Oversleeping leads you to breathe more (check it out yourself. Wake up and check your nostrils, then sleep some more and your nostrils start to clog up. It's the body's defense against overbreathing.). Depletion of carbon dioxide through constant hyperventilation is one of our greatest health problems, see
Buteyko http://www.wt.com.au/~pkolb/buteyko.htm
for more info.
Why so much money, time and energy is spend researching how to create more human beings, when the world is so clearly overpopulated right now.
Because people want to reproduce. It's probably a pretty basic drive to create your *own* offspring, and not take care of others'. People with low fertility and a lot of money will do whatever they can to reproduce. That's anyway how their "selfish genes" are supposed to work.
If 1000 people walk down a backstreet past an empty building, 998 will just pass by. 2 will throw a rock through a window and spraypaint the walls.
This just seems to be part of human nature; I haven't seen much change in the percentage of people who behave this way since my childhood (1960's) anyway.
This is an outright silly statement. Vandalism levels vary greatly over the years, and between different cultures.
It's one of those things you can do something about.
There is no natural law that makes people vandalize in a certain amount. Just take a look into different neighborhoods for an example of that.
It's very simple. Microsoft has huge resources. They can start to churn out very secure stuff if they put their mind to it. On top of that they can have agreements with their customers to reimburse them under certain conditions (like the credit card companies do today).
They will then lobby for legislation to make this mandatory for all software companies. And then small companies will not be able to keep up.
Mandatory security will slow development down and weed out small development companies. Is that what we want?
This is valid for all people in all cultures, and overlapping windows work on this principle. So overlapping windows have come to stay, because they work so well with how our brains work.
I know that America isn't very fond of free speech and democracy (ok, they say they are, but frankly it is one of the single most homogenous and confirmist countries in the world),
United States is, compared to other countries, fond of free speech and democracy, so the above statement is false.
The best economies have always been centrally and state controlled
No. The best economies are the market economies and are not centrally controlled. Central control s good at preventing things from happening, so if your economy is totally about people not getting at each other's throats, some control might be beneficial, but only in a very primitive economy, based on simple agriculture. In all other cases state control is bad, creates bad products that people do not want, and has historically lead to starvation.
Lies like this article should be combatted by radical politics, IMHO. Agitate!
May I guess that the "radical politics" will be about putting state control over as many things as possible? So the purported lie in the article should be fought with an extension of the state? In other words free speech, as the article is, should be combatted with government control. Sounds fishy to me.
But just because the Discordian religion probably appeared first in a fictional novel doesn't mean that the beliefs are not valid, even if a bit loony.
That's actually the *normal* way of starting a religion.
The sad thing is that soon the P2P programs and others will authenticate against their ad servers so you won't be able to filter them out without sending the correct string back to the ad server. And the string will be based on some kind of computed hash of the downloaded ad.
Then the counter measure will be to block them from view on-screen. And that might be overrun by encryption to the display device.
I use this chair from Stokke. I was going to buy one when I found one in the garbage room in my apartment house, brand new. Talk about throwing away money!:-)
banner ads are easily skipable - the blinking ones are instantly ignored by my eyes
The ignoring is done by the brain, which means you have added stress while your unconscious does the filtering. Same problem as lots of traffic signs in a street. You don't "see" them, but you do, unconsciuosly.
Where the hell did that come from? Why would I care what you are proposing to do to make yourself happy?
Where did it come from? Well, you said a society should have certain goals and only these goals. That was in the particular quote I had from you in my previous post. Here's the quote again:
What about our real goals: happiness, peace, love, understanding, joy and their ilk? I propose we organize a system that only serves those goals.
This is by-the-book standard communist agitation. If you meant something else by it, please clarify. It criticizes a non-communist society (and sometimes rightly so) and proposes a top-down approach. That is what you do. The consequences will be what I wrote. There is nothing beautiful about suggesting such an approach and then claim that the society you want is a different one from what it will turn out to be, and then blame someone else.
As soon as you propose things that are in line with individual freedom and gives no rights to groups I'll work with you. God knows there are many things that could be better and these things are solved best through legal protection of (all) individual's rights, free trade and tolerance.
Groups are made up of individuals, and as soon as you start talking about giving rights to groups it's downhill to totalitarian hell, whether conservative or communist (which is infinitely worse). In communist agitation there is an underlying rage, a rage so strong it wants to destroy the societies we're living in and does not care if what comes next is better, as long as the present is destroyed. So it becomes just another hate group.
You write:
Americans care nothing of others - its a engrained character flaw (and encouraged by your Corporate Government because it serves them) - you simply cannot see the 'other arguments' because you are conditioned to only care for yourself.
Had I been American I wouldn't care about your post. US is not likely to go commie soon. However I'm European. I did military service some 300 miles from the Soviet border. A communist take over was a real threat in many western European countries up until the seventies.
