I'd say if you have a good family, the decent place part is optional, too, barring actual physical assaults on your well-being. But yeah, for a lot of people the journey tends to involve turning out all right in spite of what life throws at them, so I'd imagine most wouldn't want to head back there.
Personally, I had a pretty cushy childhood. I jsut wouldn't want to go back because I was a cynical little bastard that no one liked. I prefer being a big cynical bastard that no one likes.
Wow, my childhood was spent chugging bottles of tabasco and beating each other with rolling pins, and getting religiofied, and having neither parent around occasionally... but those were the parts I enjoyed. I guess having happy parents changes one's outlook on a lot of things.
"I learned of a world where men left their families to go and fight for our country, and returned only to end up living on the streets... begging for their next meal."
Live in Berkeley for a year, and learn that the beggars who claim this crap are completely full of it. I'm amused that the poet is that much of an easy mark for one of the nation's oldest and most well-known con-games, though. (Seriously, there are a huge number of 30-ish beggars nowadays claiming to be vietnam veterans... I salute their brazenness, but i haven't watched enough Desperate housewives for my intelligence to have dropped quite that low yet.)
Brooms don't clean up sticky shit, and swiffer = cleaner and more effective than a mop, which you would normally use to clean up sticky shit.
While your point is perhaps valid, your example is rather excessively technically inaccurate.
Also, how exactly are you measuring production? If it's in dollars, then you're an idiot. "Wow, most of our dollars from produced goods come from luxury items, which are the most expensive and often replaced items in any economy? Well, shiver me timbers and avast me wooden leg!"
Firstly, I disagree with your arbitrary speculation regarding the feasability of what you are suggesting. However, accepting it as a premise and moving on:
With the resources and technology we have available to humanity today, we could provide for every human being on the planet, and we could all work only 20 hours a week.
People who are mentally mature don't want to be provided for, they want to provide for themselves. While most of us don't mind doing a fellow a favor and feeding him occsaionally, I'd say that in general it's better for us all if we try to pace ourselves to the most productive/smartest/most brilliant members of society rather than standing around waiting for those who are incapable to catch up, or carrying them along.
And if you seriously believe that this plan of yours won't kill human advancement almost entirely, I have some prime land in Florida you might be interested in, and I can also hook you up with a new car. Well, almost new, it was owned by a little old lady that only drove it once a month to get to the farmer's market...
(I would have made the quote about the technology not existing in the first place if people followed your plan, but it seems i was beaten to it)
Education equates to use of birth control and often a later start of sexual activity, statistically speaking. I'd say the current research indicates education as a pretty decent way to deal with immunodeficieny virus on a global scale, which is theoretically be what was going on with the foundation.
I'd prefer they worked on a cure for a disease which didn't essentially spread through stupidity, though, like Malaria or even Flu. Again, better for the overall world.
(Hypothetical, of course, since i'm not familiar with what exactly the foundation actually funds.)
Cause, you know, it's not like the unions are basically legitimized mob organizations that use intimidation, extortion and price fixing to get what they want by screwing the collective independent man over or anything.
I'll take my chances with the lesser evil, thanks. At least they can occasionally finish a job on time and under budget.
If newton's theory could also be used to explain why denser objects fall up and momentum appears spontaneously iwht no balance or energy input, then you'd have a point. As it is, you don't. Newton's work was falsifiable, as was relativity, making both scientific in nature. The argument of the article is that string theory, in general, is not falsifiable, which means it is not scientific but some other category altogether. Also, Newton's theories have never been proven false, their context has just been refined. Things still fall toward each other in the same manner they always have in the macro scale, thanks.
The point you should have made was "even working on useless things can lead to interesting lines of speculation that can be later applied to other things". No one could really argue with that.
That's probably because intelligence is an arbitrary term delineating whatever patterns of chemical-driven behavior the speaker finds impressive. The word essentially means nothing.
Every theory that's not scientific does not count as a disaster for modern science. It's just not really part of modern science (yet, until some clever bastard comes up with an appropriate test).
I think the GP was just pointing out that being a useless theory is not the same as being a cataclysm capable of destroying knowledge as we know it. Accepting the assumption of the article that it's a useless, unscientific theory, GP advocates ignoring it, like my theory about the apartment-sprites that hide my whiskey where i can't find it, rather than getting all excited.
Aye, it's called the assumption of statistical consistency and it's the reason we sciency types aren't allowed to look down at the 'god does it all manually' types. Faith is faith, wether you think that jesus pushes all heavy objects down personally or wether you believe that the ball falling down six billion times means it will do the same the six billion and first.
