These these kind of curtailments of liberties during wartime have a long history in America. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, FDR not only spied domestically but put an entire ethnic group in "jail" clearly violating equal protection(which is still on the books today as precedent). Truman and LBJ both certainly pressed the limits of presidential power during their wars.
WWII December 1941-August 1945 (4 years) War on Terror September 2001 - January 2006+ (5+ years)
Even today, if you read the Bush and Kerry sections, you will find the phrasing of the Kerry section to be much more favorable than that of Bush (if you have ever studies actual propaganda, you will recognize the technique). The concentration of various facts to be similarly more favorable - selective editing - I'm sure the many Bush haters on here are itching to tell me that both are accurate. They are not - in either case.
Riddle me this... If there is propaganda going on the anti-bush side, then why is it innefective?
Certainly with all this anti-Bush rhetorik he would have actually lost the elections?
Don't blame me... I voted for him in 2000 (and abstained in 2000), but I didn't think he would put us in a needless war that will result in an Iran/Iraqi Islamic Superstate.
But I realized I was on the wrong side... Sometimes you just have to suck it up and say... Yeah, the democrats suck, but they aren't dragging us to hell in a hand basket right now and doing anti-constitutional things.
Ah well... Maybe Giuliani or Mccain in 2008. These neo-cons in power are false Republicans.
I'll start a company that will freeze people and keep them in safe storage for a defined period of time for a maintenance fee. People could keep money in their savings account and freeze themselves for 10 or 100 years, and wake up to collect their money. It'd feel like a long nights sleep and winning the lottery afterwards.
I can't remember it off the top of my head but Captain Picard was talking with a guy they revieved from the 1990's and he said:
Frozen Guy: Well I bet all my investments have made me a killing! Picard: But we don't have a monetary system in the Federation. More or less we don't have money anymore. Everything is provided by this nifty replicators. Earl gray please! Frozen Guy: Oh my... Um... Yeah...
Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life.
Um... No. Read the bible sometime.
If you are a Christian than your soul sits around in limbo until Judgement day. So if they bring you back to life, you won't come back from heaven nor hell because you never went there.
I think if you are Muslim you do get instant gratification though.
I think in the Buddhist tradition you've got 49 days of being dead before you are reborn.
However all of the above is bunk...
However, if you really found the truth of what really happens when you die, you'd probaly shit your pants.
Then again, there is a reason why dead bodies release their bowels upon death...
If the games were that good to begin with, people wouldn't have waited til they have become second hand and bought them when they were new. Secondly, if they were really that good of a game then chances are people would be less willing to part awith them for cash, making them harder to buy second hand.
This is just an exscuse for greed and lack of effort by developers... Truth be told, I bet uninnovative sequels perpetuate second hand retail industry.
I don't play many console games except when I go over to a friends house (who owns all the consoles pretty much ever made) and he pointed out something interesting when we played RE4 on his game cube. The cut scenes melded perfectly between gameplay and the cenematics.
He handed the controller to me and I died a few times because I couldn't tell where the CGI sequence began and ended which resulted in me having to start playing right away. I was finding myself just sitting there waiting for the screen to change and then the guy with chainsaw lops me into peices. Although a bit annoying for a newbie, there wasn't that jaring feature where you had to jump from gameplay into a non-related 20 minute cgi sequence.
It was rather seamless.
I will have to say that back in 1997 I didn't mind the FF7 CGIs mostly because they were draw dropping, but these days they have to flow well.
You're coming dangerously close to ascribing a sanctity of human mind and free will there! People don't like hearing that they have free will or anything near a "soul" anymore, they'd rather find themselves equivalent with a bunch of wires so they can manipulate each other's brains (management, psychiatry, propaganda) without rousing their conscience!
I know you are being sarcasing, but I want to put a Zen Buddhist slant on what you are saying:
One does not have free will until one accepts there was never any there to begin with. Once you have realized this... You can start to truly have free will.
At the current rate of technological progress, I do not believe we will have a computer powerful enough to model the human brain until 2015 or 2020. Even then, it'll be a Government-owned supercomputer likely used for weapon simulation. We won't see Strong AI researchers get hold of such machines until maybe 2060 and (if the usual development patterns hold) nobody will have any idea how to turn the raw computing power into something useful until 2100 at the earliest.
I think you might be underestimating accelerating returns of computer technology. Its not linear, but exponential. We'll have a bump around 2017 when Silicon will reach its theoretical limit, but by 2013 we might have enough for at least one human mind level of functioning so we might have some type of reasonable AI (enough for a bot to wash your dishes or drive your car).
