We have 27 year old and 54 year old adults faking sex with avatars, one of which looked like a child. There's no child porn here.
Slight correction; there is child porn there, but there is no child abuse. Most people, for some reason, haven't gotten used to the idea that you can have pictures of things that didn't really happen, so they equate child porn and child abuse. I think you know that, but I think the point is worth making clear.
Hussein was complying, grumpily, with UN inspections. The US is the aggressor in a war which was no more necessary than one against any other murderous despot. It sucks that you started it, and it sucks that you can't get out of it without leaving the country as a wilderness of genocidal lawlessness, but it's your baby.
That's exactly the kind of might-makes-right attitude that is destroying America's international reputation. If the rule of the strongest is not considered acceptable between individuals, why should it be acceptable between nations?
Good points all. I basically agree with you; I was just playing devil's advocate. I'm very impressed by your knowledge of the subject.
As an aside, do you know if states have the right to secede from the EU? I'm interested in the parallels, but I don't know much about the specifics of EU membership.
>>The U.S. government spends more per capita on public health and health care than any country in the world.
You're correct. I can't find a handy link right now, but I've been involved in the health sector (not US), and 'the talk' is that the US has the highest per capita spending, but has very poor preventative care. Most other first world countries have better schemes for subsidising GP visits so that problems are dealt with before they require emergency surgery - it's the usual broken windows fallacy. A bypass for a heart attack is big spending, but could have been avoided by regular check ups and some cheap pills for blood pressure.
Here's something that at least partially supports me:
Health spending as percent of GDP, 2004: United States: 15.2% Switzerland: 11.5% Cambodia: 10.9% Canada: 9.9% Japan: 7.9% Mexico: 6.2% Africa: 6.1% China: 5.6% Russia: 5.6% India: 4.8% Pakistan: 2.4% Congo: 2.0%...despite high spending, U.S. "outcomes" in some basic public-health indicators often remain mediocre. For example, a WHO list places the United States 30th of 192 countries in infant mortality. (The 6.0 per thousand rate is at the bottom of the rich-country range, and roughly comparable to rates in middle-income countries like Chile and Croatia.)
The Constitution would have no power if states had a right to secede. If the Constitution contained a provision designed for the survival of the nation that disproportionately affected a single state and that state could secede from the Union for such an provision, then how many states would be left today?
I disagree politely. The Constitution and federal laws can have power without removing the right to secede if constructed so that there is a net benefit for all states, even if states suffer from individual provosions. In fact, I would argue that this should be the case, and was intended to be the case. Otherwise, states which suffer a net loss are effectively subjugated nations who would benefit from independance, and rebellion could only be prevented through military might.
It would be illogical for a state to remain in a union where they were being exploited; or equally it would be (coldly) illogical for other states to not exploit a state which could not secede and did not have enough support to protect itself in legislative votes. Consider two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Arguably this kind of exploitation happens with pork barrel projects - but presumably membership in the union is worth the price of subsidising industry in other states.
Sleeping, and presumably dreaming, is an important part of the learning process. You actually get a lot better at manual tasks and puzzle solving between the end of one day and the start of the next as your brain sorts and categorizes the things you've done that day. That's why when you're learning something new it's important to practice a little every day - you get the benefit of a night's extra learning as well as the learning the comes directly from practice.
I don't think there's anything unusual about dreaming about things you've been doing a lot. I've had those dreams about computer games, and also about poker and soccer while I was learning and practicing hard.
I was more annoyed than upset about Aeris - use a freakin' phoenix down. And don't give me that crap about only being 'knocked out' in battle.
For me though, it was the first two recruits in Cannon Fodder. Jools and Jops I think they were. I felt so responsible when I got those two brave wee guys killed:(
Kim Stanley Robinson made a point about this (if I understood correctly) in the Mars trilogy. Basically, while it's plausible to send mere thousands of people away on colony ships you can't really evacuate the entire earth. The logistics don't work out - you just can't shift that many people. Perhaps it could be done, but barring crazy distant-future technology evacuating the earth would be like trying to evacuate africa and eurasia to England through the Channel Tunnel. I suspect that, given the capacity of the Channel Tunnel and the global birth rate, the population would increase faster than it could be evacuated. Anyone want to do some math?
I can imagine a future where there are half a dozen space elevators running 24/7 loading colony ships, and people enter lotteries to win a place on the ships so their genes can get off-planet.
There is no evidence of any kind that any votes we changed through this server "switch" bullshit
With all respect, it seems crazy that the US lets political parties touch the votes at all. Most democracies (afaik) have their electoral system set up so that vote fraud could only be accomplished by a conspiracy of a dozen or more people who held key positions. Using physical ballots makes this much easier, by the way.