That said, it's an assumption that saves us a lot of trouble and seems to work so far, so, by the assumption of statistical consistency, the assumption of statistical consistency is good enough. Circles for everyone!
I don't think they're worried about people hanging out at summer camps and trying to grab kids at random, as that crime is virtually untouched one way or the other by the internet. They're worried about stalkers of specific children being able to identify a time and place when their target is vulnerable, which is a dramatically increased concern in this situation. Other than that, I think you've pretty much summarized accurately.
There is no 'inevitably become' in human endeavor, only cycles.
In this case, the cycle runs thus: Ideal free-market economy yields advantage to the strongest competitor, strongest competitor uses advantage to cement further advantage (ideally monopoly), monopoly leverages its mass in the political arena, people react violently, slaughter executives of monopoly, burn its stores, and sew the resulting fields with salt, new ideal free-market economy yields advantage to the strongest competitor...
The weakness of the system is, of course, that people generally have objections to the periodic slaughter of even the most opressive executives and their spouses and children, so we move to a not-so-free market to attempt to break the cycle at a certain point. Most people on/., being primarily private citizens, would like the cycle to be broken at the formation of monopoly, as that is seemingly their greatest point of advantage. Companies naturally want to break the cycle just before their leaders are turned into wind-chimes by angry customers, as that is their point of maximum advantage. Perhaps we should take the middle road and just try to keep monopolies the hell out of politics (unfortunately the hardest way to go).
That might have more to do with the fact that acetone and other industrial solvents are horribly bad for your respiratory system and skin (note that humans, like bacteria, are made of membrane-separated cellular structures). You'd think the fact that acetone is used to strip paint from things might have given her a clue there.
The spraying things down is a bad idea, because kids tend to chew things and I wouldn't wish lysol chewing on anyone. But removing ones shoes when coming inside is a great idea, let me tell you as a guy whose mother put him in charge of keeping the carpets looking clean as a kid. Not really anything to do with sanitation there, just plain old cleanliness.
A lot of people work on multiple systems nowadays (Windows at home, Linux/Unix at work, Apple OSes on the notebooks), so it might not be as bad as you'd think. "Oh, looks like my Mac is suceptible to viruses. Time to copy my behavior regarding my windows box." But yeah, hardcore supporters of a single system often screw themselves over, and I'm not just talking about OSes.
Well, flu can incapacitate you to the point where you can't do your job, two days of lost job can be anything from annoying to fireable depending on your situation. And once you've crossed 60 or so, or if you have wee children, then flu can kill you or members of your family. I'll agree that being paranoid about flu regarding yourself as a middling-young, healthy individual with a steady job is rather silly, and this applies to most of us in the US and Europe and Australia nowadays, there are still valid reasons to want the shot.
You're in for a rough time of it, because ALL soaps are antibacterial. It's part of their chemical nature to disperse membranes, which is going to kill any bacteria that hits the wrong side of your soap bar. Any soap that advertises itself as being antibacterial is being quite redundant, but if it helps them sell their stuff, whatever, eh. (It would seem that some of the US public have wised up to this after being forced to stay in school until at least 16 years of age, which is, I imagine, why you don't see 'antibacterial' featured so prominently on everything containing a long alcohol or a phosphate/acetate with a lipid tail anymore.)
So, yeah, if you won't use antibacterial soap you're going to be rather dirty, man.
I'm pretty sure the college I attended had at least three lecture halls with cell phone jammers. As it's in the US, I'm going to have to doubt your theory on its illegality, at least as far as posting a jammer operative within your own property is concerned.
It's not really hyocrisy. No one pretends that gambling laws are anything but a protective tariff for the benefit of indian casinos and state lotteries.
Not designed to prevent trouble kids get into voluntarily. Designed to prevent trouble kids get into involuntarily. Kidnapping, traffic accidents, etc. In all honesty, a lot of people will carry these perfectly voluntarily, as having people know where you are can be useful in the same way/situations that, you know, having people able to contact you through a cell phone is useful.
Food for thought, this tracking feature is not designed to track where kids go voluntarily, it's to trask where kids go involuntarily. If your son intends to sneak off to sleep with his girlfriend as a teenager, this'll do jack to track him, cause he'll just remove the battery. But if he's kidnapped by some religious crazy as a small kid or in a traffic accident halfway to wherever he was driving, the feature could conceivably save his life.
Seriously, do you really think that parents are stupid enough to try to use this to track a kid's illicit activities? Believe it or not, people have a vested interest in the safety of their children that has nothing to do with controlling them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say if you have a good family, the decent place part is optional, too, barring actual physical assaults on your well-being. But yeah, for a lot of people the journey tends to involve turning out all right in spite of what life throws at them, so I'd imagine most wouldn't want to head back there.
