I would prefer a card that was in my wallet. The wallet is the one thing I hold on to for dear life. A credit card with a chip could be used at places where there isn't chip implicated machinery. But places that were chip implimented, you wouldn't even have to take out your wallet...
Just a thought
The government tries to pass or passes some bill that doesn't make any sense and just makes me sick to my stomache. arrrgg.
No one wants this bill to pass. My mother sent me an e-mail about it when the debate started and my mother isn't exactly a geek. All people wouldn't like this if they had it explained to them. Tell people, learn to explain the real problem with losing net nuetrality in a way the average person can understand.
Arrrgggg!!!!
Bragging isn't always a good idea. Stupid marketing campaign. The whole 40 something and the 20 something, that is a good idea. To make the claim that their computers are virus free is to ask for trouble. What about all the mac users who will have to deal with viruses after hackers decide to debunk that claim... Stupid, stupid, idiots!!!
This sucks, I freak'n didn't get the commas where they were supposed to be. And my Point was that the argument shouldn't be about wether global warming exist or not, but if it does what are we going to do about it? It isn't fiction that cities have air pollution problems, so evironmentaly friendly tech could help quality of life. Second, If we focused on sustainable enrgy sources and making everything less energy consumptive we could reduce our dependance on other countries for oil. This global warming debate is just about trying to smoke screne is about trying to use up the oil before oil tech gets fazed out. These oil barrens know their industry is going extinct. American industries are still in the past, so in order to stay competitive we have to steal other nations oil. I wonder if we would have taken all the money we spent on Iraq and invested it in sustainable technologies I wonder how badly it would have hurt our ecconomy compared to the uncertainty war puts us into...
Regardles of the validity of the science if america isn't going to do anything about its actions and at the same time believes the wether is fuct, then I wouldn't put is past world leaders to see mass killings as a way of dealing with the problem rather than being more imaginative. this is why I think all indapendant media is getting bought up around the nation. Maybe the first goal will just be about going to war with very little media decent but eventialy it will be an attack on americas own people, this is sorta what the new immagration laws are a part of. I feel like the people who want to deny global warming while everyone else believes in it threatens the danger that if global warming of the scale we are talking about will be catastrophic for millions of lives and because we don't try to figure out a way to cut back on emissions, mass extermination by wealthy men will be the way... Geeks wake up. The argument should be wether global warming exists or not. Energy efficient technilogies will raise the standard of peoples lives. For a government that supposedly focuses its planning on worse case senerios did a terrorable job in New Orleans. I believe they have no concern with global warming, the poor people will be the first to die, for the most part rich people move to highlands. And wealthy folks are storing seeds in the poles. It is time for us to try to study terraforming just in case we are warming the planet. The aregument shouldn't be wether global warming exists, it should be what are we going to do if it does about it. And unfortunately I think wealthy fat kats have lazy ass solutions...
just a guess, All the arguments are about wether global warming exists or not. Lets just assume for a moment it does, what should we do next? Energy effitiency doesn't hurt anyone except for oil companies, and only if they have nothing invested in sustainable energies. Just because global warming can be proved to not exist doesn't mean that sustainable technologies arn't worth investing in. This is just the oil industry realizing they are going to be fazed out and so they are having this insidious propiganda battle by keeping the argument wether or not global warming exists.
Air polution exists, and tech that is friendly to air polution is friendlier to people who live in those areas. I think we can all agree than man has an effect on the environment, so many animals have gone extinct since man's increased succes at survival. There is no reason not to think that eventualy that effect wouldn't just effect animals and plant life but the weather as well. There is no excuse not to go enviuronmentaly friendly. The oil companies are dinasours who know they are about to go extinct and so they are trying to take all the oil and keep us ignorant to other alternatives long enough to use up the oil.
The greatest argument for environmentaly friendly tech is has nothing to do with the global warming debate. Would we have to go to war with Iraq if we had focused on weaning ourselves from the need for foriegn oil?
If the grants are comming from the government than it sets off a paranoid alarm. What if the powers that be need to believe in global warming so they can attempt their mass kill off of certain sections of the global populace. I am kinda anoid about the global warming is comming people. I think it is fair to say wether we are making a great impact that there is going to be a cause and effect nature on the planet from our actions and it doesn't mater which side your on. What matters is strong evidance of how the planets actualy works. Where are the agnostics of science, the neutral folk who chose to believe that either possibility is likely to be true. If we made our arguments this way anyone reading your paper would grow smarter reading it, in theory, by the very act of obsorbing thinking patterns. To truely grasp climate, takes a hell of a lot of veriables, I think I am in with Richard Feynman, we must entertain and doubt all ideas equaly to be truely balanced scientists. Why do we always in america have to bias our searches with an opinion? Why do people need to feel right in order to comfort themselves? What happened to the want to understand, rather than just knowing. I think regardless wether we can prove global warming I think it is safe to say that humans are having more of an impact on the earth than any other species and so we should look for evidance of our actions in oreder to take resposibility for the earth, because if you get to that point in evolution where your collective intelligence has gotten so good at servival that the irony is you are also the greatest threat to your own survival, then it is time for you to be the curator of the earth.
