I know you're not unique in your opinion -- however please hear me state the opposite side too. There's no author other than Tolkien that has given me sentences that stick to memory like some of the following:
"These staves he spoke, yet he laughed as he said them. For once more lust of battle was on him; and he was still unscathed, and he was young, and he was king: the lord of a fell people."
"Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Illuvatar, and a bright flame was in him."
Passages like these combine extreme simplicity with extreme effectiveness. They stick to my memory. That must mean something concerning, even though his prose is not of such a kind that appeals to *you*. His prose may not flow easily to some readers -- and yet many other readers find that his words don't easily flow *away* from them.
"It talks about OBSERVATIONS, i.e. about photons."
Um, when theory of relativity speaks about observations it speaks about causality itself. The observation B of an event A, is any event B that was caused by A.
To observe an event is to be affected by it in any manner.
"The theory of relativity states that there is no universal simultaneity for OBSERVING an event."
Um. That would not have been a new idea. The new idea that relativity brought is that there can be no universal standard for simultaneity itself, because time is dependent on the observer. Any two events C and D can be considered simultaneous according to *some* frame of reference if each is outside the other one's lightcone. According to different frames C may be thought to precede D or D to precede C -- but *that* doesn't violate causality because those event couldn't have affect one another anyway.
But FTL communication means that event C could be communicated to point-event D, even though in a different (but equally valid) frame of reference, point-event D precedes C. Event D could then use FTL to communicate itself to C. As such -- causality violation.
Unless not all frames of reference were created equal, as theory of relativity suggested.
There are no time paradoxes if FTL communication exists, for the simple reason that when an event happens, it happens for all the universe.
The problem with that is the theory of relativity states that there's no universal simultaneity. The value of "When an event happens" is meaningless when you encompass the whole of the universe.
Given some coordinate system you'll inevitably have placed the effect before the cause, if you allow FTL.
How in the hell is transmitting data even remotely a step in the direction of transmitting matter?
Because data aren't just transmitted, in the sense of being copied, they are actually transferred, being removed from their original location.
You create a physical replica of the object (minus quantum state) somewhere else. You then transmit the quantum state, automatically destroying it in the original object. The object at the destination now is indistinguishable from the object that used to exist in the origin. The non-copiable quantum state remains unique.
If human consciousness is connected with this quantum state at all, this gives you a way of transferring human consciousness to an appropriate receptacle.
Expansionist Russia vs expansionist USA... which do we believe, or disbelieve?
False question. USA isn't being expansionist against Russia. Russia isn't being expansionist against America. The field in confrontation is Eastern Europe, where the real situation is as goes:
* Russia expansionist *against* Poland, Czech Republic and her various other former protectorates in Eastern Europe. * United States in *support* of Poland, Czech Republic and the various other new democracies of Eastern Europe.
Does that make the situation to understand on a moral level?
* Vadim Kuznetsov, editor-in-chief of journal "World and home. Saint Petersburg", killed in Saint Petersburg
* Konstantin Brovko, journalist of TV company "Gubernia" (Russian: ""), killed in Khabarovsk
* Ivan Safronov, Military columninst of newspaper "Kommersant". Killed in Moscow on March 2.
2006
* Vaghif Kochetkov, newspaper Trud (Labor), killed in Tula;
* Ilya Zimin, he worked for NTV Russia television channel, killed in Moscow;
* Vyacheslav Akatov, special reporter, "Business Moscow" TV show, killed in Moscow Region;
* Anton Kretenchuk, cameraman, 38th TV Channel, killed in Rostov-on-Don;
* Yevgeny Gerasimenko, newspaper "Saratovsky Rasklad", Saratov;
* Vlad Kidanov, freelance journalist, Cheboksary;
* Alexander Petrov, editor-in-chief, "Right for Choice" magazine, killed near Omsk - in Altai Republic;
* Vyacheslav Plotnikov, reporter, 41st TV Channel, Voronezh;
* Anna Politkovskaya, observer, newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Moscow.