But we are least 50 years off before the machines strategically out think of... I could be horribly wrong about that.
Accountants enjoy new freedom of book keeping with "theoretical losses" of arbitrary fitgures they pulled off the top of their head:
Accountant: So how much did you think we lost because of computer crime?
IT Guy: I dunno... Our server web server went down for a while and I joked that it was because some guy was hitting F5 in China.
Accountant: Ah! Excellent... *writes something down* So how much do you think it cost us.
IT Guy: Oh I dunno... Whats the cost of me getting up out of my seat to make a phone call to the guy down in the server room to boot it... Oh $0.35 cents?
Accountant: Hrm... *scratches chin* No good. But if I multiply it by inflation and theoretical estimates and carry the zero. By golly! I think we've lost over $2,000,000.35 to computer crime! Thats one hell of a tax break. Daddies going to be rolling in the bonus this year!
Oh my god!!! Seriously, are all the old ones becoming obsolete or something?
Well considering the fact no matter how many current drugs we take, that we still die of natural causes... I'd still say they have a bit of work to do.
Since terrorists have shown they like to bomb the subway systems (see Madrid, London), and since they have shown they like to use cell phones as trigger points for their bombs (see Madrid), isn't putting cell phone service in the New York City subway system giving potential terrorists a new weapon to use?
They also use washing machine timers and RC car remotes yet we don't see people clammoring about those products.
Truth of the matter is that if someone wants to bomb the NYC sub system, they will try it regardless of what technologies you ban nor how many restrictions you place on its passengers.
Whether they use a cell phone a cell phone or a crude self detonation involving two stones and a pack of matches will depend on the situation and determination of the terrorist.
The good news is that you won't get infected until you observe the virus.
The bad news is that if you do observe the virus, you have a 50/50 chance of a dead cat inside your computer.
Re:Don't suppose the No Nukes freaks will apologiz
on
Pluto Probe Launches
·
· Score: 1
You know - I support nuclear power, and launches with RTG's onboard scare the hell out of me
I'll be scared when one blows up in the atmosphere which releases enough radiation to where zombies come back to life to eat the living. Until, then I'll be more scared about terrorism and drunk drivers, or drunk terrorists hitting me with a car on the way to wherever the hell they are going to blow themselves up.
But seriously, humanity needs to be getting over being scared of things that have a low percentage of killing them. Even if we have 10 Chernobyl like meltdown's tomorrow, the majority of us would probaly be unaffected in our daily physical health except maybe being run over by crazy people who are in a rush to to supermarket because they think the world is going to end. Chances are you going to die of old age anyways.
1. Don't have kids until you can support them yourself (including paying for school, food, clothing and shelter).
Why not just forgo this all together and get a vasectomy or get your tubes tied?
Is there really any reason to have children other than primal desires to reproduce? Is getting off on that natural desire for false immortality really that important. Or do people really think they are going to live vicariously through their children.
Can anyone really name me any real reason of having children besides that addicting joy feeling or continuing the human race?
On a more individual level, human reproduction is the most illogical thing that a person can do.
With that said, some people do unconditionally love their children. Not as many as their should be though.
What does the "Natural Gas Technologies II Conference - Ingenuity & Innovation" have to do with anything?
Well, considering the huge amount of bullshit coming out of Bellsouth's PR marketing department, I'd say it would be awfully wasteful to let all that methane by-product go to waste.
Will some middle class engineers who designed in backdoors to some of the robots survive?
First, you assume that if you are a middle class background you wouldn't have evil intentions on murdering all people in the world who would use those backdoors to kill of their wealthy employers.
Secondly, you are assuming that all rich people are bent on exterminating the poor in death camps and wouldn't stand up to this.
Thirdly, you assume that robots won't turn on their wealthy employers and outsmart their middle class engineers and destroy life as we know it. Oh wait that was a bad example, but you see there are many exceptions to your assumption.
Slashdot Mirror
These these kind of curtailments of liberties during wartime have a long history in America. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, FDR not only spied domestically but put an entire ethnic group in "jail" clearly violating equal protection(which is still on the books today as precedent). Truman and LBJ both certainly pressed the limits of presidential power during their wars.
WWII December 1941-August 1945 (4 years)
War on Terror September 2001 - January 2006+ (5+ years)
We've been in this war longer than WWII.
When will this war end?
Even today, if you read the Bush and Kerry sections, you will find the phrasing of the Kerry section to be much more favorable than that of Bush (if you have ever studies actual propaganda, you will recognize the technique). The concentration of various facts to be similarly more favorable - selective editing - I'm sure the many Bush haters on here are itching to tell me that both are accurate. They are not - in either case.