I'm sorta jumping topic but not really. Some social Darwinists think that war is darwinian. I would argue pre bombs that was true. But bombs are indicrimanate, where fighting with guns or preferably pre guns, the strongest, quickest, smartest fighters survived. That was much more Darwinian. How does this fit into the weather. Well when we prioritize war, we have to deprioritise other things, like the war. I think the wealthy elite sorta see Global warming as a nifty way to deal with poor people since rich people tend to move to the high lands. Through this deprioritation we cut money from schools. Which doesn't help global warming research or sutainable technologies. And the big boats that carry the Jets consume thousands of gallons of oil a day. War is wasteful, there are better ways of dealing not only with population control but with resources. We could have invested into America's streangths rather than de-evolving into our weaknesses, basicaly our addiction to oil and our willingness to defend Isreal from iran which is probobly just about oil as well. Bottom line, war is doing nothing for the global warming problem assuming it exists. And regardless of who is right and who is wrong on the weather debate, sustainable technologies will make the standard of living go up, because of less smog, better factory conditions, cleaner energy plants (so nicer to look at), longer lasting batteries that take less time to charge (which will be nice for my computer), we could cut down less tree's by actualy trying to make everything digital, although there still needs to be libraries with books because the digital madium is virtual and so therefore books stand the chance of more easily being wipped out, where with book burning you have to find the damn books. I am sure there are many details I am missing about the quality of life factors. I do not think we live in a true democracy anymore, I think america hase de-evolved in to a depitistic state. Se still have our freedom of speach. But if we don't keep our eyes wide open it could be taken away by self rightious dellusional people by force and chaos. Regime change!
Michael
The pursuit of knowledge should be the ultimate goal and if we are a democracy we should be able to ask for that.
Why is everything about taking sides? Why can't scientists entertain both idea's, rather than it being a debate about who is right or who is wrong. There would be a lot less fake science if profit motive could be removed from funders. We are losing at science and our government is making it worste by prioritizing war, which is good for military technology but bad for sustainable living. I'm so anoid about this being a debate about wether global warming is happening. it should be a debate about how the earth works. And for those of us who dream of traveling to other solar systems it is more about planetary anthropology than making long term predictions. For instance if we started to really understand different indicators, and what they might allude we may be able to test teraforming ideas. If our planet is ultimately doomed, do we have time to try to teraform rather than mass killings? We need to deal with the population but there has got to be another way then repressive China or mass killings. And assuming the poles will be the only thing uninhabitable doesn't it make a hell of a lota sense to phocus money on energy effitiancy and the sciences than short term oil gains. Because hopefully from good science we could learn to terraform. Mars is like a giant play ground that could be next. Well just a thought,
We always talk of human rights. But what about planetary rights? I think that if we came up with guisde lines for sustainability that human rights would follow. Because the factory conditions that people would have to work in would be better. The smog problems in cities that cause all kinds of skin problems would diminish. Basicaly if we worried about the planets rights first than human rights would follow. I think we got our priorities fouled as a human race. We are so self centeredly worried about ourselves that we may kill ourselves off neglecting the greater responsibility that comes with the kind of self awareness where a species starts to create their own invironment, where a species changes the earth. At the point where a species drasticaly changes the earth at the moment that it become self aware of its own effect than it should take action not just for the sanctity of the earth and all the other animals but for humans. if we were looking out for number one than we would worry about a sustainable society and that would mean a lot of americans might have to chhange their behavior patterns and belief systems. It is time for us to stop thinking about imdiate gradification and move on to long term sustainability. Oh but my oil stocks keep racing up. You know what happened with eron. Well dick Cheney did the same thing to halberton but sense he got into government and gave them no bid contracts on iraq they didn't go bankrupt. These rich fucks, when they know oil is going down are going to liquidate again I am sure. So at some point pull your money out of oil.
My opinion of course,
michael
I think all americans are illigals. We are all imagrants who ripped this land off from the indians. Compared to a lot of other countries our employment rate is really good. There are plenty of job opportunities ansd as long as there are laws preventing complete exploitation I am glad that there are some people out there that want to do work I would rather not do. From a cultural relitivistic stand point for the most part people who come here and get paid less still feel more of an opportunity here than in their own country. So is it truely exploitation to have some lower paid imagrants. Everyone is worried about their jobs but I think the immagration problem is really just a political battle. These folks who fight wars on Iraq want to get there hands on any form they can of attacking their own people if they can get away with it. The hispanic populations carry the most wieght in the white house and accross the country in politics. I think the conservitive were trying to see how they would react to felonizartion. I thought in order for something to be concidered a felony someone had to intentionaly hurt someone else. As far as I know immagrants are comming here for opportunities. I'm not sure how that amounts to the motivation to hurt people. This is our governments motivation to hurt people. The government found out how big of a deal it would be to try to disinfrachise thousands of immagrants, with probobly the largest protests this country has ever seen. We are all illigal immagrants here and if we do not allow immagrant to find opportunities in america than we might as well leave this country and give it back to the indians...
There are other ways to reduce population than extreme repression. For instance flooding our country with as many free condoms as anyone could ever want. I believe most humans understand the finacial burdon of having kids and a lot of people will be likely to use condoms if everywhere they go they can't get away from them. Also planned parenting, where people are tought from the very beginning that having kids is a big step and it is best to plan your timing.