2005
* Pavel Makeyev, reporter for TNT-Pulse Company, Rostov-on-Don;
* Magomedzaghid Varisov, Makhachkala;
* Alexander Pitersky, Baltika Radio reporter, Saint Petersburg;
* Vladimir Pashutin, newspaper Smolensky Literator, Smolensk;
* Tamirlan Kazikhanov, press service head, Anti-Terrorist Center of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs's Main Department for the Southern Federal District, Nalchik;
* Kira Lezhneva, reporter, newspaper "Kamensky Worker", Sverdlovsk Region.
2004
* Yefim Sukhanov, ATK-Media, Archangelsk;
* Farit Urazbayev, cameraman, Vladivostok TV/Radio Company, city of Vladivostok;
* Adlan Khassanov, Reuters reporter, killed in Grozny;
* Shangysh Mondush, correspondent for newspaper Khemchiktin Syldyzy, Tuva Republic;
* Paul Khlebnikov, editor of Russian version of Forbes magazine, Moscow;
* Payl Peloyan, editor of Armyansky Pereulok magazine, Moscow;
* Zoya Ivanova, BGTRK broadcaster, Republic of Buryatia;
* Vladimir Pritchin, editor-in-chief of North Baikal TV/Radio Company, Republic of Buryatia;
* Ian Travinsky, Saint Petersburg, killed in Irkutsk;
2003
* Aleksei Sidorov, Tolyatinskoye Obozreniye, October 9, 2003, Togliatti. He was the second editor-in-chief of local newspaper, "Tolyatinskoye Obozreniye" to be shot to death. His predecessor, Valery Ivanov, was shot in April 2002. The newspaper was known for reporting on organized crime and corruption in the industrial city of Togliatti. [1]
* Yuri Shchekochikhin, Novaya Gazeta, July 3, 2003, Moscow. Deputy editor of the Novaya Gazeta, he died just a few days before his scheduled trip to USA to discuss the results of his journalist investigation with FBI officials. He investigated "Three Whales Corruption Scandal" that involved high-ranking FSB officials. Shchekochikhin died from an "acute allergic reaction" to a substance that was presumably identified as thallium. [2]
* Dmitry Shvets, TV-21 Northwestern Broadcasting, April 18, 2003, Murmansk. He was deputy director of the independent television station TV-21 Northwestern Broadcasting. He was shot dead outs
Do you have a point? What does democracy have to do with complaining when missiles and radar stations are being pointed at your country?
It has lots to do with the legitimacy of Putin complaining about anything that concerns "his" country. When he himself murders Russian citizens by the hundreds, and enslaves them by the millions, complains about missile defense systems in neaby countries seem to me to merely represent his frustration that he may not find it so easy to kill and enslave people in those neighbouring nations as well.
the US is putting missiles on Russia's doorstep
NO. The US is putting missiles on certain independent nations that requested the presence of those missiles. Those nations possess their own independence and their own sovereignty, and you have no right to diminish them to the status of "Russia's doorstep".
They're not Russia's doorstep. They are the living room of the next-door neighbour. You may complain about things put on your own doorstep, but you have no right to complain about things put in the living room of the next-door neighbour.
But since CA represent perfect causal determinism, doesn't that mean we people have the time of arrow backwards ourselves when applying it to our own universe? Instead of the past causing the future, the future causes the past.
The reason we don't know the future for sure, is for the same way that we can't tell for certain which of a number of potential preceding causal states created the "current" state in a CA.
Not that I'm an expert, but it seems to me that the physics of solids are slightly different that the physics of fluids.
Two solid objects come into forceful contact. One gives way and loses its shape, the other does not. The one that does not, is the harder material of the two.
Fluids do not factor in this because by definition they do not have a shape in the first place.
You seem to be comparing popular sentiment *now*, with military alliances *then*.
That's apples and oranges. If you're to mention Soviet alliances back then, then America still has lots and lots of alliances, about as many as it had in the time of Cold War (it has lost alliances in Latin America but has gained in Eastern Europe)
And if you're to talk about popular sentiment, then you've got to consider that countries like Hungary and Chechoslovakia rebelled and had to be invaded to keep them "friendly" to the USSR.