Personally, I had a pretty cushy childhood. I jsut wouldn't want to go back because I was a cynical little bastard that no one liked. I prefer being a big cynical bastard that no one likes.
Wow, my childhood was spent chugging bottles of tabasco and beating each other with rolling pins, and getting religiofied, and having neither parent around occasionally... but those were the parts I enjoyed. I guess having happy parents changes one's outlook on a lot of things.
Eh, he had me going until this line:
"I learned of a world where men left their families to go and fight for our country, and returned only to end up living on the streets... begging for their next meal."
Live in Berkeley for a year, and learn that the beggars who claim this crap are completely full of it. I'm amused that the poet is that much of an easy mark for one of the nation's oldest and most well-known con-games, though. (Seriously, there are a huge number of 30-ish beggars nowadays claiming to be vietnam veterans... I salute their brazenness, but i haven't watched enough Desperate housewives for my intelligence to have dropped quite that low yet.)
Brooms don't clean up sticky shit, and swiffer = cleaner and more effective than a mop, which you would normally use to clean up sticky shit.
While your point is perhaps valid, your example is rather excessively technically inaccurate.
Also, how exactly are you measuring production? If it's in dollars, then you're an idiot. "Wow, most of our dollars from produced goods come from luxury items, which are the most expensive and often replaced items in any economy? Well, shiver me timbers and avast me wooden leg!"
Firstly, I disagree with your arbitrary speculation regarding the feasability of what you are suggesting. However, accepting it as a premise and moving on:
With the resources and technology we have available to humanity today, we could provide for every human being on the planet, and we could all work only 20 hours a week.
People who are mentally mature don't want to be provided for, they want to provide for themselves. While most of us don't mind doing a fellow a favor and feeding him occsaionally, I'd say that in general it's better for us all if we try to pace ourselves to the most productive/smartest/most brilliant members of society rather than standing around waiting for those who are incapable to catch up, or carrying them along.
And if you seriously believe that this plan of yours won't kill human advancement almost entirely, I have some prime land in Florida you might be interested in, and I can also hook you up with a new car. Well, almost new, it was owned by a little old lady that only drove it once a month to get to the farmer's market...
(I would have made the quote about the technology not existing in the first place if people followed your plan, but it seems i was beaten to it)
No they can't. Workers can't do shit without an investment in equipment or materials, because they'll have nothing to work with.
However, a capital investment in, say, a robot can perform work in the absence of human laborers.
So I'd say you have it almost precisely backward there.
So you're saying we should become an Islamic theocracy? (Don't get the reference? Too bad.)
Education equates to use of birth control and often a later start of sexual activity, statistically speaking. I'd say the current research indicates education as a pretty decent way to deal with immunodeficieny virus on a global scale, which is theoretically be what was going on with the foundation.
I'd prefer they worked on a cure for a disease which didn't essentially spread through stupidity, though, like Malaria or even Flu. Again, better for the overall world.
(Hypothetical, of course, since i'm not familiar with what exactly the foundation actually funds.)
Cause, you know, it's not like the unions are basically legitimized mob organizations that use intimidation, extortion and price fixing to get what they want by screwing the collective independent man over or anything.
I'll take my chances with the lesser evil, thanks. At least they can occasionally finish a job on time and under budget.
If newton's theory could also be used to explain why denser objects fall up and momentum appears spontaneously iwht no balance or energy input, then you'd have a point. As it is, you don't. Newton's work was falsifiable, as was relativity, making both scientific in nature. The argument of the article is that string theory, in general, is not falsifiable, which means it is not scientific but some other category altogether. Also, Newton's theories have never been proven false, their context has just been refined. Things still fall toward each other in the same manner they always have in the macro scale, thanks.
The point you should have made was "even working on useless things can lead to interesting lines of speculation that can be later applied to other things". No one could really argue with that.
That's probably because intelligence is an arbitrary term delineating whatever patterns of chemical-driven behavior the speaker finds impressive. The word essentially means nothing.
So, yeah, hard to quantify is one way to put it.
Every theory that's not scientific does not count as a disaster for modern science. It's just not really part of modern science (yet, until some clever bastard comes up with an appropriate test).
I think the GP was just pointing out that being a useless theory is not the same as being a cataclysm capable of destroying knowledge as we know it. Accepting the assumption of the article that it's a useless, unscientific theory, GP advocates ignoring it, like my theory about the apartment-sprites that hide my whiskey where i can't find it, rather than getting all excited.
Aye, it's called the assumption of statistical consistency and it's the reason we sciency types aren't allowed to look down at the 'god does it all manually' types. Faith is faith, wether you think that jesus pushes all heavy objects down personally or wether you believe that the ball falling down six billion times means it will do the same the six billion and first.
