I must say, mentioning distinction and honor when your armed forces are viewed as an aggressor in the large part of the rest of the world sounds rather... hollow.
I also won't take your claims at face value; they sound like way too much propaganda. Well, you sound like propaganda, to be more accurate.
Random capitalization doesn't help, either.
well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.
Ah, well... human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.
Oh, I'm not deluding myself that fairness really comes into the picture at all. I have seen the war, I have seen its consequences, and I have seen too much for my taste, yet a lot less than some.
However, every side does not use whatever advantage they have; otherwise Americans would have nuked both Afghanistan and Iraq long ago. Which, given the trigger-happy moron in charge, I'm pleasantly surprised didn't actually happen.
It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.
Well, I'm sure the aggressors will claim their innocence and compliment the good robot.
Though there may be some bitching and whining about being unable to join in on the carnage.
Well, no uniform makes him a civilian, and no visible weapons makes him unarmed. As soon as he shows a weapon, he becomes an armed civilian, potential guerrilla member.
That does kind of suck, but I, as a civilian, prefer an innocent soldier's death to an innocent civilian's. And way too many civilians were killed in the recent wars in Croatia and Bosnia due to the hype about "Serbian grandmothers hiding AK-47s under their skirts".
If you don't see a weapon, they are unarmed. You can presume all you want, but until you see a weapon, they are unarmed. And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair — soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.
From time to time, i.e. whenever this kind of discussion arises, I test whether I have free will.
I think of something I could do immediately, then decide whether or not I shall do it.
If anyone can prove that my behavior is deterministic, I'd love to hear it.
Mind you, it is deterministic in the sense that I only tend to do it when this kind of discussion arises; however, that just proves that my brain operates based on association. To actually prove determinism, you would have to predict the next thing I'll pick to test my free will on.
Just to make it more interesting, this time I performed a meta-test: I thought about searching for something to test my free will upon, then chose not to.
BTW I do accept the possibility that we do not in fact have free will. I just do not think that you can actually prove that. Too many factors are involved, just like in weather prediction.
Besides, that method would excuse people who do not know the law, and discriminate against people that do.
If you do not know the law, you can with all honesty say that you committed no crime. If you do, the very knowledge that something is illegal will affect your results on such tests.
All in all, this is yet another attack on intelligent and educated people.
It pays so much more to be a stupid, uneducated slob. Maybe the only defense is a lobotomy. Please sign me up for two, just in case the first one doesn't work.
People who are afraid or anxious are easy to spot, and being afraid or anxious hardly makes you a criminal.
Exactly. It is the cool, collected ones you have to worry about.
Oh, great. So if next time I get suspected of FSM-knows-what just because I don't get excited while I travel (I generally take a book or two to read and don't tend to fret much), I'll know who to thank.
Then again, I'm not exactly collected... aloof would describe me better.
Maybe the terrorists will learn that aloofness can get them farther than cool; just like nobody stops a man with a clipboard, nobody bothers a traveler reading a book.
Though a towel is still recommended.
Again just curious, how much did your pair cost, and how much does it cost to get them cleaned and polished?
Eight years ago, when I bought them, they cost about 100 Euros. Having them cleaned costs less than 4 Euros, and I'm not even getting the cheapest cleaning available (proximity counts for something, too).
All in all, let's say that they cost me 20 Euros a year. The detergent cost me 1 Euro for a half-liter bottle, about 2 years ago, so I'll count it as free.
Now, mind you, many people will recommend replacing the lenses every two or three or four years, as well as only using special sterile detergents and solutions.
Both my ophtalmologist and the optician where I have my lenses cleaned are more on the practical side, and they don't try to convince me to buy the expensive stuff. Especially after Allergan stopped producing LC-65-N; nothing I've tried since (except for one detergent by Avizor, but which has also become unavailable thanks to the distributor) was worth a damn, so I switched to the detergent I use for the dishes. Previously I'd only used it in emergencies, but now I see no reason to switch from it. Better and cheaper.
As for replacing them... I might have to replace them soon, as there is a tiny little scratch on one that couldn't be polished out, so it tends to get blurry after ten or so hours and has to be cleaned again, which is a bother. But on my last check-up last winter, the first in seven years, they were still in mint condition, and there was no reason to have them replaced. Seems like the three-year replacement period is just a way to up the sales.
Just curious, when you say "better", what actually makes them better?
They have stopped my eyesight from getting worse, which is something soft lenses cannot do AFAIK.
That alone should be enough.
