Feminish boo-boo kissing is destroying our rights and freedoms. Hidden between the lines in this kind of piece is the implied idea that we have to modify a first amendment right because it hurts someone or something. This is how the argument to destroy a right starts, whether it is the second amendment to keep and bear arms, or the first amendment to guarantee free speech - even free speech we don't agree with. No right is supposed to have a cost appended to it today.
The nineteenth amendment gave women the equal right to vote and instantly caused a massive pandering to female sensibilities. Gynocentrism in the USA was delayed by the economic depression and various wars, but it was inevitable once the country stabilized. Slow to start due to historical inertia, it is now in full flower and massively destructive to the main thing that has created and supported our rights and the advance and power of our country: male sensibilities, viewpoints and attitudes. Our political forefathers were male. They created the most successful form of government and body of rights ever created, but I fear neither of these things can stand before the feminish sensibilites that are more and more controlling of our society and government.
Oh, and by the way, watch for manditory driving helments and kevlar driving suits. The super feminish government we are developing is going to protect us from ourselves in all things wether we like it or not. Mommy knows best.
Many wars take place because of a mistaken consideration of relative military strength. There is a level of deterrence that even a megalomaniac cannot ignore. And while a rational man can be deterred by even one nuclear weapon, we cannot know at any particular time what level of deterrence will be necessary for a particular irrational man or govenment. I believe we are getting uncomfortably close to a level that will not deter a mad regime like North Korea. Well meaning people can kill you too.
I'm not convinced. If the flight had been powered, the photos would not merely have been on the wall among many others, with no place of special interest. This argues that they indicate nothing special and that they show kites. Also, the description at the end of the article that mentions the sound of the wings flapping indicates the "flight" was that of a kite. He doesn't mention the obvious: the sound of an engine and what would have been the wap wap wap of a large slowly moving propeller or propellers. Mention chestnut trees, but not the most important part of powered flight, the powerplant. And as for the photo of an "engine," I believe it is an engine. What we have in this series of photos is a premature display of what Whitehead wanted to do in the future, that is, put THIS ENGINE into THIS KITE and produce POWERED FLIGHT! So, why would "journalists" (read men selling newspapers for a living) exaggerate what had actually happened? What did they have to gain? Newspaper sales. People buy newspapers to read about the extraordinary event, not just another kite flight. Been there, done that.
Using my massive human-powered image analysis program I came to the conclusion that there is a crowd in front of that image of a flying kite - a crowd complete with old-timey women's hats and men's bowlers - and if there had been a gasoline engine going and a propeller wapping I doubt they would have been that close.
Jane's is just bored and decided to engage in revising history (to sell.....).
I think I know why we keep building larger and larger particle accelerators !!! Real smart people must be trying to get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination whatever the cost!!!!! I've got pictures and footprints. How do I contact the CERN team??!!
The law is what they say it is. Don't try to use logic to determine what is legal and what is not. See the TV Show "Law and Order" to get the idea. Watch the prosecutors stretch and massage the law to cover anything they want covered, criminalize anyone they want in jail. I believe that represents reality. If he's really going to create and maintain a bitcoin gambling site Michael Hajduk should stock up on cigarettes and practice keeping his mud together because he's headed to jail sooner or later, probably sooner. Being clever with the law isn't clever, it's just stupid.
Just how big a pair of pants would I need to hold this new coin? And just how obscure a female do they plan on putting on this coin? How about the first ugly female to spit tobacco juice in the Mississippi River?
Girls do better because females are more passive and accepting by nature. Education demands and rewards passive acceptance of all that is presented. Yes, girls do better at memorizing and regurgitating what they are supposed to in order to get degrees; but what are we losing? We are losing that aggressive male creativity and irritation and doubt that has advanced humankind since the beginning. We are advancing mere female "doership" over male creative aggression. The consequences are obvious. We will see a decrease in creativity in all spheres of human endeavor: government, industry, technology and life in general. Women will be able to excellently do that which already is. They will not be able to doubt what is and advance all areas of human interest. They just don't do that. We are severely at risk of stagnation in all areas of human striving with the rise in the demand for and reward of the female passive learning style. The rise of female excellent mediocrity will stall human advance.
