right for everyone else even if they don't realize it and hate us for it" bit is getting old. attack iran, neutralize pakistan, wipe NK off the face of the planet, but don't give me all that victim bullshit, it's played out.
none of it is excusable, but don't lie and paint pretty red hearts on all of it like its a gay ass saturday morning cartoon where gi joe is going after the horrible terrorist, attack and kill them or don't.
yes but if someone comes to rob you and you smile at him and try to talk about the weather, you really can't say i tried to stop him. basically get a big sign that says "i am not a member of your country", or make a boat and sit in international waters, otherwise you do accept the possibility/inevitability of government, just like having a house other people can enter means you have to accept the possibility you might be robbed.
shit, every time i breath i subconsciously accept(or ignore) the possibility i might choke to death. ignorance of a thing does not make it go away. there are costs of living, but people keep doing it anyway.
a religion DOES NOT REQUIRE A GOD! is animism not a religon?
google def:
Religion, sometimes used interchangeably with faith, is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the practices and institutions associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.
I could say my religion is centered on my imaginary friend mr. bibbles who comes out of the radiator to give me magical powers of personal hygeine. religion isn't about structure, it's a form of faith. most often a form of faith that transcends one's own understanding of the universe.
atheism is a religion that believes there is no god, nor greater plan, and any act i perform has its given effect because of some part of the universe i may or may not understand at this point.
shit science is a religion, i believe that if i plug this tv into the wall pictures will come out and entertain me. do i know how? no, but somebody does. in most religions that somebody is a priest, shaman, or maybe just god, for science it's the EE who built it.
there is no need for a god to have a religion, just an understanding that causes have effects, and we do not always understand the causes. just like i don't know why i have to die someday, or why there are bad people in the world, or suffering. all religions would have slightly different answers, science would say "it's complicated but basically shit happens", and they all have their own opinions.
btw, science is not more right a religion than any other, it's one way of looking at the world that makes sense, just like christianity and whatever. science just puts the world in a point of view that allows you to do more with it, instead of putting all control in a god-figure.
i don't know where you live, but chances are you live in a country which has no moral authority to tell others what is right and wrong.
america = native americans, slavery, civil rights, kkk, etc britain = whole lot of imperialist killing germany = holocaust france = panama and suez canal, algeria, vietnam, other small shit ad nauseum
basically unless you are a canadian citizen, chances are your government/country/culture/etc has done something similar to what the terrorists are doing now. I'm not defending them, I'm saying you're not right either, and those animals were you 50-100 years ago. this has nothing to do with free speech, speech has never been free from those determined to stop it.
I agree with your last sentence though, but ask an african-american how he feels about his ancestors being killed for being able to read before you bitch about how hypocritical people are who argue for free speech.
7) The major networks do all the actual propoganda for you. It's like having your own PR firm. The media tends to magnify attacks it can dramatize, or that have victims you can sympathize with, which is why there is more coverage for an attempted suicide bombing in london, which killed nobody, compared to the hundreds of thousands killed in the russian war in chechnya, and the genocide of more than half a million people in darfur.
Not that I'm claiming moral superiority, I mean I sure as hell perk up when the news shows a tragedy happening in a place with a macdonalds in the background compared to some dusty 3rd world fuckhole, but that's part of being an arrogant westerner.
if you participate in representative government, you automatically consent to the idea of your local congressman and/or senator mucking about in every part of your life. It's the tradeoff you make when you choose pseudo-democracy over a dictatorship in which everyone but one man accepts the same thing.
Tax us in everything we do? Of course they do, thats how governments work. the internet will be taxed as soon as they see the growth slowing and people being hooked on it enough that taxing it won't seriously kill their brand new baby revenue stream.
You are naive sir, we do not live in a world with a few evil monkeys trying to hurt others out of ignorance, we are all evil monkeys trying to hurt others out of ignorance, even the best of us.
The genetically successful man also fits into his proper social surroundings, allowing him to attain the highest social standing and access to the "best" female(s). The two are contradictory, but hey, you can always go climb a tree.
fortunately, the someone to lose will probably not be a consumer.
it's bizarre to see capitalism work in practice as well as theory, but considering the telcos have had their monopoly for almost 100 yrs now perhaps it's time.
Sometimes (once every 3 months or so) I hear a decent band on the radio and pull down the band's albums to see how I like them. If they are good (ie not 1 decent song rest crap like most) I buy a number of band t-shirts off their site depending on how many cd's i dl'd. Bands get about 50% of tshirt sales, vs. max 10% of cd sales.