"As others have suggested, if he could have taken some on professional duties in the form of writing about his voyage, he could have partially or wholly written off his tax burden."
But why should he care to do so?
What you're basically saying is that he should have worked his butt off trying to find ways to make up for the sheer financial cost this would burden him with.
Not bloody worth the stress, it seems to me. If I have to work my butt off trying to pay off a debt, I'd rather not get into debt in the first place.
It would take the joy out of the space trip as well, if I knew I was depriving my family from money they could have used elsewhere.
What "managed democracy" means, is that when Russia's people were against a war in Chechnya, Putin caused some Moscow apartment buildings to explode, so that they were now in favor of it.
That's what "managed democracy" means. That by mass murder of your own citizens, Putin will get you to want exactly what *he* would like you to want. And it also means that when some Russian reporter threatens to expose facts about the regime that Putin doesn't want you to hear, that reporter gets killed, and the books they wrote get confiscated.
If the Russian people desire that, this blissful ignorance, and this sacrifice of their citizens to modify and/or preserve public opinion, then they indeed deserve Putin. However the rest of the region still doesn't. Georgia doesn't deserve Putin as a neighbor, and Moldova doesn't deserve him, and neither does Ukraine.
On top of that the now have some level of freedom.
Indications are that they have less freedom now than they used to have -- e.g. people getting killed because they are wearing shorts.
Things are still messy
That you say "still" implies some transitional period to a better situation. But things are not "messy" in that way at all. Theocracy is advancing in Iraq, while democracy is retreating. The messy transition isn't to a *better* state than the previous one, it's to a worse one.
Yes, things are still messy. But unfortunately the end of the messiness will be the consolidation of the Shiite theocracy of Sadr and SCIRI.
but there is hope.
There's less hope than it used to be. A theocracy is always harder to topple than a secular dictatorship.
Well, I suppose you can call "hunger" a drive that's unrelated to emotion, but *logically* you can end hunger by simply killing yourself. You're not going to find a "logical" reason for the choice to survive.
If you take emotion out of the equation, then there's no point in doing anything at all, given how happiness and unhappiness, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, are all emotions. Being inert as a rock is logical when there's no boredom or other emotion to make you desire activity -- letting civilization collapse is as "logical" as the opposite, when there's no emotion that makes one desire its continuation.
Logic is only a method used to achieve end goals you've already set; logic is absolutely meaningless without *emotion* first setting what those goals should be.
The greatest thing about Jackson's LOTR trilogy is the amount of respect he & everyone else involved had for Tolkien's original text.
Don't make me laugh. Jackson had utter *lack* of respect for Tolkien's original text and characters. He transformed Gimli (a warrior with the soul of a poet, and the deepest appreciation of beauty in the whole fellowship) into a belching buffoon. He had Faramir (possibly the gentlest character in the book) beat up Gollum. He utterly discredited Denethor, turning him into a subject of slapstick. He removed or changed *all* the characterization from Eowyn's attraction towards Aragorn (an unhealthy attraction based on despair, and intrinsically connected to her later death-wish). He had Arwen change her mind to and fro, regarding whether she'd go to Valinor or choose mortality.
And in the meantime he inserted meaningless diversions, like Aragorn falling off cliffs and people boo-hooing over his presumed death.
Amount of respect? Puh-leez. That they *claimed* to have respect for Tolkien, doesn't mean that they didn't in fact urinate over his bones. The end product of the movies proves that they did.
If you want to see a film production with actual respect for the original I suggest that you take a look at Chronicles of Narnia. Or even Harry Potter.
Re:More like a creative way to get work for free..
on
Google Image Labeler
·
· Score: 1, Informative
"don't quite understand that communism ("people should own the means of production they use, and if a particular means needs more than one people to operate, then those people should own it communally") is not exclusive to free market ("everyone is free to produce what they want and trade with whoever they will")."
Not according to Marx in his "Communist Manifesto", who said: "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Communal worker ownership of the means of production is only *part* of communism, and possibly the most benign part. Unfortunately the abolition of private property means that the *fruits* of production are also communally owned -- and thus in a sense not owned by anyone at all except those handful of individuals that claim to represent the whole of the community.