I feel Einstein would not be able to get into a physics program today, much less graduate from one. A passive, accepting female with much better marks and better learning style would probably beat him out. Her professors would no doubt like her better for that too.
that this is not perverse; it is natural. Man is doing this and it is the inevitable result of his intelligence. Nature is learning that intelligence in a species is pathological. The experiment in intelligence is showing that it is better to have dumb animals that do not change the environment than smart animals that do. The smart animals end up wiping themselves out in biological short order. The sustainable "human" was the Neanderthal.
we going to finally say no to these out-of-control children? Is it when they demand a collider that encircles the Earth for chasing the gimmeallyourcash-on? Just because it is science doesn't mean it has to be done and has to be done now. I suggest that finding out things about the Higgs boson and other exotics is a goal of such mindbending uselessness that it can very well be left for another century.
It belongs to the entertainment industry. The problem is the coupling of justice with violence. I've seen this bloody development in movies, tv, and computer games over my lifetime. The hero is done bad to by some bad guy or guys, the hero takes it over and over again until he decides not to, then he goes on a bloody over-the-top rampage of justified violence against the bad guys, against those who have tortured him. The audience roars in approval, feeling the good guy is finally getting justice and his violence against the bad guys is fully justified. We all feel good. We all feel good about it from a young age and over and over and over again. This is the way to do it. The body count increases in each decade. The "creative" ways that masses of people are killed becomes more clever and more sick. We are a society spinning downward by elevating psychopathy to a position of the norm in our entertainment and we all act surprised when it spills over into the real world. It isn't guns. There have always been guns. What has changed is our toleration of bloody murder and revenge as entertainment. Holding up guns as the problem is cowardly. Let's accept the obvious: children learn from the entertainment they are soaked in from birth. Let's stop admiring the producers of violent revenge themed movies and games. Let's stop the Rambo Effect on society.
I suspect that because humans and machines will be driving together that there will actually be MORE accidents. Humans can mostly predict what humans will do. We can even predict what somewhat erratic humans will do - they will be erratic. But can we predict what a computer program from THIS manufacturer will do versus what THAT one will do when it applies its logic function and perception to any particular fluid situation? I don't think so. And if they give us driving program version 2.0, tweaked to be better than 1.0, how many accidents will there be before we discern the difference and accomodate our driving to it? Oh, NOW it tends to do THIS in this situation when before it tended to do THAT. OOPs, crash. When I get to a particular exit I pull back and leave room because I know that people are going to pull across the striped barrier after realizing belatedly that they are in the wrong lane. Also, I'm aware that commuting road warriors will come from the fastest lane two lanes to my left to suddenly make the exit at high speed. Ok, it works. I've also come to be able to predict the people who will be cutting in long before they do and allow room for them. What the subtle signs are I'm not entirely sure. We humans accomodate ourselves to the situation and the speed of the commute is faster for it. But will a machine do this? Probably not. It will probably do the legal, much slower thing and the commute will come to a grinding halt. We humans conspire beautifully to reach our common goals. I suspect this will be far too difficult for a computer program.
But the problem is that morality is not a module that is plugged into things. You can't program ethics and morality. Ethics and morality come from the human motivation array which comes from the evolutionary process of millions of years of trial-and-error change. We are not going to be able to condense that down into lines of code. Try as we humans might, we cannot program a human.
So now they are essentially trying to patent radio. If they get this patent, you can expect them to wake up and realize that sometime in the future and then watch the ridiculous lawsuits fly. What a joke. When will the patent madness end?
This system of government is obsolete and desperately in need of updating. I find it startling that we are still using it. It just cannot handle the needs of the country. Reference the fiscal disaster pending in the new year, caused by political cowards and manipulators. Reference the exploding debt. Reference the suicidal deficits. Any government that cannot fund itself and the nation is either illegitimate, or desperately in need of structural change. This form of government has failed the test of fiscal responsibility. Until we talk of structural change and call a new constitutional convention that sets up a new modern structure that cannot be paralyzed by venality and greed for power we are just supporting failure. I find it hard to believe that a couple of million political ancestors hundreds of years ago had all the answers with regard to the proper structure of our government. Are there no geniuses in our 300 million citizens? Are there no courageous men left?