Aside from the population problem it is reports like these that our regressive oil regime use as accuses to do nothing. There are a lot of big industry research "propiganda", of course this particular study probobly isn't that but it should be a concern in everyones mind.
Don't completly believe everything you read. And just having opinions is propigated information.
Well whatever,
Your slashdot Leper,
Michael
unfortunatly the monkey was probobly flinging pooh out of resentments for the pain of being a test monkey. I'm not against animal testing but monkey do resent it. Cral Saygon said when he visitied a test lab when he entered with the main scientist the monkey banged their cages in disgust the way prisoners would when the boss of a prison comes in. The monkeys know who the bad guys are. And if I were a human in an experiament where I had no choice I would probobly sling shit at my captors as well. But there is no alternitive when testing the technologies I guess...
I think all mamals that share neocortex's with the human race deserve some sort of comforts. There should be a science devoted in how to comfort animals. What is that vetnarian science?
I know this goes against the face of definition but assuming life is defigned as self replicating than the whol universe could be concidered an organism. For instance there are theorys that meteors seed and act as a catalyst to life on "furtle" planets. The univer could be concidered "gods" brain. I'm agnostic so I deed you damn pesky athiests crap'n on my style.
Thats my two cents
By the laws of supply and demand I feel they are asking for way too much. They are assuming the cost of overhead as if they had to send on trucks jewel cases and cds with printed media. But I guess wasting forty minutes downloading on painfuly slow lines is somehow worth 18 dollors.
You are assuming that all of nature is on the wrong path. Like the animal kingdon is a bunch of sinners or man is somehow guilty of the animal kingdoms behavior. this would still be putting to much importance apon man. Man is very ant like in this universe. How can you create sex guilt from mans natural inclinations anymore when science reduces down to being a product of adversity. Some times bad ideas lead to good results that were unentended. For instance the jim crow laws down in the south. Creol african americans were clasicaly trained musicians and they were a bit snooty but when the jim crow laws came about and it was much harder to get a job in orchastras they started playing with blach blue musicians inventing big band and jazz. Odd things happen from bad stuff. For instance lets say to planets evolved life in the same solar system and by some miracle of crazy luck both planets developed intelligent life and some how they eneded up enamies but then another alien race with better tech and a sense of contempt for sub par life forms came in and tried to start taking over the solar system and then the two used to be rivels gang up on the invading forces and end up being friends and allys. The enemy is not science or religion, it is too much power and influince in to few peoples hands. This is what hurts the religions of the world. Every bad verse and contradictorary thing was some wealthy persons propaganda capaign to indoctranate the religious believers. Through out history the enemies of true religion no mater the name of their god has been ruined by power hungry tirants rewritng texts. As much evidance that supports that the bible is a good artifact to the histories of the past there are evidences of its inherent contradictions as well. And a lot of those contradictions were writen in by wealthy leaders slightly after biblicle time to keep their sadomasicistic domanance of the masses theories alive.
That is because Jesus is the temple. But people live all around it. So they speak different languages and have different cultures and so it seems that their gods would have a different name. Besides the word we use as jesus is probobly not the same pronuciation as it was during bible times. Of course anthropology shows the bible to be true. All mythologies have some basis on archiological facts becuase people reflect their times. There was a jesus and he was a great man. And he may have been the son of god. But man is not the center of the universe. The universe is far to vast to put humans at the pinicle of gods creations. I'm sure he has created others on other planets. There are billions of stars in a galaxy and billions of galaxies and each star can have any given number of planets from 0 to who know how many. lets say 15 multiplied by all those billions and I am saying that the earth is a almost invisable blip compared to the universe what makes us the center of the universe and how come whenever scientists challenge our insistance to think we are the center of the universe that it always leads to the pursicution and disregard for the reasoning of good scientists in human history?
Like the earthe being flat. I think the real fear is the status quoe in the sense that if most behaviour is biological mechanisms alligned with real time nuture effects than original sin is a figment of our imaginations and criminals just have a bad brain pathology and we need to not condem but find a compassionant way to deal with dangerious people like the people who run our government. When we find that vice is a biology lined up with bad parenting we can no longer think of these people as evil or punishable but as sad deviations from nature. Nature is inherantly violent and ugly and cruel but it is always moving foward. There is no moral high ground, there is only a descision do we want to creat a world of a true well measured form of compassion or do we want to destroy, rape and steal from the earth and the people of its lands. That is what a holy war lead by leaders who understand the power of faith to destroy the others... Anyway,
Thats all for now. Enought religion in a tech forum. But I'll be glad to continue any discusions by another forum space of some sort.