Additionally, I've had this pair for almost eight years; I have them cleaned/polished twice a year, I wash them in tap water and liquid soap or detergent, and I keep them in tap water or saline solution. I spend next to nothing on special solutions and detergents. They are rather resistant to physical damage, they do not need to be hydrated... perfect for a lazy, careless slob like me.
And I don't know much about losing them; I've dropped either one several times, but always where I could find them.
HA! Pansy! I've been wearing semi-rigid lenses for over 25 years. Newfangled soft lenses - feh!
Same here. Gas-permeable hard lenses for the past 15+ years, and not bloody likely to switch to soft lenses.
Better, longer-lasting, only marginally less comfortable (I presume, since people tell me soft lenses are more comfortable, and I don't even notice mine).
Well, when I was ten, my thoughts were pretty much in the same venue, sans marijuana. However, my eyesight kept getting worse, so my parents talked me into wearing contacts. (And it was no picnic for them, for at the time, they cost their whole month's salary.)
I was pretty afraid of wearing them, of losing them, of dislodging them, and to this day, whenever a speck of dirt or dust or a bug gets into my eye it hurts like crap.
On the other hand, contact lenses give you great peripheral vision, they don't fog up whenever you enter a warm room in winter, I don't mind the rain as much as before, and best of all, my eyesight hasn't gotten worse in 15 years.
All in all, I'd never go back to glasses.
My last pair of glasses lasted me for some six months; I've had my current pair of contacts for almost eight years.
Oh, and one more thing: try wearing shades when you have glasses on.
Slashdot Mirror
Any kind of legalese could do with such a guide.
Well, Wine is not a VM. So who knows, until someone tries.
I must say, mentioning distinction and honor when your armed forces are viewed as an aggressor in the large part of the rest of the world sounds rather... hollow.
I also won't take your claims at face value; they sound like way too much propaganda. Well, you sound like propaganda, to be more accurate.
Random capitalization doesn't help, either.
I have lived through a war. I was too young to fight; now I am too smart to fight.
Oh, sorry, was I mentioning soldiers accidentally killing civilians?
Personally, I'm waiting for his nanobots to bring Peace on Earth.
well put. and note, if we're talking about armed battlefield robots, targetting the opposition with lethal force, false positives should NOT be acceptable.
Ah, well... human life is cheap. Armed battlefield robots cost millions.
Well, no uniform makes him a civilian
Your criteria has failed.
Criterion.
There is only one, you see.
Oh, I'm not deluding myself that fairness really comes into the picture at all. I have seen the war, I have seen its consequences, and I have seen too much for my taste, yet a lot less than some.
However, every side does not use whatever advantage they have; otherwise Americans would have nuked both Afghanistan and Iraq long ago. Which, given the trigger-happy moron in charge, I'm pleasantly surprised didn't actually happen.
The trash is people.
Funny, that. I sometimes think people are trash.
It's all fun and games until it gets confused and kills all the innocents while leaving the aggressors.
Well, I'm sure the aggressors will claim their innocence and compliment the good robot.
Though there may be some bitching and whining about being unable to join in on the carnage.
Well, no uniform makes him a civilian, and no visible weapons makes him unarmed. As soon as he shows a weapon, he becomes an armed civilian, potential guerrilla member.
That does kind of suck, but I, as a civilian, prefer an innocent soldier's death to an innocent civilian's. And way too many civilians were killed in the recent wars in Croatia and Bosnia due to the hype about "Serbian grandmothers hiding AK-47s under their skirts".
If you don't see a weapon, they are unarmed. You can presume all you want, but until you see a weapon, they are unarmed. And I don't care whether any soldier likes it or not: when an armed civilian/guerrilla grandmother kills an armed soldier, that's tough, but not exactly unfair — soldiers have the numbers and the firepower on their side. When an armed soldier kills an unarmed civilian, that's just despicable.
With thirteen seasons worth of material out there it's a little difficult to keep it all memorized.
You obviously have a life.
Please hand over your geek card and Slashdot ID... oh, wait!
There was an AC who was bitter
That frosty piss belonged to twitter.
For twitter is boring
When he's karma-whoring
Ain't he a loathsome critter?
From time to time, i.e. whenever this kind of discussion arises, I test whether I have free will.
I think of something I could do immediately, then decide whether or not I shall do it.
If anyone can prove that my behavior is deterministic, I'd love to hear it.
Mind you, it is deterministic in the sense that I only tend to do it when this kind of discussion arises; however, that just proves that my brain operates based on association. To actually prove determinism, you would have to predict the next thing I'll pick to test my free will on.