I don't like paying corporations so they can make slightly larger profits without doing anything useful, and having been one, i know firsthand that executives are the basically the lowest form of life. Also, part of capitalism is responsible consumption, and paying people who do nothing is destructive, while paying the people who actually create encourages better productivity.
some did though. playing everquest i could feel the mud-influence, and after release it seemed like a mud with gfx and a few other addons. as time went by though, they kept adding more and more "heh, the quake kids will like this", and "ok so we just give this to everyone" bs that dumbed the game down unbelievably.
ever play a mud? if you aren't skilled or paying enough attention you will die, a lot, and they can be frustrating, but taking that out of a game so you can sell to a wider audience just cheapens the game.
to this day my favorite rpg memories involve running around gfaydark in the dark trying to find my corpse, before i figured out turning up the gamma = infravision. got really good at finding corpses that way;)
but whatever, the mud crowd is such a tiny percent of the market compared to 9-22 yr olds who like boobs and running around killing things/people.
so i guess we just let it all burn then... Damn you capitalism!
my take on this is that we shouldn't blame spammers for spam, we should blame the MOTHER-FUCKING BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS who actually BUY from them, giving them an economic incentive to fuck the rest of us over.
Honestly, if you know anyone who buys that shit, please kick his ass for us, they support spammers, and are more to blame than 100 whatever-this-guys-name-was.
err yeah, sorry you're right but i believe those are more the exception than the rule. outside of mauna kea and a few others in extreme locations (which is most new scopes nowadays), ir is harder to get on planet.
storage is driven by need. Especially with sata raid controllers becoming the norm, and 2tb arrays cheap and easy to handle the drive for huge disks has slowed down. Also the fact that raid5 means you can lose disks without losing data helps, why have 2 500 when you can have 5 200 for less price and more reliability and speed?
Drive sizes will go up again, but not until mainstream users discover divx or its next counterpart.
Honestly I think we only have 200-250Gb disks now because of MP3, when you buy a drive the box has the size measured in number of songs stored.
For us, yes its been slow, but hard drives are marketing more to joe average nowadays, with the bleeding edge going to us. The revenue on the high-volume tivo, xbox and basic mce or dell system is much higher than a few raptors sold to gamers.
nope, many small mirrors are easier to manufacture by far (large mirrors have too many defects to be useful, or cheap), and adaptive optics requires that the mirrors have a modifiable geometry to properly compensate for the atmospheric interference. the break in the mirrors do not reflect light, so as long as the angles are correct it is not noticable.
yes, but with adaptive optics and reprocessing the difference is not as big, and the operating costs are nowhere close, and if they add enough additional capabilities (can't do ir/uv in atmosphere, but some radio could help) it might be useful. Few earth telescopes will ever rival hubble however, the enormous field of view coupled with the amazing contrast allowed by its orbit really can't be matched on earth, at least not without additional processing.
for actual scientific purposes, and not pretty pictures it should be as useful.
yes, but either is less useful without the other. it's a small thing, but it makes a huge difference because it adds meaning/significance to images we otherwise might not recognize unless you like to sit on your roof a lot.
Google maps v 1 didn't really blow me away. there were cool features, but it was mostly like, "wow, but so?". This is frickin' incredible. Seeing the world top-down doesn't always make sense to us, but with the points of reference you can get a much better sense of perspective. Real street maps should be like this, but they couldn't be big enough.
Someone should make a pda that can snag this stuff via gps.
Slashdot Mirror
last reply was about the guy saying only canadians should be upset if they get blown up in a train.
fighting a war can be a neccessary evil, but wars aren't always guys lining up in 2 rows with shiny armor and pretty horses. we fought a huge war with russia, and the poor and marginalized were the fighters and casualties. the people pinochet and his predecessors "disappeared" were often innocents, and much more than the 5k america has lost in terrorism, and we endorsed that, if only by not saying to our lapdog "hey you. stop killing people.".
my whole argument has to do with somebody actually recognizing that this sudden burst of terrorism isn't new, or strange, or sudden just because this was the first time people were killed who wore designer clothes and had nice shoes.
we shouldn't have left them, but if we were truly moral we probably shouldn't have supported and glorified (at the time) a group of the greatest monsters and generally evil people of the modern era because we wanted to show russia that "no, we're right and you're wrong, stupid!".
no.
if your government trained, funded, armed and supported the bombers for 10 years to fight what they considered a holy war against someone who just happened to be your enemy too at the time, then, after your use for them is over, you just let these rather unstable and ridiculously dangerous people loose in parts of the world they could nearly conquer with the skills you gave them, you probably shouldn't be too surprised when they suddenly show up at the other end of the table from you.