That said, it's an assumption that saves us a lot of trouble and seems to work so far, so, by the assumption of statistical consistency, the assumption of statistical consistency is good enough. Circles for everyone!
I don't think they're worried about people hanging out at summer camps and trying to grab kids at random, as that crime is virtually untouched one way or the other by the internet. They're worried about stalkers of specific children being able to identify a time and place when their target is vulnerable, which is a dramatically increased concern in this situation. Other than that, I think you've pretty much summarized accurately.
There is no 'inevitably become' in human endeavor, only cycles.
/., being primarily private citizens, would like the cycle to be broken at the formation of monopoly, as that is seemingly their greatest point of advantage. Companies naturally want to break the cycle just before their leaders are turned into wind-chimes by angry customers, as that is their point of maximum advantage. Perhaps we should take the middle road and just try to keep monopolies the hell out of politics (unfortunately the hardest way to go).
In this case, the cycle runs thus: Ideal free-market economy yields advantage to the strongest competitor, strongest competitor uses advantage to cement further advantage (ideally monopoly), monopoly leverages its mass in the political arena, people react violently, slaughter executives of monopoly, burn its stores, and sew the resulting fields with salt, new ideal free-market economy yields advantage to the strongest competitor...
The weakness of the system is, of course, that people generally have objections to the periodic slaughter of even the most opressive executives and their spouses and children, so we move to a not-so-free market to attempt to break the cycle at a certain point. Most people on
That might have more to do with the fact that acetone and other industrial solvents are horribly bad for your respiratory system and skin (note that humans, like bacteria, are made of membrane-separated cellular structures). You'd think the fact that acetone is used to strip paint from things might have given her a clue there.
(/chemist)
The spraying things down is a bad idea, because kids tend to chew things and I wouldn't wish lysol chewing on anyone. But removing ones shoes when coming inside is a great idea, let me tell you as a guy whose mother put him in charge of keeping the carpets looking clean as a kid. Not really anything to do with sanitation there, just plain old cleanliness.
A lot of people work on multiple systems nowadays (Windows at home, Linux/Unix at work, Apple OSes on the notebooks), so it might not be as bad as you'd think. "Oh, looks like my Mac is suceptible to viruses. Time to copy my behavior regarding my windows box." But yeah, hardcore supporters of a single system often screw themselves over, and I'm not just talking about OSes.
Well, flu can incapacitate you to the point where you can't do your job, two days of lost job can be anything from annoying to fireable depending on your situation. And once you've crossed 60 or so, or if you have wee children, then flu can kill you or members of your family. I'll agree that being paranoid about flu regarding yourself as a middling-young, healthy individual with a steady job is rather silly, and this applies to most of us in the US and Europe and Australia nowadays, there are still valid reasons to want the shot.
You're in for a rough time of it, because ALL soaps are antibacterial. It's part of their chemical nature to disperse membranes, which is going to kill any bacteria that hits the wrong side of your soap bar. Any soap that advertises itself as being antibacterial is being quite redundant, but if it helps them sell their stuff, whatever, eh. (It would seem that some of the US public have wised up to this after being forced to stay in school until at least 16 years of age, which is, I imagine, why you don't see 'antibacterial' featured so prominently on everything containing a long alcohol or a phosphate/acetate with a lipid tail anymore.)
So, yeah, if you won't use antibacterial soap you're going to be rather dirty, man.
I'm pretty sure the college I attended had at least three lecture halls with cell phone jammers. As it's in the US, I'm going to have to doubt your theory on its illegality, at least as far as posting a jammer operative within your own property is concerned.
It's not really hyocrisy. No one pretends that gambling laws are anything but a protective tariff for the benefit of indian casinos and state lotteries.
Not designed to prevent trouble kids get into voluntarily. Designed to prevent trouble kids get into involuntarily. Kidnapping, traffic accidents, etc. In all honesty, a lot of people will carry these perfectly voluntarily, as having people know where you are can be useful in the same way/situations that, you know, having people able to contact you through a cell phone is useful.
Food for thought, this tracking feature is not designed to track where kids go voluntarily, it's to trask where kids go involuntarily. If your son intends to sneak off to sleep with his girlfriend as a teenager, this'll do jack to track him, cause he'll just remove the battery. But if he's kidnapped by some religious crazy as a small kid or in a traffic accident halfway to wherever he was driving, the feature could conceivably save his life.
Seriously, do you really think that parents are stupid enough to try to use this to track a kid's illicit activities? Believe it or not, people have a vested interest in the safety of their children that has nothing to do with controlling them.