"Offering a greater variety of enrichment activities to children will cause many more hidden talents to surface. And accelerated classes and psychological coaching are essential for nurturing talent as early and vigorously as possible."
All this will do is interfere with true genius. Subgeniuses creating programs for true geniuses will develop all kinds of ways to delay and deflect true geniuses. Genius finds its own way. It needs self-focus. It needs time. Most of all, it needs free time and even boredom to create the mental paths that lead it naturally to creative results. Genius is born with a "thought vector." It does what it does; it thinks what it thinks because it must. True genius also needs adversity. Making it easy for it deprives it of the fight it needs to energize itself. In short: leave it alone. All that can be accomplished with programs is to encourage the excellent mediocrity of mere talent while destroying the true genius with too much structure.
Space is a vast desert like no desert on the face of the Earth. It is an unlimited sink for tax dollars and human effort best expended on the Earth. I applaud the Obama administration for opposing the mindless spending called for by "science-ism-ists". Just because it is science doesn't mean it deserves funding. When spending vital public dollars it is essential to hold the reasons to ones that are practical or promise short term payoffs for the investor, not pie-in-the-sky, sometime-in-the-distant-future-maybe payoffs that merely "provide jobs" for scienceismists. And don't use the argument that the spending is a small part of the budget. The hundred in my pocket is a small part of my expenditures, but that doesn't justify spending it on bubblegum.
Slashdot Mirror
If nature needed more neaderthal brain area, she would have created it. Big eyes are meaningless as a reason for the extinction of the species.
Feminish boo-boo kissing is destroying our rights and freedoms. Hidden between the lines in this kind of piece is the implied idea that we have to modify a first amendment right because it hurts someone or something. This is how the argument to destroy a right starts, whether it is the second amendment to keep and bear arms, or the first amendment to guarantee free speech - even free speech we don't agree with. No right is supposed to have a cost appended to it today.
The nineteenth amendment gave women the equal right to vote and instantly caused a massive pandering to female sensibilities. Gynocentrism in the USA was delayed by the economic depression and various wars, but it was inevitable once the country stabilized. Slow to start due to historical inertia, it is now in full flower and massively destructive to the main thing that has created and supported our rights and the advance and power of our country: male sensibilities, viewpoints and attitudes. Our political forefathers were male. They created the most successful form of government and body of rights ever created, but I fear neither of these things can stand before the feminish sensibilites that are more and more controlling of our society and government.
Oh, and by the way, watch for manditory driving helments and kevlar driving suits. The super feminish government we are developing is going to protect us from ourselves in all things wether we like it or not. Mommy knows best.
Many wars take place because of a mistaken consideration of relative military strength. There is a level of deterrence that even a megalomaniac cannot ignore. And while a rational man can be deterred by even one nuclear weapon, we cannot know at any particular time what level of deterrence will be necessary for a particular irrational man or govenment. I believe we are getting uncomfortably close to a level that will not deter a mad regime like North Korea. Well meaning people can kill you too.
I'm not convinced. If the flight had been powered, the photos would not merely have been on the wall among many others, with no place of special interest. This argues that they indicate nothing special and that they show kites. Also, the description at the end of the article that mentions the sound of the wings flapping indicates the "flight" was that of a kite. He doesn't mention the obvious: the sound of an engine and what would have been the wap wap wap of a large slowly moving propeller or propellers. Mention chestnut trees, but not the most important part of powered flight, the powerplant. And as for the photo of an "engine," I believe it is an engine. What we have in this series of photos is a premature display of what Whitehead wanted to do in the future, that is, put THIS ENGINE into THIS KITE and produce POWERED FLIGHT! So, why would "journalists" (read men selling newspapers for a living) exaggerate what had actually happened? What did they have to gain? Newspaper sales. People buy newspapers to read about the extraordinary event, not just another kite flight. Been there, done that.