You are man centric. Man is likely to kill himself off with all his brain power by accident if religious folks don't get smarter about science that bushy is more likely to risk the earths distruction in some crazy holy war claiming that bunker buster bombs are somehow safe when they actualy are proned to dump radiation thousands of miles air borne. http://www.ucsusa.org/general/special_features/pag e.cfm?pageID=1782
As long as it is us against them, their raligion/ ours, good versus evil people will never see the humanity to the others. I think democracy need to be reformed. I think canidates should all have the same amount of money. I think elections should only be publicaly funded and each candidate should be given the same amount of money. Then they can take their political stratigists and they can all make a different game plan. This would be a true democracy. Each candidate would get equal time toe be on the air. There would be a standardization of the electorial process not based on the most wealthiest contributors but by the ones with the best ideas chosen by the people for the people. Also of we want to get out of the side taking polarity of politics we need a moderate party for us true conservitives who want to make conservation the greater goal and sustainability. I got way off topic. But heah your none threatening gays anomilies that are inherantly bad theory inspired me.
But your assuming that the annomilies are bad for the species. There is no objective evidence that suggests that. In fact it probobly helps to lower the population. I'm sure abstenance only programs help with that! Why do we insult our childrens willingness to make their own descisions and find out on their own what their bounderies are about, why don't we give them the tools that if they fealt so predisposed to give into their animal erges that they would protect themselves from the economic hardship of having an unplanned parenthood? YOu have only to be dogmatic to have a conlusive answer that question, you have decided what reality is, a good scientist will spend her whole life trying to disprove a theory that she won prizes for inventing. A good scientist always makes double takes and never completely trust any of her conclusions except the very roots of science which is a consistant method, the scientific method. The is no method of reasoning and logic to the bible. It is purely faith based and you must trust in it with out question which is very much an anti-thesis to science. YOu have decided what you believe but I am agnostic, I think only a fool thinks he knows the truth. I have my whole life to find it and no white mans god can take my freedom to make that conceptial jump. Keep your laws off my body and my mind... You probobly assume that I'm gay. That only gay men would come to the aid of gay men. Well that would be a silly conclusion. it seems that you are a lot smarter than that. Scientists are just as likely to not think of the consiquences of their actions as some catholic ministers have been to young children. You don't see me going out and saying heah you science proves your gods wrong. I'm making a very personal descision that I have the perfect right to make an that is your god is not for me. And don't give me all that idoltry shit. I was a jehovas witness for the first 12 years of my life. People think they are crazy but they talk of false gods and such. I think the only thing that makes a god false is when the people of its religion claim that there is only one path to gods temple when only the whit people live on that side of the temple and all the rest of the people live on other sides. When you drive some place do you go the shortest rought possible, do take the path of least resistance as in the path that brings you the least amount of stress? I believe this is gods way. Not dogmatism and goverment nepitism from despotic leaders. That I will walk down washington street to get to the temple and you will walk down california. Don't tell me that california is the only way to get there. There may be many ways but there is only one temple. and that is everyones temple, not just the christain road or only the budha road or the agnostic pure scientist road. Those who proclaim that others should walk in their foot steps whould second guess the path they are walking. God may have created us in his own image but that image is as diverse as a rain forest. You got asexial worms, you got female ducks that scientist have found moslty reach orgasms with other womyn. You have animals that can reproduce themselves without any sexial process. Sex is just one small part of life. Don't obsess yourself with perverts lives. All that time you spend worrying about perverts your thinking pervertedly. The irony of religious persacution is it is usualy based on fear of others. Don't obsess your mind thinking about gays. What a waste of mental energy. I only talk about gay when I think someone has some ideas that will not think of all men having the equal right to live their lives as they please so long as it involves consenting adults and there is no rape involved than I say I won't waste my time thinking about what those people do. But lets not say they are any less human. Every man was born from the womb.
Don't be a fool. There is evidence that brain chemistry's sex may be changed by imbalances of hormones in the womb. Scientist have done brain scans and gay mens brains and they have found that their brains somewhat resemble both womens and mens. So your probobly wrong, nature would have it that way.
It seems strange how mac gets crap for price. It seems a mac retains its value longer. After three years it is still sellable. Now granted for the same money you could have a faster computer. But the value of that computer would go down quickly. A machintosh is a like a good down payment towards your next one. From this stand point I think they are cheaper unless working for intell will somehow devalue macs line. I think you can get a minny mac for 600. Microsoft XP cost 200 dollors. Thats is a third of the cost of a mini. And what is microsofts version of garage performer. Macs sofware package is probobly more valuable.
What if mac went dell and HP and this gave mac a bit of monitary succes selling and spreading osX around. What if then that money was used to drive there prices down on there hardware or focused the money innovating their hardware that makes spending a couple thousand on a real mac more appealing then buying the dell equivalent with lesser hardware for 1800. You might want to spend the extra 2 to 5 hundred or so more dollors for the best machine to be running OSX. If mac can truely brag that their chip is at least as good as the compitition and the hardware better but only slightly more expensive, opening the market up could help their boxes. Just so long as they stay ahead of the curve in innovation. As other companies reach their peaks mac will have head room as they scury to figure out what to do next.
Microsoft reached its peak saturation. Mac has a lot of head room and if they could pull it off
anyone with some money to put into Mac could be filthy rich. Maybe I'm over confidant about mac. Steve Jobs could kick the bucket. : (
What has hell froze over? here come the thought police. Anything conducted in secrecy has the potential of being abused in very parnoid dillusional ways. America don't give in to fear!