Communism grinds down very effectively your civil self, your pride and your culture. It can leave you barren of any mental facilities to take care of your self, and these must be relearnt (if you survived communism that is).
You write:
Its the idea that *YOUR* rights are more important than the rights of the community is what I would be against.
So then you have a communist view of society (communis = "in common"). So read this carefully:
1) Only individuals have rights, not groups
2) It's the marginalized people that suffer the most when people form themselves into "groups"
What about our real goals: happiness, peace, love, understanding, joy and their ilk? I propose we organize a system that only serves those goals.
So, then we have to get a committee to decide what these things, happiness, peace, love, understanding, joy and their ilk, are.
Then everybody can't agree. So we must find a way to make everybody agree, so we shoot those who disagree or place them to linger and die in labor camps. In this way by definition the society fulfils the goals of happiness, peace, love, understanding, joy and their ilk, because noone says it doesn't because those who would will be dead, detained or brainwashed. It is a common theme in communist thinking to point ot the bad things in a non-communist society and then hint at "we can, together, create a better one", not mentioning the actual methods waiting in the background. And the worse things get in the "new" society, it's allegedly because communism hasn't been properly or completely put in place of course.
FnkMaster said:
> I might end up with hip-cancer, but that sounds
> kinda unlikely... hip tissue isn't particularly
> microwave susceptible, I would imagine.
Problem is you have a lot of bone marrow in that hip. Best place to keep your antenna is probably at your chest.
Since we tend to judge progress in terms of improvement in health and longevity and not e.g. convenience, there are many improvements in our lives that start to seem to have an adversary impact on our health, notably "junk" food and indoor climate, which both are speculated to give rise to asthma and allergies.
Secondly, we have made technical improvements the last 50 years that have been targeted to improve on something that already exists, e.g. build faster motorways. Research into IT deployment in organisations the last 35 years indicate that IT is often used to cement an old organisational structure, instead of creating a new one. Slashdot is however an example of something "new" (ok, I know it has BBS roots but you get my drift).
I believe we will see whole new lifestyles (which is after all what humans are good at adapting to). I don't think IT will be the driving force in this, but rather gene technology and biology (combined with IT of course).
I believe the biological revolution will be so big that we will not know afterwards what hit us...
Pending the Russian/Ukraine speakers, I think it means Wormwood, since that text reads "malört" in Swedish and Chernobyl means "malört". There was a documentary here on TV on the disaster, The documentary took its title from that text ("Och stjärnans namn var malört", And the name of the star is called Wormwood).
HTML view is very important for me, and it should be possible to use it on a browser with a quirky or non-existent javascript/DOM implementation (and all browsers seem to have quirky implementations).
With the Internets increasing clout, journalists will be discussed, their track record scrutinized and people will have opinions on them in an organised and permanent way, pretty much like public famous-for-a-reason figures have it today in traditional media.
This will bring with it a much needed scrutiny of the "scrutinizers", at least much needed in my country.
"Dreams of Reason (The Computer and The Rise of The sciences of complexity)"
by Heinz R Pagels, ISBN 0553347101
/jeorgen
Re:The mandatory question for all stupid americans
on
Nobel Prizes
·
· Score: 1
guran writes:
Actually, the Nobel Peace prize is awarded by a norwegian comittee, possibly a gesture by Nobel to improve the relations between Sweden and Norway.
I think the peace prize came about through a Norwegian peace activist and friend of Alfred's.
The story goes that he would indeed fund a peace prize if she could give hime one good reason for the prize. And it seems she did. That prize was set up from the beginning to be a completely Norwegian affair.
Slashdot Mirror
Because people want to reproduce. It's probably a pretty basic drive to create your *own* offspring, and not take care of others'. People with low fertility and a lot of money will do whatever they can to reproduce. That's anyway how their "selfish genes" are supposed to work.
It's one of those things you can do something about.
There is no natural law that makes people vandalize in a certain amount. Just take a look into different neighborhoods for an example of that.
They will then lobby for legislation to make this mandatory for all software companies. And then small companies will not be able to keep up.
Mandatory security will slow development down and weed out small development companies. Is that what we want?
Cheers
/jeorgen
Better use big clips to keep the alligator in place ;-)
Then you will have to write your own viruses.
"Slashdot - rumours for nerds. Stuff that might have happened"?
This is valid for all people in all cultures, and overlapping windows work on this principle. So overlapping windows have come to stay, because they work so well with how our brains work.
United States is, compared to other countries, fond of free speech and democracy, so the above statement is false.
The best economies have always been centrally and state controlled
No. The best economies are the market economies and are not centrally controlled. Central control s good at preventing things from happening, so if your economy is totally about people not getting at each other's throats, some control might be beneficial, but only in a very primitive economy, based on simple agriculture. In all other cases state control is bad, creates bad products that people do not want, and has historically lead to starvation.