Most vandals are immature brats whose idea of contributing to wikipedia is posting things like "FUggOTS sYCk!" in the article concerning Homosexuality. It's not as if we need experts to determine whether *those* edits are vandalism or not.
I understand and pretty much agree with everything you're saying on a practical level -- except that I'm not sure we need define "soul" in as limited fashion as that (something that must perforce survive after death in any sort of identifiable fashion, or something separate from the function of the brain synapses).
Though Abrahamic religions have conditioned us to be thinking in terms of immortal and indivisible souls, I think one could equally validly consider soul to be the thing in us that thinks of itself as "I", the thing we feel to be as the thing that actually feels, rather than the thing felt. The focal-point of awareness. If this focal point is merely a construct of the brain, and perishes upon death, that doesn't make it any less real, or so it seems to me.
The judge's speech concerns IIRC the fundamental impossibility to distinguish between the appearance of awareness and actual awareness. A self-diagnosing computer program may be aware of itself in a fashion, but in another way most of us would say that it's not aware of *anything* at all, including itself. A character killed on screen doesn't feel any pain, no matter how realistically the blood splutters on screen. And yet most of us would say that a dog *can* feel pain, every bit as real to it than to humans.
Wouldn't you say that computer programs currently lack some focal-point of awareness that nonetheless both dogs and humans can be said to have?
Someone needs to explain precisely how this "ribbon" feature adds value.
It removes the arbitrary division and needless duplication between the functionality of the GUI toolbars and the textual menus that doubled the search-space when a user needed to look for a function that they knew was there but weren't sure how best to access.
It combines the visual appeal and quick access of toolbars, with the fullness of capabilities that menus provide. When working in related tasks you used to keep on needing to click on the same menu, to locate a tiny textual menu item (or even subitem of menu item) -- either that or add a toolbar that quite likely wouldn't contain all the functions you needed anyway. Now that is history. You click on a type of action -- you see immediately *all* the functions at your disposal. And they remain visibly at your disposal, not forcing you to go back time and again to the same menu, just to check out which possible actions there are in regards to a given task.
In other words -- the ribbon causes less time to be wasted *locating* the action you want.
What's better, censored information or no information?
It depends. I'd say that usually "censored information" is the worst one, in the same way that poisoned food is even worse than no food at all.
Keep in mind that by "censored" here one doesn't mean censored for reasons of prudishness as usually happens in America, some misguided attempt to improve the society's morals. Instead we mean the kind of censoreship that deliberate attempts to keep the people from opposing their government's tyranny, while at the same time providing them the illussion that they're are offering them free flow of information.
There's only caveat I'll make, which is that if Google, etc, specifically notes in their pages that a result has been censored (I fail to remember if they do or don't), this may help counteract or even subvert the intents of the Chinese government with this censorship.
Have you noticed how religious people have turned from actual believing to something specific to a generic defense of religiousness? There's probably nothing at all in Christianity's teachings that tells you that what the monk did was right (especially given how Jesus has already taught us how to pray, and supposedly doesn't need any fancier prayers) -- but you defend him on the general basis of defending religiousness.
Isn't the whole point of "sinning", that sometimes through Free Will people do things that God would have preferred them to do otherwise, or not do at all?
In which case, you have no idea whether God wanted that monk to destroy mathematical knowledge or not, and it's only the deadly sin of Pride that makes you think you understand God's plans regarding this issue.
"Wow, 9/11 wasn't a violent time that tore the world apart?"
Compared to the number of dead in the American Civil War, or of World War 2, you mean? Hardly.
"Is this Osama posting from his cave in Pakistan??? If so, hopefully the CIA is reading what you wrote, backtracking your IP address and sending some visitors."
Yeah, you're definitely making my point about civil liberties there.
"It's not about Western democracy because democracy simply means the people get to chose (if they chose B over A they got to live with that)."
American citizens chose Bush for President, they didn't choose him to be a King with his "signing statements" and the like, torturing people at will. I'm afraid I've got lots more respect for democracy than you can even begin to comprehend.