This is not just saddam, or OBL, or fuck, how many others did we set up, like kabila, who killed millions after we set up his government then let him go because we didn't need him anymore? pinochet? ANY OF THESE NAMES RING ANY BELLS?
the american people were not aware of the horrible acts being done in their names, but those acts were done none the less, with a callousness that sartre would relish.
so, its wrong, its horrible, the terrorists should die horrible, painful deaths, especially in their pee-pees, but moral outcry? yeah, but its shallow.
our civilians are dying, our innocents... what were the hundreds of thousands in chechnya? rwanda? chile? vietnam?
nobody cries, it's not on fox, nothing.
i'll say it again, they should die, they are evil.
but we aren't neccessarily good anymore.
the point is you are all evil, sins of the past, sins of the future, tell me how a suicide bomb is more evil than a mob lynching?
block their sites, hunt them down and kill them, i don't care, but don't act so completely holy and righteous on your quest for peace and liberty as though they don't feel equally justified in doing all the disgusting shit they do.
and you are both right, but they want the best for their group (devout muslims) according to their beliefs, as we do for our group, and we tend to screw other people to get what benefits us too.
pakistan and north korea have nukes, iran wants them. we already have them, and are the only country to have used nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon in the history of humanity. while i think the last thing this world needs is a bunch of nuked up countries with centuries old grievances against each other, how do we have the moral authority we always claim to not allow them to have any? honestly, the "we are doing whats right for everyone else even if they don't realize it and hate us for it" bit is getting old. attack iran, neutralize pakistan, wipe NK off the face of the planet, but don't give me all that victim bullshit, it's played out.
none of it is excusable, but don't lie and paint pretty red hearts on all of it like its a gay ass saturday morning cartoon where gi joe is going after the horrible terrorist, attack and kill them or don't.
yes but if someone comes to rob you and you smile at him and try to talk about the weather, you really can't say i tried to stop him. basically get a big sign that says "i am not a member of your country", or make a boat and sit in international waters, otherwise you do accept the possibility/inevitability of government, just like having a house other people can enter means you have to accept the possibility you might be robbed.
shit, every time i breath i subconsciously accept(or ignore) the possibility i might choke to death. ignorance of a thing does not make it go away. there are costs of living, but people keep doing it anyway.
a religion DOES NOT REQUIRE A GOD!
is animism not a religon?
google def:
I could say my religion is centered on my imaginary friend mr. bibbles who comes out of the radiator to give me magical powers of personal hygeine. religion isn't about structure, it's a form of faith. most often a form of faith that transcends one's own understanding of the universe.
atheism is a religion that believes there is no god, nor greater plan, and any act i perform has its given effect because of some part of the universe i may or may not understand at this point.
shit science is a religion, i believe that if i plug this tv into the wall pictures will come out and entertain me. do i know how? no, but somebody does. in most religions that somebody is a priest, shaman, or maybe just god, for science it's the EE who built it.
there is no need for a god to have a religion, just an understanding that causes have effects, and we do not always understand the causes. just like i don't know why i have to die someday, or why there are bad people in the world, or suffering. all religions would have slightly different answers, science would say "it's complicated but basically shit happens", and they all have their own opinions.
btw, science is not more right a religion than any other, it's one way of looking at the world that makes sense, just like christianity and whatever. science just puts the world in a point of view that allows you to do more with it, instead of putting all control in a god-figure.
ok, shut up.
i don't know where you live, but chances are you live in a country which has no moral authority to tell others what is right and wrong.
america = native americans, slavery, civil rights, kkk, etc
britain = whole lot of imperialist killing
germany = holocaust
france = panama and suez canal, algeria, vietnam, other small shit
ad nauseum
basically unless you are a canadian citizen, chances are your government/country/culture/etc has done something similar to what the terrorists are doing now. I'm not defending them, I'm saying you're not right either, and those animals were you 50-100 years ago. this has nothing to do with free speech, speech has never been free from those determined to stop it.
I agree with your last sentence though, but ask an african-american how he feels about his ancestors being killed for being able to read before you bitch about how hypocritical people are who argue for free speech.
if i may add:
7) The major networks do all the actual propoganda for you. It's like having your own PR firm. The media tends to magnify attacks it can dramatize, or that have victims you can sympathize with, which is why there is more coverage for an attempted suicide bombing in london, which killed nobody, compared to the hundreds of thousands killed in the russian war in chechnya, and the genocide of more than half a million people in darfur.
Not that I'm claiming moral superiority, I mean I sure as hell perk up when the news shows a tragedy happening in a place with a macdonalds in the background compared to some dusty 3rd world fuckhole, but that's part of being an arrogant westerner.
if you participate in representative government, you automatically consent to the idea of your local congressman and/or senator mucking about in every part of your life. It's the tradeoff you make when you choose pseudo-democracy over a dictatorship in which everyone but one man accepts the same thing.
Tax us in everything we do? Of course they do, thats how governments work. the internet will be taxed as soon as they see the growth slowing and people being hooked on it enough that taxing it won't seriously kill their brand new baby revenue stream.
You are naive sir, we do not live in a world with a few evil monkeys trying to hurt others out of ignorance, we are all evil monkeys trying to hurt others out of ignorance, even the best of us.
no, a good/evil soul implies a post-existence accounting. a good/evil person/place/thing implies judgement.
people can judge, we judged hitler evil and not just ethically challenged and I'm pretty sure some atheists would agree.
also, is it not good (at least for some people) to be ethical towards your fellow man?
even atheism is a religion.