Riddle me this... If there is propaganda going on the anti-bush side, then why is it innefective?
Certainly with all this anti-Bush rhetorik he would have actually lost the elections?
Don't blame me... I voted for him in 2000 (and abstained in 2000), but I didn't think he would put us in a needless war that will result in an Iran/Iraqi Islamic Superstate.
But I realized I was on the wrong side... Sometimes you just have to suck it up and say... Yeah, the democrats suck, but they aren't dragging us to hell in a hand basket right now and doing anti-constitutional things.
Ah well... Maybe Giuliani or Mccain in 2008. These neo-cons in power are false Republicans.
I'll start a company that will freeze people and keep them in safe storage for a defined period of time for a maintenance fee. People could keep money in their savings account and freeze themselves for 10 or 100 years, and wake up to collect their money. It'd feel like a long nights sleep and winning the lottery afterwards.
I can't remember it off the top of my head but Captain Picard was talking with a guy they revieved from the 1990's and he said:
Frozen Guy: Well I bet all my investments have made me a killing!
Picard: But we don't have a monetary system in the Federation. More or less we don't have money anymore. Everything is provided by this nifty replicators. Earl gray please!
Frozen Guy: Oh my... Um... Yeah...
Surely if your heart is stopped and your brain dead then your soul leaves your body and you go to heaven (or hell) depending on how good you lived your life.
Um... No. Read the bible sometime.
If you are a Christian than your soul sits around in limbo until Judgement day. So if they bring you back to life, you won't come back from heaven nor hell because you never went there.
I think if you are Muslim you do get instant gratification though.
I think in the Buddhist tradition you've got 49 days of being dead before you are reborn.
However all of the above is bunk...
However, if you really found the truth of what really happens when you die, you'd probaly shit your pants.
Then again, there is a reason why dead bodies release their bowels upon death...
Nasa engineer: Hey anyone see the space dust?
Tyrone Biggums: Space dust? *sniffs* Uh... I don't know what you are talking about.
If the games were that good to begin with, people wouldn't have waited til they have become second hand and bought them when they were new. Secondly, if they were really that good of a game then chances are people would be less willing to part awith them for cash, making them harder to buy second hand.
This is just an exscuse for greed and lack of effort by developers... Truth be told, I bet uninnovative sequels perpetuate second hand retail industry.
I don't play many console games except when I go over to a friends house (who owns all the consoles pretty much ever made) and he pointed out something interesting when we played RE4 on his game cube. The cut scenes melded perfectly between gameplay and the cenematics.
He handed the controller to me and I died a few times because I couldn't tell where the CGI sequence began and ended which resulted in me having to start playing right away. I was finding myself just sitting there waiting for the screen to change and then the guy with chainsaw lops me into peices. Although a bit annoying for a newbie, there wasn't that jaring feature where you had to jump from gameplay into a non-related 20 minute cgi sequence.
It was rather seamless.
I will have to say that back in 1997 I didn't mind the FF7 CGIs mostly because they were draw dropping, but these days they have to flow well.
CD-i
At least 3D0 and Jaguar had fun games. I can't say the same about The Phillips CD-i
Oh wow. I wonder if they brute forced your account or did they get fire fox to somehow comprimise your account?
Or at least I did, until my account was hacked and locked today.
A question for my own reference. By chance, do you use windows? And if you do, do you use Internet Explorer 6?
You're coming dangerously close to ascribing a sanctity of human mind and free will there! People don't like hearing that they have free will or anything near a "soul" anymore, they'd rather find themselves equivalent with a bunch of wires so they can manipulate each other's brains (management, psychiatry, propaganda) without rousing their conscience!
I know you are being sarcasing, but I want to put a Zen Buddhist slant on what you are saying:
One does not have free will until one accepts there was never any there to begin with. Once you have realized this... You can start to truly have free will.
At the current rate of technological progress, I do not believe we will have a computer powerful enough to model the human brain until 2015 or 2020. Even then, it'll be a Government-owned supercomputer likely used for weapon simulation. We won't see Strong AI researchers get hold of such machines until maybe 2060 and (if the usual development patterns hold) nobody will have any idea how to turn the raw computing power into something useful until 2100 at the earliest.
G rowthof_Computing.jpg
I think you might be underestimating accelerating returns of computer technology. Its not linear, but exponential. We'll have a bump around 2017 when Silicon will reach its theoretical limit, but by 2013 we might have enough for at least one human mind level of functioning so we might have some type of reasonable AI (enough for a bot to wash your dishes or drive your car).
But we are least 50 years off before the machines strategically out think of... I could be horribly wrong about that.