Slashdot Mirror
I would prefer a card that was in my wallet. The wallet is the one thing I hold on to for dear life. A credit card with a chip could be used at places where there isn't chip implicated machinery. But places that were chip implimented, you wouldn't even have to take out your wallet... Just a thought
this message was supposed to be in regards to apples new add campaigns. I wonder if there is a way to post it under the right article?
The government tries to pass or passes some bill that doesn't make any sense and just makes me sick to my stomache. arrrgg. No one wants this bill to pass. My mother sent me an e-mail about it when the debate started and my mother isn't exactly a geek. All people wouldn't like this if they had it explained to them. Tell people, learn to explain the real problem with losing net nuetrality in a way the average person can understand. Arrrgggg!!!!
Bragging isn't always a good idea. Stupid marketing campaign. The whole 40 something and the 20 something, that is a good idea. To make the claim that their computers are virus free is to ask for trouble. What about all the mac users who will have to deal with viruses after hackers decide to debunk that claim... Stupid, stupid, idiots!!!
This sucks, I freak'n didn't get the commas where they were supposed to be. And my Point was that the argument shouldn't be about wether global warming exist or not, but if it does what are we going to do about it? It isn't fiction that cities have air pollution problems, so evironmentaly friendly tech could help quality of life. Second, If we focused on sustainable enrgy sources and making everything less energy consumptive we could reduce our dependance on other countries for oil. This global warming debate is just about trying to smoke screne is about trying to use up the oil before oil tech gets fazed out. These oil barrens know their industry is going extinct. American industries are still in the past, so in order to stay competitive we have to steal other nations oil. I wonder if we would have taken all the money we spent on Iraq and invested it in sustainable technologies I wonder how badly it would have hurt our ecconomy compared to the uncertainty war puts us into...
Regardles of the validity of the science if america isn't going to do anything about its actions and at the same time believes the wether is fuct, then I wouldn't put is past world leaders to see mass killings as a way of dealing with the problem rather than being more imaginative. this is why I think all indapendant media is getting bought up around the nation. Maybe the first goal will just be about going to war with very little media decent but eventialy it will be an attack on americas own people, this is sorta what the new immagration laws are a part of. I feel like the people who want to deny global warming while everyone else believes in it threatens the danger that if global warming of the scale we are talking about will be catastrophic for millions of lives and because we don't try to figure out a way to cut back on emissions, mass extermination by wealthy men will be the way... Geeks wake up. The argument should be wether global warming exists or not. Energy efficient technilogies will raise the standard of peoples lives. For a government that supposedly focuses its planning on worse case senerios did a terrorable job in New Orleans. I believe they have no concern with global warming, the poor people will be the first to die, for the most part rich people move to highlands. And wealthy folks are storing seeds in the poles. It is time for us to try to study terraforming just in case we are warming the planet. The aregument shouldn't be wether global warming exists, it should be what are we going to do if it does about it. And unfortunately I think wealthy fat kats have lazy ass solutions... just a guess, All the arguments are about wether global warming exists or not. Lets just assume for a moment it does, what should we do next? Energy effitiency doesn't hurt anyone except for oil companies, and only if they have nothing invested in sustainable energies. Just because global warming can be proved to not exist doesn't mean that sustainable technologies arn't worth investing in. This is just the oil industry realizing they are going to be fazed out and so they are having this insidious propiganda battle by keeping the argument wether or not global warming exists. Air polution exists, and tech that is friendly to air polution is friendlier to people who live in those areas. I think we can all agree than man has an effect on the environment, so many animals have gone extinct since man's increased succes at survival. There is no reason not to think that eventualy that effect wouldn't just effect animals and plant life but the weather as well. There is no excuse not to go enviuronmentaly friendly. The oil companies are dinasours who know they are about to go extinct and so they are trying to take all the oil and keep us ignorant to other alternatives long enough to use up the oil. The greatest argument for environmentaly friendly tech is has nothing to do with the global warming debate. Would we have to go to war with Iraq if we had focused on weaning ourselves from the need for foriegn oil?