Using my massive human-powered image analysis program I came to the conclusion that there is a crowd in front of that image of a flying kite - a crowd complete with old-timey women's hats and men's bowlers - and if there had been a gasoline engine going and a propeller wapping I doubt they would have been that close.
Jane's is just bored and decided to engage in revising history (to sell.....).
Because the education system is now efficiently set up to weed out an Einstein long before he could ever get to theorizing.
I think I know why we keep building larger and larger particle accelerators !!! Real smart people must be trying to get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination whatever the cost!!!!! I've got pictures and footprints. How do I contact the CERN team??!!
The law is what they say it is. Don't try to use logic to determine what is legal and what is not. See the TV Show "Law and Order" to get the idea. Watch the prosecutors stretch and massage the law to cover anything they want covered, criminalize anyone they want in jail. I believe that represents reality. If he's really going to create and maintain a bitcoin gambling site Michael Hajduk should stock up on cigarettes and practice keeping his mud together because he's headed to jail sooner or later, probably sooner. Being clever with the law isn't clever, it's just stupid.
Just how big a pair of pants would I need to hold this new coin? And just how obscure a female do they plan on putting on this coin? How about the first ugly female to spit tobacco juice in the Mississippi River?
Girls do better because females are more passive and accepting by nature. Education demands and rewards passive acceptance of all that is presented. Yes, girls do better at memorizing and regurgitating what they are supposed to in order to get degrees; but what are we losing? We are losing that aggressive male creativity and irritation and doubt that has advanced humankind since the beginning. We are advancing mere female "doership" over male creative aggression. The consequences are obvious. We will see a decrease in creativity in all spheres of human endeavor: government, industry, technology and life in general. Women will be able to excellently do that which already is. They will not be able to doubt what is and advance all areas of human interest. They just don't do that. We are severely at risk of stagnation in all areas of human striving with the rise in the demand for and reward of the female passive learning style. The rise of female excellent mediocrity will stall human advance. I feel Einstein would not be able to get into a physics program today, much less graduate from one. A passive, accepting female with much better marks and better learning style would probably beat him out. Her professors would no doubt like her better for that too.
Busytech of the worst kind.
that this is not perverse; it is natural. Man is doing this and it is the inevitable result of his intelligence. Nature is learning that intelligence in a species is pathological. The experiment in intelligence is showing that it is better to have dumb animals that do not change the environment than smart animals that do. The smart animals end up wiping themselves out in biological short order. The sustainable "human" was the Neanderthal.
we going to finally say no to these out-of-control children? Is it when they demand a collider that encircles the Earth for chasing the gimmeallyourcash-on? Just because it is science doesn't mean it has to be done and has to be done now. I suggest that finding out things about the Higgs boson and other exotics is a goal of such mindbending uselessness that it can very well be left for another century.
It belongs to the entertainment industry. The problem is the coupling of justice with violence. I've seen this bloody development in movies, tv, and computer games over my lifetime. The hero is done bad to by some bad guy or guys, the hero takes it over and over again until he decides not to, then he goes on a bloody over-the-top rampage of justified violence against the bad guys, against those who have tortured him. The audience roars in approval, feeling the good guy is finally getting justice and his violence against the bad guys is fully justified. We all feel good. We all feel good about it from a young age and over and over and over again. This is the way to do it. The body count increases in each decade. The "creative" ways that masses of people are killed becomes more clever and more sick. We are a society spinning downward by elevating psychopathy to a position of the norm in our entertainment and we all act surprised when it spills over into the real world. It isn't guns. There have always been guns. What has changed is our toleration of bloody murder and revenge as entertainment. Holding up guns as the problem is cowardly. Let's accept the obvious: children learn from the entertainment they are soaked in from birth. Let's stop admiring the producers of violent revenge themed movies and games. Let's stop the Rambo Effect on society.
They are close to classifying everything now, so just do that. Make everything Top Secret. Simple. Done.