Where is the accountability? The voting system should be above reproach.
If you want to see change in the politics of the US, don't vote for a third party, vote for electoral reform.
...Or the UN and/or US bombing of Iran that will never happen...
Political nitpick, unless I grossly misunderstand how the UN works, they won't ever bomb anyone. The UN does not invade or topple regimes; the UN supplies troops to (hopefully) protect civilians from massacre and restore order in collapsed nations - when enough of the bickering factions that comprise it can agree. Bombing is not a useful way of protecting civilians.
The UN might threaten economic sanctions against Iran if they develop nuclear weapons. I don't know if Iran has signed any non-proliferation treaties that it would be breaking.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert on the UN - but I can't understand why people think they're a military force in the traditional sense.
Some say "kickbacks and corruption", some say "rewarding loyalty and encouraging capitalist innovation". Tomayto, tomahto. It depends if you're honest, or a Republican.
Are you saying that Democrats don't take "kickbacks"? Do bribes count?
No, no. He's saying that the Democrats are really Republicans. Search your heart, you know it to be true.
The "restricted freedom" (ie. no slavery) is akin to the GPL -- I grant you the right to do a lot of things, but you cannot take my software, redistribute it, and not give other people the same rights that I gave you. All people have the same access to source code that the first distributer had.
Slavery is a crappy metaphor to use, and once code is released under the BSD License it can never be "enslaved" again, just like the GPL. Nobody can steal your BSD code. The benefits you ascribe to the GPL are provided by the BSD license as well. If someone takes your BSD licensed code for a closed product, they are not required to provide access to the BSD code they used or the final product, but they cannot stop you from getting a copy from the original BSD licensed provider. Thus, BSD code is only useful as the basis for a commercial product if you are adding significant value anyway - and it is usually considered fair to allow people to profit from value that they have produced. There are some cases where politics intervene and you don't want certain competitors using your code at all (recent issues with third party router firmware, I think) - in this case the BSD license is not appropriate.
The GPL puts stronger restrictions on code use than you mentioned in the quote above. It probably should read:
I grant you the right to do a lot of things, but you cannot take my software, improve it, redistribute it, and not give other people the ability to use all your improvements for free. All people have the same access to source code and your improvements that the first distributer had.
I would expect Libertarians to have a fit at that (or at least at the notion that the GPL is considered "free"), but I've never heard a professed Libertarian commenting on code licenses (if anyone would like to reply, please do).
My last complaint is that the GPL enforces a "them and us" attitude to code development, where for-profit code cannot interact with not-for-profit code. The ideal which most GPL proponents aspire towards is a world where code is commoditised and the wheel never needs to be reinvented. But how many project leaders would declare their product free just so they could use GPL code? In most situations except for hobbyist programming, it's not even an option, so instead they reinvent the wheel in a non-GPL form.
Actually, you're subtly but importantly wrong about that. Evolution really must be true in the same way that the Pythagorean Theorem is true (if you disregard the nitpicky objection about Riemann geometries that other posters have already raised).
If you have a population (of anything) which has inheritance and mutation, and you selectively reproduce them based on some criteria, the population will shift to meet your criteria (or in the worst case, move no closer because no helpful mutations are available). It's a freakin' tautology. If you have a system like the one described, you always get that effect, and that's what we call evolution. It's not something you can argue about. Evolution happens. I happens in the wild, in labs, everywhere you look. The only argument you can have about evolution is whether it is responsible for all of the complexity and diversity we see in the creatures around us, or if there was something else going on as well.
An athlete's ability is determined by their genes (and dedication and training, of course), but they are only 'superior' based on the value system you put them in. You could just as easily talk about the 'superior' people with long, silky hair, and how their 'superiority' is genetic. Their genes are not superior in an objective sense, they're just one of many sufficient arrangements for our way of life.
From a survival-of-the-species perspective, genetic diversity is the best thing. What if everybody had the physique of a pro athlete, and then some kind of contagious wasting disease wiped them out because their body fat percentages were too low? The slobs and geeks would have been fine, but in that hypothetical situation the 'superior' genes are a liability. The broadening gene pool of humanity is an asset, and the gene pool is broadening specifically because survival no longer depends on having a narrowly specified genetic makeup.
I'm not sure what to make of your comment. I don't think you're replying to what I was trying to say.
Yes, America and New Zealand are different places, and as I said gun ownership isn't common but any non-crazy non-criminal won't have any trouble getting one. I don't see the relevance of your comment about empty spaces. There are isolated areas in New Zealand too, and I'm sure more of the people there own guns, because they have uses for them. I was trying to say that the problem seems to be that America has a different <i>attitude</i> to guns than NZ, or the rest of the western world - regardless of availability.