The genetically successful man also fits into his proper social surroundings, allowing him to attain the highest social standing and access to the "best" female(s). The two are contradictory, but hey, you can always go climb a tree.
This is great power RISP prasessaw!
dude, what's an a4?
haha, yeah sorry, my bad, but it is funny. just like all you bastards running around with American Express and Starbucks.
The Foot Will Rise Again!
fortunately, the someone to lose will probably not be a consumer.
it's bizarre to see capitalism work in practice as well as theory, but considering the telcos have had their monopoly for almost 100 yrs now perhaps it's time.
I'm in the same boat but with an exception.
Sometimes (once every 3 months or so) I hear a decent band on the radio and pull down the band's albums to see how I like them. If they are good (ie not 1 decent song rest crap like most) I buy a number of band t-shirts off their site depending on how many cd's i dl'd. Bands get about 50% of tshirt sales, vs. max 10% of cd sales.
I don't like paying corporations so they can make slightly larger profits without doing anything useful, and having been one, i know firsthand that executives are the basically the lowest form of life. Also, part of capitalism is responsible consumption, and paying people who do nothing is destructive, while paying the people who actually create encourages better productivity.
like the acronym, should trademark it and make up posters.
some did though. playing everquest i could feel the mud-influence, and after release it seemed like a mud with gfx and a few other addons. as time went by though, they kept adding more and more "heh, the quake kids will like this", and "ok so we just give this to everyone" bs that dumbed the game down unbelievably.
;)
ever play a mud? if you aren't skilled or paying enough attention you will die, a lot, and they can be frustrating, but taking that out of a game so you can sell to a wider audience just cheapens the game.
to this day my favorite rpg memories involve running around gfaydark in the dark trying to find my corpse, before i figured out turning up the gamma = infravision. got really good at finding corpses that way
but whatever, the mud crowd is such a tiny percent of the market compared to 9-22 yr olds who like boobs and running around killing things/people.
so i guess we just let it all burn then...
Damn you capitalism!
oh... really? well i guess it couldn't hurt to just try it out then? (dashes off to check email)
we are such easily controlled animals.
how... sad...ish
my take on this is that we shouldn't blame spammers for spam, we should blame the MOTHER-FUCKING BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS who actually BUY from them, giving them an economic incentive to fuck the rest of us over.
Honestly, if you know anyone who buys that shit, please kick his ass for us, they support spammers, and are more to blame than 100 whatever-this-guys-name-was.
yeah I'm there too, torn between poor guy and hooray.
so i suppose my comment on this is:
huh.
err yeah, sorry you're right but i believe those are more the exception than the rule. outside of mauna kea and a few others in extreme locations (which is most new scopes nowadays), ir is harder to get on planet.
storage is driven by need. Especially with sata raid controllers becoming the norm, and 2tb arrays cheap and easy to handle the drive for huge disks has slowed down. Also the fact that raid5 means you can lose disks without losing data helps, why have 2 500 when you can have 5 200 for less price and more reliability and speed?
Drive sizes will go up again, but not until mainstream users discover divx or its next counterpart.
Honestly I think we only have 200-250Gb disks now because of MP3, when you buy a drive the box has the size measured in number of songs stored.
For us, yes its been slow, but hard drives are marketing more to joe average nowadays, with the bleeding edge going to us. The revenue on the high-volume tivo, xbox and basic mce or dell system is much higher than a few raptors sold to gamers.
nope, many small mirrors are easier to manufacture by far (large mirrors have too many defects to be useful, or cheap), and adaptive optics requires that the mirrors have a modifiable geometry to properly compensate for the atmospheric interference. the break in the mirrors do not reflect light, so as long as the angles are correct it is not noticable.
yes, but with adaptive optics and reprocessing the difference is not as big, and the operating costs are nowhere close, and if they add enough additional capabilities (can't do ir/uv in atmosphere, but some radio could help) it might be useful. Few earth telescopes will ever rival hubble however, the enormous field of view coupled with the amazing contrast allowed by its orbit really can't be matched on earth, at least not without additional processing.
for actual scientific purposes, and not pretty pictures it should be as useful.
yes, but either is less useful without the other. it's a small thing, but it makes a huge difference because it adds meaning/significance to images we otherwise might not recognize unless you like to sit on your roof a lot.
Google maps v 1 didn't really blow me away. there were cool features, but it was mostly like, "wow, but so?". This is frickin' incredible. Seeing the world top-down doesn't always make sense to us, but with the points of reference you can get a much better sense of perspective. Real street maps should be like this, but they couldn't be big enough.
Someone should make a pda that can snag this stuff via gps.