If the grants are comming from the government than it sets off a paranoid alarm. What if the powers that be need to believe in global warming so they can attempt their mass kill off of certain sections of the global populace. I am kinda anoid about the global warming is comming people. I think it is fair to say wether we are making a great impact that there is going to be a cause and effect nature on the planet from our actions and it doesn't mater which side your on. What matters is strong evidance of how the planets actualy works. Where are the agnostics of science, the neutral folk who chose to believe that either possibility is likely to be true. If we made our arguments this way anyone reading your paper would grow smarter reading it, in theory, by the very act of obsorbing thinking patterns. To truely grasp climate, takes a hell of a lot of veriables, I think I am in with Richard Feynman, we must entertain and doubt all ideas equaly to be truely balanced scientists. Why do we always in america have to bias our searches with an opinion? Why do people need to feel right in order to comfort themselves? What happened to the want to understand, rather than just knowing. I think regardless wether we can prove global warming I think it is safe to say that humans are having more of an impact on the earth than any other species and so we should look for evidance of our actions in oreder to take resposibility for the earth, because if you get to that point in evolution where your collective intelligence has gotten so good at servival that the irony is you are also the greatest threat to your own survival, then it is time for you to be the curator of the earth. I'm sorta jumping topic but not really. Some social Darwinists think that war is darwinian. I would argue pre bombs that was true. But bombs are indicrimanate, where fighting with guns or preferably pre guns, the strongest, quickest, smartest fighters survived. That was much more Darwinian. How does this fit into the weather. Well when we prioritize war, we have to deprioritise other things, like the war. I think the wealthy elite sorta see Global warming as a nifty way to deal with poor people since rich people tend to move to the high lands. Through this deprioritation we cut money from schools. Which doesn't help global warming research or sutainable technologies. And the big boats that carry the Jets consume thousands of gallons of oil a day. War is wasteful, there are better ways of dealing not only with population control but with resources. We could have invested into America's streangths rather than de-evolving into our weaknesses, basicaly our addiction to oil and our willingness to defend Isreal from iran which is probobly just about oil as well. Bottom line, war is doing nothing for the global warming problem assuming it exists. And regardless of who is right and who is wrong on the weather debate, sustainable technologies will make the standard of living go up, because of less smog, better factory conditions, cleaner energy plants (so nicer to look at), longer lasting batteries that take less time to charge (which will be nice for my computer), we could cut down less tree's by actualy trying to make everything digital, although there still needs to be libraries with books because the digital madium is virtual and so therefore books stand the chance of more easily being wipped out, where with book burning you have to find the damn books. I am sure there are many details I am missing about the quality of life factors. I do not think we live in a true democracy anymore, I think america hase de-evolved in to a depitistic state. Se still have our freedom of speach. But if we don't keep our eyes wide open it could be taken away by self rightious dellusional people by force and chaos. Regime change! Michael
The pursuit of knowledge should be the ultimate goal and if we are a democracy we should be able to ask for that. Why is everything about taking sides? Why can't scientists entertain both idea's, rather than it being a debate about who is right or who is wrong. There would be a lot less fake science if profit motive could be removed from funders. We are losing at science and our government is making it worste by prioritizing war, which is good for military technology but bad for sustainable living. I'm so anoid about this being a debate about wether global warming is happening. it should be a debate about how the earth works. And for those of us who dream of traveling to other solar systems it is more about planetary anthropology than making long term predictions. For instance if we started to really understand different indicators, and what they might allude we may be able to test teraforming ideas. If our planet is ultimately doomed, do we have time to try to teraform rather than mass killings? We need to deal with the population but there has got to be another way then repressive China or mass killings. And assuming the poles will be the only thing uninhabitable doesn't it make a hell of a lota sense to phocus money on energy effitiancy and the sciences than short term oil gains. Because hopefully from good science we could learn to terraform. Mars is like a giant play ground that could be next. Well just a thought,
We always talk of human rights. But what about planetary rights? I think that if we came up with guisde lines for sustainability that human rights would follow. Because the factory conditions that people would have to work in would be better. The smog problems in cities that cause all kinds of skin problems would diminish. Basicaly if we worried about the planets rights first than human rights would follow. I think we got our priorities fouled as a human race. We are so self centeredly worried about ourselves that we may kill ourselves off neglecting the greater responsibility that comes with the kind of self awareness where a species starts to create their own invironment, where a species changes the earth. At the point where a species drasticaly changes the earth at the moment that it become self aware of its own effect than it should take action not just for the sanctity of the earth and all the other animals but for humans. if we were looking out for number one than we would worry about a sustainable society and that would mean a lot of americans might have to chhange their behavior patterns and belief systems. It is time for us to stop thinking about imdiate gradification and move on to long term sustainability. Oh but my oil stocks keep racing up. You know what happened with eron. Well dick Cheney did the same thing to halberton but sense he got into government and gave them no bid contracts on iraq they didn't go bankrupt. These rich fucks, when they know oil is going down are going to liquidate again I am sure. So at some point pull your money out of oil. My opinion of course, michael
I think all americans are illigals. We are all imagrants who ripped this land off from the indians. Compared to a lot of other countries our employment rate is really good. There are plenty of job opportunities ansd as long as there are laws preventing complete exploitation I am glad that there are some people out there that want to do work I would rather not do. From a cultural relitivistic stand point for the most part people who come here and get paid less still feel more of an opportunity here than in their own country. So is it truely exploitation to have some lower paid imagrants. Everyone is worried about their jobs but I think the immagration problem is really just a political battle. These folks who fight wars on Iraq want to get there hands on any form they can of attacking their own people if they can get away with it. The hispanic populations carry the most wieght in the white house and accross the country in politics. I think the conservitive were trying to see how they would react to felonizartion. I thought in order for something to be concidered a felony someone had to intentionaly hurt someone else. As far as I know immagrants are comming here for opportunities. I'm not sure how that amounts to the motivation to hurt people. This is our governments motivation to hurt people. The government found out how big of a deal it would be to try to disinfrachise thousands of immagrants, with probobly the largest protests this country has ever seen. We are all illigal immagrants here and if we do not allow immagrant to find opportunities in america than we might as well leave this country and give it back to the indians...