Checked out this nifty image on the project growth in computer processing vs mind processing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PPTExponential
Blame it on the Soviet Union and act like we're doing the rest of the world a huge favor by cleaning it up?
...at over 11,000 mph on impact.
In Soviet Russia, space garbage cleans you...
The loss of online liberties to orwellian government costs society billions every year too.
Whether you agree on more security or less, it does actually cost something and it is quite exspensive.
Accountants enjoy new freedom of book keeping with "theoretical losses" of arbitrary fitgures they pulled off the top of their head:
Accountant: So how much did you think we lost because of computer crime?
IT Guy: I dunno... Our server web server went down for a while and I joked that it was because some guy was hitting F5 in China.
Accountant: Ah! Excellent... *writes something down* So how much do you think it cost us.
IT Guy: Oh I dunno... Whats the cost of me getting up out of my seat to make a phone call to the guy down in the server room to boot it... Oh $0.35 cents?
Accountant: Hrm... *scratches chin* No good. But if I multiply it by inflation and theoretical estimates and carry the zero. By golly! I think we've lost over $2,000,000.35 to computer crime! Thats one hell of a tax break. Daddies going to be rolling in the bonus this year!
IT Guy: But... I... Oh never mind...
Oh my god!!! Seriously, are all the old ones becoming obsolete or something?
Well considering the fact no matter how many current drugs we take, that we still die of natural causes... I'd still say they have a bit of work to do.
Since terrorists have shown they like to bomb the subway systems (see Madrid, London), and since they have shown they like to use cell phones as trigger points for their bombs (see Madrid), isn't putting cell phone service in the New York City subway system giving potential terrorists a new weapon to use?
They also use washing machine timers and RC car remotes yet we don't see people clammoring about those products.
Truth of the matter is that if someone wants to bomb the NYC sub system, they will try it regardless of what technologies you ban nor how many restrictions you place on its passengers.
Whether they use a cell phone a cell phone or a crude self detonation involving two stones and a pack of matches will depend on the situation and determination of the terrorist.
I mean where else can you drink alcohol and play arcade games.
Makes you wonder how Quantum Viruses would be.
The good news is that you won't get infected until you observe the virus.
The bad news is that if you do observe the virus, you have a 50/50 chance of a dead cat inside your computer.
You know - I support nuclear power, and launches with RTG's onboard scare the hell out of me
I'll be scared when one blows up in the atmosphere which releases enough radiation to where zombies come back to life to eat the living. Until, then I'll be more scared about terrorism and drunk drivers, or drunk terrorists hitting me with a car on the way to wherever the hell they are going to blow themselves up.
But seriously, humanity needs to be getting over being scared of things that have a low percentage of killing them. Even if we have 10 Chernobyl like meltdown's tomorrow, the majority of us would probaly be unaffected in our daily physical health except maybe being run over by crazy people who are in a rush to to supermarket because they think the world is going to end. Chances are you going to die of old age anyways.
As it looks now, some Germans still want to rewrite history -- which is a very bad habit to get into.
Well... Its not as if http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/holocaust keeps getting submitted to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_deletion
1. Don't have kids until you can support them yourself (including paying for school, food, clothing and shelter).
Why not just forgo this all together and get a vasectomy or get your tubes tied?
Is there really any reason to have children other than primal desires to reproduce? Is getting off on that natural desire for false immortality really that important. Or do people really think they are going to live vicariously through their children.
Can anyone really name me any real reason of having children besides that addicting joy feeling or continuing the human race?
On a more individual level, human reproduction is the most illogical thing that a person can do.
With that said, some people do unconditionally love their children. Not as many as their should be though.
The average cost of raising a child is $250,000.
And the average cost of a vasectomy is $300.
*scratches chin*
Hrm.... Eureaka! I've got an idea!
Now, Doctor, tell me how bad it will hurt and can I still look at porn.
What does the "Natural Gas Technologies II Conference - Ingenuity & Innovation" have to do with anything?
Well, considering the huge amount of bullshit coming out of Bellsouth's PR marketing department, I'd say it would be awfully wasteful to let all that methane by-product go to waste.
Will some middle class engineers who designed in backdoors to some of the robots survive?
First, you assume that if you are a middle class background you wouldn't have evil intentions on murdering all people in the world who would use those backdoors to kill of their wealthy employers.
Secondly, you are assuming that all rich people are bent on exterminating the poor in death camps and wouldn't stand up to this.
Thirdly, you assume that robots won't turn on their wealthy employers and outsmart their middle class engineers and destroy life as we know it. Oh wait that was a bad example, but you see there are many exceptions to your assumption.