"OMG, is the most important and crucial thing ever! Let's stop anything else we do and act like nothing else matters!".
That's why I hate hippies, not because I think Eric Cartman is cool, but because that's all you guys ever do, get obsessed with a few issues, act like it's the most important thing ever and not leave anyone alone until you made them care about it.
Masks? Wow, that's a good idea. I was rather considering waiting until 2054 and inject myself with something very painful that makes my face turn very ugly just like Tom Cruise did in Minority Report. But yeah, a mask, that's a good idea too..
I hate to point the obvious, but I kind of doubt the guy's father created him an e-mail account when he was 12.
This being said, he should just create them a Gmail account and be prepared to answer to such questions as "Daddy, what's Vi4gR4?" or "Why do all these people write to me in gobbledegook?" or even "Can you lend me $29,000? That's for a friend in Nigeria.."
Well of course there is! Back in the day you had crosshairs. Now you don't have crosshairs anymore, for the sake of realism! That's pretty innovative!!
My thoughts exactly. It was very generic and arcadish. But you know what, I played it with a GeForce 6200 at the lowest settings, and I tend to think that the shiny graphics hypnotise people into believing it's a great game, when really it's just a shiny game.
Good point, the centrist could have won, which raises another question, how? If the 3 main candidates were isolated, he would still have came out third, so how would you go about making him win? But that example was indeed very interesting, the candidate and his party weren't that popular, but everybody liked him, to the point he was the one that the most people could agree to want in office, if that makes any sense.
And of course reforming the American elections to follow a different model would be hard to implement, but on the other hand the electoral system as it is quite archaic. That's one problem with federalism that is quite irritating when you're used to a nearly almighty central government, it hampers change, dare I say, it's arguable even an excuse to let unfair and archaic state laws remain, and to widen inequalities between states on such topics as education (e.g. in Mississippi), gay rights (Georgia), death penalty, gun laws (D.C.), and so on.. I understand (painfully) the advantages of federalism, but the problems it causes are blatant and even shocking to an outsider.
Oh and as for Louisiana, IIRC their vestiges of French law branched out from the early 19th century. We've had 5 different constitutions since then, and the change regarding elections that I mentioned, so that's probably hardly comparable now;-).
Also shows the effect independent candidates can have. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it shows that if the voting process was direct (i.e. popular vote decides of the outcome) elections would depend on much more people, and in more than in a few keys states.
Of course I am biased for being French, but ever since 1962 we chose our president based on popular vote, and what's best, we have two elections, one with the shitload of "independents" in the mix, and a second one with only the two winners from the first election, which solves the problem of the nasty influence that Ralph Nader and the likes have, while still giving them all the room they deserve in the debate.
Actually in France all candidates get equal air time, which means you'd get to hear Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Ralph Nader speak on TV as much as Barack Obama or that cop from Die Hard, John McClane. God I can't believe we could have that guy from president, that's just too awesome!
you wouldn't want to explore a museum from your armchair... right?
That's right, I mean, we're all aware that "exploring" a museum brings you significantly closer to Indiana Jones than browsing the web.
can't people go and visit
Mmmh, that's a thought, remind me to go learn scuba diving and book a flight to the Mediterranean sea next time I feel the urge to know about an ancient shipwreck. I hope I can become good enough a diver to visit the Titanic myself!
Furthermore the fake screenshot depicts the very exact same thing as the rooftop picture. What's more pathetic, that they actually did it but not for when Google would actually shoot (is there even any way to actually know that?) or that the Slashdot "editors" didn't even see that coming.
I guess that's Journalism 2.0, in which it's the user who does the editor's job of spotting the bullshit.
Therefore, claiming that there could be "giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe" just outside this bubble seems somewhat... convenient.
"giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe" is the new "here be dragons".
Yeah. Let's leave out the fact data is stored binarily and that it could only result in a higher error rate which would affect all bits, even the most significant ones, and that it would just sound like noise.
At first when I read the title I thought it would involve stick figures a few hundreds of carbon atoms high playing soccer with a molecule of Buckminsterfullerene. Then I started picturing how cool it would be if we could make video games that used atoms of carbon instead of pixels, and an electronic microscope for us to see the result, and what the nanoscopic versions of Pong, Space Invaders or Pac-Man would play like.
Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all
No, you're missing the point. When the regime is in place, it's too late, you can take off the originator. Once your disciples are in power it's too late, but before that happens, before some point when a movement gains too much momentum and power, the people who started it are the only thing that keep the thing going. Not ideas. People. Leaders.
The ideas for communism were out of the bag long before 1917. A revolution was bound to happen due to the conditions and the regime in the country (I like to blame it all on Nikolai II's insensitivity, stubbornness and insufficient leadership skills), but without Lenin who's to say how different the outcome would have been? That sort of change takes opportunities, and someone to exploit those opportunities and lead their way to their goal, which depends on what they want, not on their ideals. Ideas don't lead people, leaders do, and ideas are just tools they use to get a following. But communism isn't inherently dangerous, nazism isn't inherently dangerous, people are.
You look at the whole problem too far downhill, when the powers are in already place and executing their plan. You have to look at what happens uphill, when movements are bodies that couldn't survive a decapitation.
The whole point is, it's not the carrot that makes the mule go forth, it's the man who holds the carrot.
The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas. Ideas within this context are anti-dangers, i.e. they help destroy dangers. Note that for the sake of generalisation and simplification we'll assume a moral absolutism.
Which is why in most of the western world there is little censorship, because dangerous (evil) people aren't in charge of us (that's a generalisation) and thus why every idea is freely available to us, without anything bad happening as a result, i.e. our freedom of access to all the so called dangerous ideas/ideologies ever produced have little negative impact on our civilisations. Which proves my point. No idea is to be feared, the only danger is that ideas would be deemed dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
"OMG, is the most important and crucial thing ever! Let's stop anything else we do and act like nothing else matters!".
That's why I hate hippies, not because I think Eric Cartman is cool, but because that's all you guys ever do, get obsessed with a few issues, act like it's the most important thing ever and not leave anyone alone until you made them care about it.
Masks? Wow, that's a good idea. I was rather considering waiting until 2054 and inject myself with something very painful that makes my face turn very ugly just like Tom Cruise did in Minority Report. But yeah, a mask, that's a good idea too..
How about you let people express their opinions without trying to moralise them?
I hate to point the obvious, but I kind of doubt the guy's father created him an e-mail account when he was 12.
This being said, he should just create them a Gmail account and be prepared to answer to such questions as "Daddy, what's Vi4gR4?" or "Why do all these people write to me in gobbledegook?" or even "Can you lend me $29,000? That's for a friend in Nigeria.."
E-mail? Don't kids these days content themselves with MySpace mails and Facebook mails?
I don't get it. Why should local-level decision-taking for everything from human rights to garbage collection be the way to go?
Well of course there is! Back in the day you had crosshairs. Now you don't have crosshairs anymore, for the sake of realism! That's pretty innovative!!
My thoughts exactly. It was very generic and arcadish. But you know what, I played it with a GeForce 6200 at the lowest settings, and I tend to think that the shiny graphics hypnotise people into believing it's a great game, when really it's just a shiny game.
Good point, the centrist could have won, which raises another question, how? If the 3 main candidates were isolated, he would still have came out third, so how would you go about making him win? But that example was indeed very interesting, the candidate and his party weren't that popular, but everybody liked him, to the point he was the one that the most people could agree to want in office, if that makes any sense.
And of course reforming the American elections to follow a different model would be hard to implement, but on the other hand the electoral system as it is quite archaic. That's one problem with federalism that is quite irritating when you're used to a nearly almighty central government, it hampers change, dare I say, it's arguable even an excuse to let unfair and archaic state laws remain, and to widen inequalities between states on such topics as education (e.g. in Mississippi), gay rights (Georgia), death penalty, gun laws (D.C.), and so on.. I understand (painfully) the advantages of federalism, but the problems it causes are blatant and even shocking to an outsider.
Oh and as for Louisiana, IIRC their vestiges of French law branched out from the early 19th century. We've had 5 different constitutions since then, and the change regarding elections that I mentioned, so that's probably hardly comparable now ;-).
Also shows the effect independent candidates can have. Also, if I'm not mistaken, it shows that if the voting process was direct (i.e. popular vote decides of the outcome) elections would depend on much more people, and in more than in a few keys states.
Of course I am biased for being French, but ever since 1962 we chose our president based on popular vote, and what's best, we have two elections, one with the shitload of "independents" in the mix, and a second one with only the two winners from the first election, which solves the problem of the nasty influence that Ralph Nader and the likes have, while still giving them all the room they deserve in the debate.