I could have a gun if I wanted, but I don't want to. My countrymen mostly feel the same way. Guns are not an issue here, and I like it that way.
What's all this talk of socialism and the price of freedom? Sounds like a non sequitur to me, unless you're saying that NZ is a socialist police state which is an... odd argument.
While I agree with you in principle, I'm looking for somewhere to post my opinion;)
I believe it was Atilla the Hun who first popularised the tactic of drafting troops from a subject city and using them as the garrison a couple of states away where they don't know anyone.
I am of the opinion that the second amendment will have no effect on any future rebellions in the United States. If the South couldn't break away during the American Civil War, I can't see how a disorganised, lightly armed mob could worry the modern US government, or even provide much support to a rebel faction of the army. Either the rebel faction would be ineffectual, or so massive that they could force a regime change by simply and nonviolently refusing to comply with the government. Production and logistics are extremely important to an army, and the civilians already hold them. A lost worker - or worse, a saboteur - would be much more painful to a hostile regime than one dude with a pistol. Discuss:)
Quick nitpick about SARS. I know a little about it, and feel the need to correct misconceptions. cut+paste from wikipedia: 8,096 known cases of the disease, and 774 deaths (a mortality rate of 9.6%).
It actually was a big deal that thankfully didn't eventuate into a global catastrophe - just like H5N1 bird flu. 10% mortality is huge for an infectious disease, and there's a very legitimate concern that with the ease of modern travel we're going to suddenly find a deadly, infectious disease spreading quickly around the globe. SARS was a likely candidate. Flu epidemics actually come around quite regularly and in varying potencies, but we haven't had a scary one since aeroplane travel became commonplace. The names to look up if you're interested are the spanish flu (1918) and the Hong Kong flu (1968). I saw a good chart once showing those, plus the minor epidemics that came every 12 years or so in between, but I can't seem to google it right now. Pandemic preparations are actually morbidly fascinating. There are unexpected problems, like pandemics of illnesses which are entirely treatable in a hospital - but that's no good if there are 30,000 serious cases in your town, and logistical problems if 10% of the population dies, like making sure the rubbish still gets collected.
As for the media, most of the reporting was done by fear-mongering retards. Scary headlines get more attention, often at the expense of truth, and that leaves the current situation where you, and many others, have been desensitized to the thread of epidemics by exaggerated reporting.
Anywho, it's just a pet topic of mine and I take any opportunity to lecture on it.
Slashdot Mirror
We have 27 year old and 54 year old adults faking sex with avatars, one of which looked like a child. There's no child porn here.
Slight correction; there is child porn there, but there is no child abuse. Most people, for some reason, haven't gotten used to the idea that you can have pictures of things that didn't really happen, so they equate child porn and child abuse. I think you know that, but I think the point is worth making clear.
Hussein was complying, grumpily, with UN inspections. The US is the aggressor in a war which was no more necessary than one against any other murderous despot. It sucks that you started it, and it sucks that you can't get out of it without leaving the country as a wilderness of genocidal lawlessness, but it's your baby.
Dude, that's a great turn of phrase you've got there. Bravo. I'd mod you up, but you're already on +5.
That's exactly the kind of might-makes-right attitude that is destroying America's international reputation. If the rule of the strongest is not considered acceptable between individuals, why should it be acceptable between nations?
Good points all. I basically agree with you; I was just playing devil's advocate. I'm very impressed by your knowledge of the subject.
As an aside, do you know if states have the right to secede from the EU? I'm interested in the parallels, but I don't know much about the specifics of EU membership.
You're correct. I can't find a handy link right now, but I've been involved in the health sector (not US), and 'the talk' is that the US has the highest per capita spending, but has very poor preventative care. Most other first world countries have better schemes for subsidising GP visits so that problems are dealt with before they require emergency surgery - it's the usual broken windows fallacy. A bypass for a heart attack is big spending, but could have been avoided by regular check ups and some cheap pills for blood pressure.
Here's something that at least partially supports me:
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=10
The Constitution would have no power if states had a right to secede. If the Constitution contained a provision designed for the survival of the nation that disproportionately affected a single state and that state could secede from the Union for such an provision, then how many states would be left today?
I disagree politely. The Constitution and federal laws can have power without removing the right to secede if constructed so that there is a net benefit for all states, even if states suffer from individual provosions. In fact, I would argue that this should be the case, and was intended to be the case. Otherwise, states which suffer a net loss are effectively subjugated nations who would benefit from independance, and rebellion could only be prevented through military might.