I suspect that because humans and machines will be driving together that there will actually be MORE accidents. Humans can mostly predict what humans will do. We can even predict what somewhat erratic humans will do - they will be erratic. But can we predict what a computer program from THIS manufacturer will do versus what THAT one will do when it applies its logic function and perception to any particular fluid situation? I don't think so. And if they give us driving program version 2.0, tweaked to be better than 1.0, how many accidents will there be before we discern the difference and accomodate our driving to it? Oh, NOW it tends to do THIS in this situation when before it tended to do THAT. OOPs, crash. When I get to a particular exit I pull back and leave room because I know that people are going to pull across the striped barrier after realizing belatedly that they are in the wrong lane. Also, I'm aware that commuting road warriors will come from the fastest lane two lanes to my left to suddenly make the exit at high speed. Ok, it works. I've also come to be able to predict the people who will be cutting in long before they do and allow room for them. What the subtle signs are I'm not entirely sure. We humans accomodate ourselves to the situation and the speed of the commute is faster for it. But will a machine do this? Probably not. It will probably do the legal, much slower thing and the commute will come to a grinding halt. We humans conspire beautifully to reach our common goals. I suspect this will be far too difficult for a computer program.
But the problem is that morality is not a module that is plugged into things. You can't program ethics and morality. Ethics and morality come from the human motivation array which comes from the evolutionary process of millions of years of trial-and-error change. We are not going to be able to condense that down into lines of code. Try as we humans might, we cannot program a human.
So now they are essentially trying to patent radio. If they get this patent, you can expect them to wake up and realize that sometime in the future and then watch the ridiculous lawsuits fly. What a joke. When will the patent madness end?
Taxing like this crosses a line into state ownership of the citizen and must not be allowed.
This system of government is obsolete and desperately in need of updating. I find it startling that we are still using it. It just cannot handle the needs of the country. Reference the fiscal disaster pending in the new year, caused by political cowards and manipulators. Reference the exploding debt. Reference the suicidal deficits. Any government that cannot fund itself and the nation is either illegitimate, or desperately in need of structural change. This form of government has failed the test of fiscal responsibility. Until we talk of structural change and call a new constitutional convention that sets up a new modern structure that cannot be paralyzed by venality and greed for power we are just supporting failure. I find it hard to believe that a couple of million political ancestors hundreds of years ago had all the answers with regard to the proper structure of our government. Are there no geniuses in our 300 million citizens? Are there no courageous men left?
If you haven't read about this fascinating personality disorder I recommend the following books:
Dr. Hare is an expert on psychopathy and Dr. Babiak an Industrial Psychologist. Dr. Stout is a clinical psychologist.
Perhaps psychologists and technologists together will be able to develop a test like the one used in "Blade Runner" to expose a replicant.
very time-in-jail-ish to me. "Researching" doesn't protect you.
The best that can be expected from the Supreme What is that they come down firmly in the middle of an obvious question.
Yeah, let's go to Mars, a real smart use of space and money.
"Offering a greater variety of enrichment activities to children will cause many more hidden talents to surface. And accelerated classes and psychological coaching are essential for nurturing talent as early and vigorously as possible."
All this will do is interfere with true genius. Subgeniuses creating programs for true geniuses will develop all kinds of ways to delay and deflect true geniuses. Genius finds its own way. It needs self-focus. It needs time. Most of all, it needs free time and even boredom to create the mental paths that lead it naturally to creative results. Genius is born with a "thought vector." It does what it does; it thinks what it thinks because it must. True genius also needs adversity. Making it easy for it deprives it of the fight it needs to energize itself. In short: leave it alone. All that can be accomplished with programs is to encourage the excellent mediocrity of mere talent while destroying the true genius with too much structure.
Space is a vast desert like no desert on the face of the Earth. It is an unlimited sink for tax dollars and human effort best expended on the Earth. I applaud the Obama administration for opposing the mindless spending called for by "science-ism-ists". Just because it is science doesn't mean it deserves funding. When spending vital public dollars it is essential to hold the reasons to ones that are practical or promise short term payoffs for the investor, not pie-in-the-sky, sometime-in-the-distant-future-maybe payoffs that merely "provide jobs" for scienceismists. And don't use the argument that the spending is a small part of the budget. The hundred in my pocket is a small part of my expenditures, but that doesn't justify spending it on bubblegum.