Actually in France all candidates get equal air time, which means you'd get to hear Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Ralph Nader speak on TV as much as Barack Obama or that cop from Die Hard, John McClane. God I can't believe we could have that guy from president, that's just too awesome!
you wouldn't want to explore a museum from your armchair... right?
That's right, I mean, we're all aware that "exploring" a museum brings you significantly closer to Indiana Jones than browsing the web.
can't people go and visit
Mmmh, that's a thought, remind me to go learn scuba diving and book a flight to the Mediterranean sea next time I feel the urge to know about an ancient shipwreck. I hope I can become good enough a diver to visit the Titanic myself!
No, the purpose of a cinema is to sell popcorn.
Really? That's funny because the last time I went there the only thing I saw people buying were tickets.
In other news, new studies say that Cookie Monster thinks cookies are more healthy than broccoli!
Furthermore the fake screenshot depicts the very exact same thing as the rooftop picture. What's more pathetic, that they actually did it but not for when Google would actually shoot (is there even any way to actually know that?) or that the Slashdot "editors" didn't even see that coming.
I guess that's Journalism 2.0, in which it's the user who does the editor's job of spotting the bullshit.
Gah. Everyone hates a grammar Nazi who won't let a mistake slip in his comment for us to point at and laugh. That means you!
Therefore, claiming that there could be "giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe" just outside this bubble seems somewhat... convenient.
"giant, massive structures much larger than anything in our own observable universe" is the new "here be dragons".
Interestingly, Sept 25 Is World Day Against World Days. Look it up.
God, learn to fucking read.
lol, I'm so not reading all of that..
Yeah. Let's leave out the fact data is stored binarily and that it could only result in a higher error rate which would affect all bits, even the most significant ones, and that it would just sound like noise.
PS : I love the smell of burning karma in the morning.
So we merely need to kill every communist sympathizer before they achieve any kind of power ? Great.
No, don't you read? You just have to kill the leader.
By that standard, we'd probably have to shoot Obama AND McCain, you know, just in case they're "originators". Such EVIL !
Not really, they're merely iterations, the 44th to be precise.
At first when I read the title I thought it would involve stick figures a few hundreds of carbon atoms high playing soccer with a molecule of Buckminsterfullerene. Then I started picturing how cool it would be if we could make video games that used atoms of carbon instead of pixels, and an electronic microscope for us to see the result, and what the nanoscopic versions of Pong, Space Invaders or Pac-Man would play like.
Then I read the summary.. :-(
Yup, that's why the communist regimes in China and the Soviet Union failed with the deaths of Mao and Lenin after all
No, you're missing the point. When the regime is in place, it's too late, you can take off the originator. Once your disciples are in power it's too late, but before that happens, before some point when a movement gains too much momentum and power, the people who started it are the only thing that keep the thing going. Not ideas. People. Leaders.
The ideas for communism were out of the bag long before 1917. A revolution was bound to happen due to the conditions and the regime in the country (I like to blame it all on Nikolai II's insensitivity, stubbornness and insufficient leadership skills), but without Lenin who's to say how different the outcome would have been? That sort of change takes opportunities, and someone to exploit those opportunities and lead their way to their goal, which depends on what they want, not on their ideals. Ideas don't lead people, leaders do, and ideas are just tools they use to get a following. But communism isn't inherently dangerous, nazism isn't inherently dangerous, people are.
You look at the whole problem too far downhill, when the powers are in already place and executing their plan. You have to look at what happens uphill, when movements are bodies that couldn't survive a decapitation.
The whole point is, it's not the carrot that makes the mule go forth, it's the man who holds the carrot.
The danger isn't where you think it is. Only dangerous people want to control ideas. Ideas within this context are anti-dangers, i.e. they help destroy dangers. Note that for the sake of generalisation and simplification we'll assume a moral absolutism.
Which is why in most of the western world there is little censorship, because dangerous (evil) people aren't in charge of us (that's a generalisation) and thus why every idea is freely available to us, without anything bad happening as a result, i.e. our freedom of access to all the so called dangerous ideas/ideologies ever produced have little negative impact on our civilisations. Which proves my point. No idea is to be feared, the only danger is that ideas would be deemed dangerous.