It would be illogical for a state to remain in a union where they were being exploited; or equally it would be (coldly) illogical for other states to not exploit a state which could not secede and did not have enough support to protect itself in legislative votes. Consider two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Arguably this kind of exploitation happens with pork barrel projects - but presumably membership in the union is worth the price of subsidising industry in other states.
"What would Jack Thompson do?"
I'd buy one of those t-shirts!
Sleeping, and presumably dreaming, is an important part of the learning process. You actually get a lot better at manual tasks and puzzle solving between the end of one day and the start of the next as your brain sorts and categorizes the things you've done that day. That's why when you're learning something new it's important to practice a little every day - you get the benefit of a night's extra learning as well as the learning the comes directly from practice.
I don't think there's anything unusual about dreaming about things you've been doing a lot. I've had those dreams about computer games, and also about poker and soccer while I was learning and practicing hard.
I was more annoyed than upset about Aeris - use a freakin' phoenix down. And don't give me that crap about only being 'knocked out' in battle.
:(
For me though, it was the first two recruits in Cannon Fodder. Jools and Jops I think they were. I felt so responsible when I got those two brave wee guys killed
Kim Stanley Robinson made a point about this (if I understood correctly) in the Mars trilogy. Basically, while it's plausible to send mere thousands of people away on colony ships you can't really evacuate the entire earth. The logistics don't work out - you just can't shift that many people. Perhaps it could be done, but barring crazy distant-future technology evacuating the earth would be like trying to evacuate africa and eurasia to England through the Channel Tunnel. I suspect that, given the capacity of the Channel Tunnel and the global birth rate, the population would increase faster than it could be evacuated. Anyone want to do some math?
I can imagine a future where there are half a dozen space elevators running 24/7 loading colony ships, and people enter lotteries to win a place on the ships so their genes can get off-planet.
There is no evidence of any kind that any votes we changed through this server "switch" bullshit
With all respect, it seems crazy that the US lets political parties touch the votes at all. Most democracies (afaik) have their electoral system set up so that vote fraud could only be accomplished by a conspiracy of a dozen or more people who held key positions. Using physical ballots makes this much easier, by the way.
Where is the accountability? The voting system should be above reproach.
If you want to see change in the politics of the US, don't vote for a third party, vote for electoral reform.
Fair call. An ineffectual bureaucracy is my favourite kind of bureaucracy ;)
I'll guess that's a tasty confectionary not a Greek dude, but either way remember to BRUSH YOUR TEETH!!!
...Or the UN and/or US bombing of Iran that will never happen...
Political nitpick, unless I grossly misunderstand how the UN works, they won't ever bomb anyone. The UN does not invade or topple regimes; the UN supplies troops to (hopefully) protect civilians from massacre and restore order in collapsed nations - when enough of the bickering factions that comprise it can agree. Bombing is not a useful way of protecting civilians.
The UN might threaten economic sanctions against Iran if they develop nuclear weapons. I don't know if Iran has signed any non-proliferation treaties that it would be breaking.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not an expert on the UN - but I can't understand why people think they're a military force in the traditional sense.
how do i get 2 xroad? im in crossroads. thx.
Holes? Are you kidding? The whole thing's just one big hole!
The "restricted freedom" (ie. no slavery) is akin to the GPL -- I grant you the right to do a lot of things, but you cannot take my software, redistribute it, and not give other people the same rights that I gave you. All people have the same access to source code that the first distributer had.
Slavery is a crappy metaphor to use, and once code is released under the BSD License it can never be "enslaved" again, just like the GPL. Nobody can steal your BSD code. The benefits you ascribe to the GPL are provided by the BSD license as well. If someone takes your BSD licensed code for a closed product, they are not required to provide access to the BSD code they used or the final product, but they cannot stop you from getting a copy from the original BSD licensed provider. Thus, BSD code is only useful as the basis for a commercial product if you are adding significant value anyway - and it is usually considered fair to allow people to profit from value that they have produced. There are some cases where politics intervene and you don't want certain competitors using your code at all (recent issues with third party router firmware, I think) - in this case the BSD license is not appropriate.
The GPL puts stronger restrictions on code use than you mentioned in the quote above. It probably should read:
I grant you the right to do a lot of things, but you cannot take my software, improve it, redistribute it, and not give other people the ability to use all your improvements for free. All people have the same access to source code and your improvements that the first distributer had.
I would expect Libertarians to have a fit at that (or at least at the notion that the GPL is considered "free"), but I've never heard a professed Libertarian commenting on code licenses (if anyone would like to reply, please do).