There are other ways to reduce population than extreme repression. For instance flooding our country with as many free condoms as anyone could ever want. I believe most humans understand the finacial burdon of having kids and a lot of people will be likely to use condoms if everywhere they go they can't get away from them. Also planned parenting, where people are tought from the very beginning that having kids is a big step and it is best to plan your timing. Aside from the population problem it is reports like these that our regressive oil regime use as accuses to do nothing. There are a lot of big industry research "propiganda", of course this particular study probobly isn't that but it should be a concern in everyones mind. Don't completly believe everything you read. And just having opinions is propigated information. Well whatever, Your slashdot Leper, Michael
unfortunatly the monkey was probobly flinging pooh out of resentments for the pain of being a test monkey. I'm not against animal testing but monkey do resent it. Cral Saygon said when he visitied a test lab when he entered with the main scientist the monkey banged their cages in disgust the way prisoners would when the boss of a prison comes in. The monkeys know who the bad guys are. And if I were a human in an experiament where I had no choice I would probobly sling shit at my captors as well. But there is no alternitive when testing the technologies I guess... I think all mamals that share neocortex's with the human race deserve some sort of comforts. There should be a science devoted in how to comfort animals. What is that vetnarian science?
I know this goes against the face of definition but assuming life is defigned as self replicating than the whol universe could be concidered an organism. For instance there are theorys that meteors seed and act as a catalyst to life on "furtle" planets. The univer could be concidered "gods" brain. I'm agnostic so I deed you damn pesky athiests crap'n on my style. Thats my two cents
By the laws of supply and demand I feel they are asking for way too much. They are assuming the cost of overhead as if they had to send on trucks jewel cases and cds with printed media. But I guess wasting forty minutes downloading on painfuly slow lines is somehow worth 18 dollors.
You are assuming that all of nature is on the wrong path. Like the animal kingdon is a bunch of sinners or man is somehow guilty of the animal kingdoms behavior. this would still be putting to much importance apon man. Man is very ant like in this universe. How can you create sex guilt from mans natural inclinations anymore when science reduces down to being a product of adversity. Some times bad ideas lead to good results that were unentended. For instance the jim crow laws down in the south. Creol african americans were clasicaly trained musicians and they were a bit snooty but when the jim crow laws came about and it was much harder to get a job in orchastras they started playing with blach blue musicians inventing big band and jazz. Odd things happen from bad stuff. For instance lets say to planets evolved life in the same solar system and by some miracle of crazy luck both planets developed intelligent life and some how they eneded up enamies but then another alien race with better tech and a sense of contempt for sub par life forms came in and tried to start taking over the solar system and then the two used to be rivels gang up on the invading forces and end up being friends and allys. The enemy is not science or religion, it is too much power and influince in to few peoples hands. This is what hurts the religions of the world. Every bad verse and contradictorary thing was some wealthy persons propaganda capaign to indoctranate the religious believers. Through out history the enemies of true religion no mater the name of their god has been ruined by power hungry tirants rewritng texts. As much evidance that supports that the bible is a good artifact to the histories of the past there are evidences of its inherent contradictions as well. And a lot of those contradictions were writen in by wealthy leaders slightly after biblicle time to keep their sadomasicistic domanance of the masses theories alive.
That is because Jesus is the temple. But people live all around it. So they speak different languages and have different cultures and so it seems that their gods would have a different name. Besides the word we use as jesus is probobly not the same pronuciation as it was during bible times. Of course anthropology shows the bible to be true. All mythologies have some basis on archiological facts becuase people reflect their times. There was a jesus and he was a great man. And he may have been the son of god. But man is not the center of the universe. The universe is far to vast to put humans at the pinicle of gods creations. I'm sure he has created others on other planets. There are billions of stars in a galaxy and billions of galaxies and each star can have any given number of planets from 0 to who know how many. lets say 15 multiplied by all those billions and I am saying that the earth is a almost invisable blip compared to the universe what makes us the center of the universe and how come whenever scientists challenge our insistance to think we are the center of the universe that it always leads to the pursicution and disregard for the reasoning of good scientists in human history? Like the earthe being flat. I think the real fear is the status quoe in the sense that if most behaviour is biological mechanisms alligned with real time nuture effects than original sin is a figment of our imaginations and criminals just have a bad brain pathology and we need to not condem but find a compassionant way to deal with dangerious people like the people who run our government. When we find that vice is a biology lined up with bad parenting we can no longer think of these people as evil or punishable but as sad deviations from nature. Nature is inherantly violent and ugly and cruel but it is always moving foward. There is no moral high ground, there is only a descision do we want to creat a world of a true well measured form of compassion or do we want to destroy, rape and steal from the earth and the people of its lands. That is what a holy war lead by leaders who understand the power of faith to destroy the others... Anyway, Thats all for now. Enought religion in a tech forum. But I'll be glad to continue any discusions by another forum space of some sort.
Sorry about my bad spelling and grammer. I wish God blessed me with that. I've got other talents.