Just to make it more interesting, this time I performed a meta-test: I thought about searching for something to test my free will upon, then chose not to.
BTW I do accept the possibility that we do not in fact have free will. I just do not think that you can actually prove that. Too many factors are involved, just like in weather prediction.
While you are right, I do wonder whether it is his job to file patents. Maybe someone from the legal department would be better suited for the task?
Besides, that method would excuse people who do not know the law, and discriminate against people that do.
If you do not know the law, you can with all honesty say that you committed no crime. If you do, the very knowledge that something is illegal will affect your results on such tests.
All in all, this is yet another attack on intelligent and educated people.
It pays so much more to be a stupid, uneducated slob. Maybe the only defense is a lobotomy. Please sign me up for two, just in case the first one doesn't work.
People who are afraid or anxious are easy to spot, and being afraid or anxious hardly makes you a criminal.
Exactly. It is the cool, collected ones you have to worry about.
Oh, great. So if next time I get suspected of FSM-knows-what just because I don't get excited while I travel (I generally take a book or two to read and don't tend to fret much), I'll know who to thank.
Then again, I'm not exactly collected... aloof would describe me better.
Maybe the terrorists will learn that aloofness can get them farther than cool; just like nobody stops a man with a clipboard, nobody bothers a traveler reading a book.
Though a towel is still recommended.
The only intelligence I could remotely attribute to GW is the military kind.
So the only kind of intelligence you can attribute to GWB is an oxymoron.
What does that make him, I wonder...
I lagged behind, thought it was just another deadline.
Again just curious, how much did your pair cost, and how much does it cost to get them cleaned and polished?
Eight years ago, when I bought them, they cost about 100 Euros. Having them cleaned costs less than 4 Euros, and I'm not even getting the cheapest cleaning available (proximity counts for something, too).
All in all, let's say that they cost me 20 Euros a year. The detergent cost me 1 Euro for a half-liter bottle, about 2 years ago, so I'll count it as free.
Now, mind you, many people will recommend replacing the lenses every two or three or four years, as well as only using special sterile detergents and solutions.
Both my ophtalmologist and the optician where I have my lenses cleaned are more on the practical side, and they don't try to convince me to buy the expensive stuff. Especially after Allergan stopped producing LC-65-N; nothing I've tried since (except for one detergent by Avizor, but which has also become unavailable thanks to the distributor) was worth a damn, so I switched to the detergent I use for the dishes. Previously I'd only used it in emergencies, but now I see no reason to switch from it. Better and cheaper.
As for replacing them... I might have to replace them soon, as there is a tiny little scratch on one that couldn't be polished out, so it tends to get blurry after ten or so hours and has to be cleaned again, which is a bother. But on my last check-up last winter, the first in seven years, they were still in mint condition, and there was no reason to have them replaced. Seems like the three-year replacement period is just a way to up the sales.
Just curious, when you say "better", what actually makes them better?
They have stopped my eyesight from getting worse, which is something soft lenses cannot do AFAIK.
That alone should be enough.
Additionally, I've had this pair for almost eight years; I have them cleaned/polished twice a year, I wash them in tap water and liquid soap or detergent, and I keep them in tap water or saline solution. I spend next to nothing on special solutions and detergents. They are rather resistant to physical damage, they do not need to be hydrated... perfect for a lazy, careless slob like me.
And I don't know much about losing them; I've dropped either one several times, but always where I could find them.
HA! Pansy! I've been wearing semi-rigid lenses for over 25 years. Newfangled soft lenses - feh!
Same here. Gas-permeable hard lenses for the past 15+ years, and not bloody likely to switch to soft lenses.
Better, longer-lasting, only marginally less comfortable (I presume, since people tell me soft lenses are more comfortable, and I don't even notice mine).
Well, when I was ten, my thoughts were pretty much in the same venue, sans marijuana. However, my eyesight kept getting worse, so my parents talked me into wearing contacts. (And it was no picnic for them, for at the time, they cost their whole month's salary.)
I was pretty afraid of wearing them, of losing them, of dislodging them, and to this day, whenever a speck of dirt or dust or a bug gets into my eye it hurts like crap.
On the other hand, contact lenses give you great peripheral vision, they don't fog up whenever you enter a warm room in winter, I don't mind the rain as much as before, and best of all, my eyesight hasn't gotten worse in 15 years.
All in all, I'd never go back to glasses.
My last pair of glasses lasted me for some six months; I've had my current pair of contacts for almost eight years.
Oh, and one more thing: try wearing shades when you have glasses on.
Who wants to bet on what the first non-medical use of that technology will be?