Lies like this article should be combatted by radical politics, IMHO. Agitate!
May I guess that the "radical politics" will be about putting state control over as many things as possible? So the purported lie in the article should be fought with an extension of the state? In other words free speech, as the article is, should be combatted with government control. Sounds fishy to me.
That's actually the *normal* way of starting a religion.
Then the counter measure will be to block them from view on-screen. And that might be overrun by encryption to the display device.
/jeorgen
euliberals
I use this chair from Stokke. I was going to buy one when I found one in the garbage room in my apartment house, brand new. Talk about throwing away money!:-)
banner ads are easily skipable - the blinking ones are instantly ignored by my eyes
The ignoring is done by the brain, which means you have added stress while your unconscious does the filtering. Same problem as lots of traffic signs in a street. You don't "see" them, but you do, unconsciuosly.
Where the hell did that come from? Why would I care what you are proposing to do to make yourself happy?
Where did it come from? Well, you said a society should have certain goals and only these goals. That was in the particular quote I had from you in my previous post. Here's the quote again:
What about our real goals: happiness, peace, love, understanding, joy and their ilk? I propose we organize a system that only serves those goals.
This is by-the-book standard communist agitation. If you meant something else by it, please clarify. It criticizes a non-communist society (and sometimes rightly so) and proposes a top-down approach. That is what you do. The consequences will be what I wrote. There is nothing beautiful about suggesting such an approach and then claim that the society you want is a different one from what it will turn out to be, and then blame someone else.
As soon as you propose things that are in line with individual freedom and gives no rights to groups I'll work with you. God knows there are many things that could be better and these things are solved best through legal protection of (all) individual's rights, free trade and tolerance.
Groups are made up of individuals, and as soon as you start talking about giving rights to groups it's downhill to totalitarian hell, whether conservative or communist (which is infinitely worse). In communist agitation there is an underlying rage, a rage so strong it wants to destroy the societies we're living in and does not care if what comes next is better, as long as the present is destroyed. So it becomes just another hate group.
You write:
Americans care nothing of others - its a engrained character flaw (and encouraged by your Corporate Government because it serves them) - you simply cannot see the 'other arguments' because you are conditioned to only care for yourself.
Had I been American I wouldn't care about your post. US is not likely to go commie soon. However I'm European. I did military service some 300 miles from the Soviet border. A communist take over was a real threat in many western European countries up until the seventies.
Communism grinds down very effectively your civil self, your pride and your culture. It can leave you barren of any mental facilities to take care of your self, and these must be relearnt (if you survived communism that is).
You write:
Its the idea that *YOUR* rights are more important than the rights of the community is what I would be against.
So then you have a communist view of society (communis = "in common"). So read this carefully:
1) Only individuals have rights, not groups
2) It's the marginalized people that suffer the most when people form themselves into "groups"
/jeorgen
So, then we have to get a committee to decide what these things, happiness, peace, love, understanding, joy and their ilk, are.
Then everybody can't agree. So we must find a way to make everybody agree, so we shoot those who disagree or place them to linger and die in labor camps. In this way by definition the society fulfils the goals of happiness, peace, love, understanding, joy and their ilk, because noone says it doesn't because those who would will be dead, detained or brainwashed. It is a common theme in communist thinking to point ot the bad things in a non-communist society and then hint at "we can, together, create a better one", not mentioning the actual methods waiting in the background. And the worse things get in the "new" society, it's allegedly because communism hasn't been properly or completely put in place of course.
So what is the sound of one IP packet?
FnkMaster said:
> I might end up with hip-cancer, but that sounds
> kinda unlikely... hip tissue isn't particularly
> microwave susceptible, I would imagine.
Problem is you have a lot of bone marrow in that hip. Best place to keep your antenna is probably at your chest.
/jeorgen
Secondly, we have made technical improvements the last 50 years that have been targeted to improve on something that already exists, e.g. build faster motorways. Research into IT deployment in organisations the last 35 years indicate that IT is often used to cement an old organisational structure, instead of creating a new one. Slashdot is however an example of something "new" (ok, I know it has BBS roots but you get my drift).
I believe we will see whole new lifestyles (which is after all what humans are good at adapting to). I don't think IT will be the driving force in this, but rather gene technology and biology (combined with IT of course).
I believe the biological revolution will be so big that we will not know afterwards what hit us...
In short, a vanilla HTML UI option.
This will bring with it a much needed scrutiny of the "scrutinizers", at least much needed in my country.
by Heinz R Pagels, ISBN 0553347101
The story goes that he would indeed fund a peace prize if she could give hime one good reason for the prize. And it seems she did. That prize was set up from the beginning to be a completely Norwegian affair.