You are man centric. Man is likely to kill himself off with all his brain power by accident if religious folks don't get smarter about science that bushy is more likely to risk the earths distruction in some crazy holy war claiming that bunker buster bombs are somehow safe when they actualy are proned to dump radiation thousands of miles air borne. http://www.ucsusa.org/general/special_features/pag e.cfm?pageID=1782
As long as it is us against them, their raligion/ ours, good versus evil people will never see the humanity to the others. I think democracy need to be reformed. I think canidates should all have the same amount of money. I think elections should only be publicaly funded and each candidate should be given the same amount of money. Then they can take their political stratigists and they can all make a different game plan. This would be a true democracy. Each candidate would get equal time toe be on the air. There would be a standardization of the electorial process not based on the most wealthiest contributors but by the ones with the best ideas chosen by the people for the people. Also of we want to get out of the side taking polarity of politics we need a moderate party for us true conservitives who want to make conservation the greater goal and sustainability. I got way off topic. But heah your none threatening gays anomilies that are inherantly bad theory inspired me.
But your assuming that the annomilies are bad for the species. There is no objective evidence that suggests that. In fact it probobly helps to lower the population. I'm sure abstenance only programs help with that! Why do we insult our childrens willingness to make their own descisions and find out on their own what their bounderies are about, why don't we give them the tools that if they fealt so predisposed to give into their animal erges that they would protect themselves from the economic hardship of having an unplanned parenthood? YOu have only to be dogmatic to have a conlusive answer that question, you have decided what reality is, a good scientist will spend her whole life trying to disprove a theory that she won prizes for inventing. A good scientist always makes double takes and never completely trust any of her conclusions except the very roots of science which is a consistant method, the scientific method. The is no method of reasoning and logic to the bible. It is purely faith based and you must trust in it with out question which is very much an anti-thesis to science. YOu have decided what you believe but I am agnostic, I think only a fool thinks he knows the truth. I have my whole life to find it and no white mans god can take my freedom to make that conceptial jump. Keep your laws off my body and my mind... You probobly assume that I'm gay. That only gay men would come to the aid of gay men. Well that would be a silly conclusion. it seems that you are a lot smarter than that. Scientists are just as likely to not think of the consiquences of their actions as some catholic ministers have been to young children. You don't see me going out and saying heah you science proves your gods wrong. I'm making a very personal descision that I have the perfect right to make an that is your god is not for me. And don't give me all that idoltry shit. I was a jehovas witness for the first 12 years of my life. People think they are crazy but they talk of false gods and such. I think the only thing that makes a god false is when the people of its religion claim that there is only one path to gods temple when only the whit people live on that side of the temple and all the rest of the people live on other sides. When you drive some place do you go the shortest rought possible, do take the path of least resistance as in the path that brings you the least amount of stress? I believe this is gods way. Not dogmatism and goverment nepitism from despotic leaders. That I will walk down washington street to get to the temple and you will walk down california. Don't tell me that california is the only way to get there. There may be many ways but there is only one temple. and that is everyones temple, not just the christain road or only the budha road or the agnostic pure scientist road. Those who proclaim that others should walk in their foot steps whould second guess the path they are walking. God may have created us in his own image but that image is as diverse as a rain forest. You got asexial worms, you got female ducks that scientist have found moslty reach orgasms with other womyn. You have animals that can reproduce themselves without any sexial process. Sex is just one small part of life. Don't obsess yourself with perverts lives. All that time you spend worrying about perverts your thinking pervertedly. The irony of religious persacution is it is usualy based on fear of others. Don't obsess your mind thinking about gays. What a waste of mental energy. I only talk about gay when I think someone has some ideas that will not think of all men having the equal right to live their lives as they please so long as it involves consenting adults and there is no rape involved than I say I won't waste my time thinking about what those people do. But lets not say they are any less human. Every man was born from the womb.
Don't be a fool. There is evidence that brain chemistry's sex may be changed by imbalances of hormones in the womb. Scientist have done brain scans and gay mens brains and they have found that their brains somewhat resemble both womens and mens. So your probobly wrong, nature would have it that way.
It seems strange how mac gets crap for price. It seems a mac retains its value longer. After three years it is still sellable. Now granted for the same money you could have a faster computer. But the value of that computer would go down quickly. A machintosh is a like a good down payment towards your next one. From this stand point I think they are cheaper unless working for intell will somehow devalue macs line. I think you can get a minny mac for 600. Microsoft XP cost 200 dollors. Thats is a third of the cost of a mini. And what is microsofts version of garage performer. Macs sofware package is probobly more valuable.
I must apoligize for my silly sentence structure... HA!
What if mac went dell and HP and this gave mac a bit of monitary succes selling and spreading osX around. What if then that money was used to drive there prices down on there hardware or focused the money innovating their hardware that makes spending a couple thousand on a real mac more appealing then buying the dell equivalent with lesser hardware for 1800. You might want to spend the extra 2 to 5 hundred or so more dollors for the best machine to be running OSX. If mac can truely brag that their chip is at least as good as the compitition and the hardware better but only slightly more expensive, opening the market up could help their boxes. Just so long as they stay ahead of the curve in innovation. As other companies reach their peaks mac will have head room as they scury to figure out what to do next. Microsoft reached its peak saturation. Mac has a lot of head room and if they could pull it off anyone with some money to put into Mac could be filthy rich. Maybe I'm over confidant about mac. Steve Jobs could kick the bucket. : (
I wonder if I could have my skull custom made for room to grow more brain matter. Probobly improbable?
What has hell froze over? here come the thought police. Anything conducted in secrecy has the potential of being abused in very parnoid dillusional ways. America don't give in to fear!