My last complaint is that the GPL enforces a "them and us" attitude to code development, where for-profit code cannot interact with not-for-profit code. The ideal which most GPL proponents aspire towards is a world where code is commoditised and the wheel never needs to be reinvented. But how many project leaders would declare their product free just so they could use GPL code? In most situations except for hobbyist programming, it's not even an option, so instead they reinvent the wheel in a non-GPL form.
Actually, you're subtly but importantly wrong about that. Evolution really must be true in the same way that the Pythagorean Theorem is true (if you disregard the nitpicky objection about Riemann geometries that other posters have already raised).
If you have a population (of anything) which has inheritance and mutation, and you selectively reproduce them based on some criteria, the population will shift to meet your criteria (or in the worst case, move no closer because no helpful mutations are available). It's a freakin' tautology. If you have a system like the one described, you always get that effect, and that's what we call evolution. It's not something you can argue about. Evolution happens. I happens in the wild, in labs, everywhere you look. The only argument you can have about evolution is whether it is responsible for all of the complexity and diversity we see in the creatures around us, or if there was something else going on as well.
An athlete's ability is determined by their genes (and dedication and training, of course), but they are only 'superior' based on the value system you put them in. You could just as easily talk about the 'superior' people with long, silky hair, and how their 'superiority' is genetic. Their genes are not superior in an objective sense, they're just one of many sufficient arrangements for our way of life.
From a survival-of-the-species perspective, genetic diversity is the best thing. What if everybody had the physique of a pro athlete, and then some kind of contagious wasting disease wiped them out because their body fat percentages were too low? The slobs and geeks would have been fine, but in that hypothetical situation the 'superior' genes are a liability. The broadening gene pool of humanity is an asset, and the gene pool is broadening specifically because survival no longer depends on having a narrowly specified genetic makeup.
I'm not sure what to make of your comment. I don't think you're replying to what I was trying to say.
Yes, America and New Zealand are different places, and as I said gun ownership isn't common but any non-crazy non-criminal won't have any trouble getting one. I don't see the relevance of your comment about empty spaces. There are isolated areas in New Zealand too, and I'm sure more of the people there own guns, because they have uses for them. I was trying to say that the problem seems to be that America has a different <i>attitude</i> to guns than NZ, or the rest of the western world - regardless of availability.
I could have a gun if I wanted, but I don't want to. My countrymen mostly feel the same way. Guns are not an issue here, and I like it that way.
What's all this talk of socialism and the price of freedom? Sounds like a non sequitur to me, unless you're saying that NZ is a socialist police state which is an... odd argument.
While I agree with you in principle, I'm looking for somewhere to post my opinion ;)
:)
I believe it was Atilla the Hun who first popularised the tactic of drafting troops from a subject city and using them as the garrison a couple of states away where they don't know anyone.
I am of the opinion that the second amendment will have no effect on any future rebellions in the United States. If the South couldn't break away during the American Civil War, I can't see how a disorganised, lightly armed mob could worry the modern US government, or even provide much support to a rebel faction of the army. Either the rebel faction would be ineffectual, or so massive that they could force a regime change by simply and nonviolently refusing to comply with the government. Production and logistics are extremely important to an army, and the civilians already hold them. A lost worker - or worse, a saboteur - would be much more painful to a hostile regime than one dude with a pistol. Discuss
Quick nitpick about SARS. I know a little about it, and feel the need to correct misconceptions. cut+paste from wikipedia: 8,096 known cases of the disease, and 774 deaths (a mortality rate of 9.6%).
It actually was a big deal that thankfully didn't eventuate into a global catastrophe - just like H5N1 bird flu. 10% mortality is huge for an infectious disease, and there's a very legitimate concern that with the ease of modern travel we're going to suddenly find a deadly, infectious disease spreading quickly around the globe. SARS was a likely candidate. Flu epidemics actually come around quite regularly and in varying potencies, but we haven't had a scary one since aeroplane travel became commonplace. The names to look up if you're interested are the spanish flu (1918) and the Hong Kong flu (1968). I saw a good chart once showing those, plus the minor epidemics that came every 12 years or so in between, but I can't seem to google it right now. Pandemic preparations are actually morbidly fascinating. There are unexpected problems, like pandemics of illnesses which are entirely treatable in a hospital - but that's no good if there are 30,000 serious cases in your town, and logistical problems if 10% of the population dies, like making sure the rubbish still gets collected.
As for the media, most of the reporting was done by fear-mongering retards. Scary headlines get more attention, often at the expense of truth, and that leaves the current situation where you, and many others, have been desensitized to the thread of epidemics by exaggerated reporting.
Anywho, it's just a pet topic of mine and I take any opportunity to lecture on it.