"And I know it's not "secular" (which means to put Man above God)"
It was Jesus who was the first and foremost secularist actually, as the defining statement of secularism is "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give unto God that which is God's".
His supposed believers never miss a chance to piss on Jesus' corpse ofcourse.
Lincoln lived in a time of civil war that tore his nation apart, and FDR lived during a violent world war that killed dozens of millions of people in a handful of short years. Both those wars were limited in duration; the dangers therefore were likewise limited in duration.
Bush's only explanation for *his* actions are the terrible power that WMDs have. Since technology won't ever go backwards, that means that the civil rights violations he causes to be will be for ever.
"if you don't think the Islamic Radicals want to eliminate the concepts of Western society you have your head in the sand."
Which sure explains why Bush didn't choose to attack Islamic radicals like Iran, Sudan, Hamas, Hezbollah or their Syrian sponsors, but he only attacked the *secular* Baathist regime in Iraq instead, *allowing* Islamic radicals like Sadr and SCIRI to take the whole nation over like that.
Why does Bush *love* Islamic radicals so much that he handed them a whole nation as a gift, can you tell me that? Why does Bush love all of the *methods* of the Islamic radicals as well, including the usage of torture, and the appeals to godly crusades (aka jihads)? Why does the only constitutional amendment he proposed have to do with supporting the religious radicals' quest to bash gay people, instead of something meant to battle religious radicalism perhaps?
Why, in short, does Bush seem to do everything in his power to blur every line imaginable between Western secular democracy and Islamofascism, instead of seeking the emphasize the differences? Why does he seek to *destroy* the moral superiority of Western democracy, and seeks instead to have it displayed to the Middle-east in the most twisted and vile manner possible, with bombings followed by anarchy followed by arbitrary arrest, torture and sexual humiliation?
What amazing propaganda gifts Bush has handed over to the islamofascists in the whole of the Third World! What nations will now *ever* seek American "liberation", when they know what those words really mean to Bush and his followers?
Is this the president you trust to be the banner-bearer of Western civilisation? This irresponsible torturer with messianic delusions? This propaganda tool of the Islamofascists?
Slashdot Mirror
I know you're not unique in your opinion -- however please hear me state the opposite side too. There's no author other than Tolkien that has given me sentences that stick to memory like some of the following: "These staves he spoke, yet he laughed as he said them. For once more lust of battle was on him; and he was still unscathed, and he was young, and he was king: the lord of a fell people." "Feanor was made the mightiest in all parts of body and mind, in valour, in endurance, in beauty, in understanding, in skill, in strength and in subtlety alike, of all the Children of Illuvatar, and a bright flame was in him." Passages like these combine extreme simplicity with extreme effectiveness. They stick to my memory. That must mean something concerning, even though his prose is not of such a kind that appeals to *you*. His prose may not flow easily to some readers -- and yet many other readers find that his words don't easily flow *away* from them.
"It talks about OBSERVATIONS, i.e. about photons."
Um, when theory of relativity speaks about observations it speaks about causality itself. The observation B of an event A, is any event B that was caused by A.
To observe an event is to be affected by it in any manner.
"The theory of relativity states that there is no universal simultaneity for OBSERVING an event."
Um. That would not have been a new idea. The new idea that relativity brought is that there can be no universal standard for simultaneity itself, because time is dependent on the observer. Any two events C and D can be considered simultaneous according to *some* frame of reference if each is outside the other one's lightcone. According to different frames C may be thought to precede D or D to precede C -- but *that* doesn't violate causality because those event couldn't have affect one another anyway.
But FTL communication means that event C could be communicated to point-event D, even though in a different (but equally valid) frame of reference, point-event D precedes C. Event D could then use FTL to communicate itself to C. As such -- causality violation.
Unless not all frames of reference were created equal, as theory of relativity suggested.
There are no time paradoxes if FTL communication exists, for the simple reason that when an event happens, it happens for all the universe. The problem with that is the theory of relativity states that there's no universal simultaneity. The value of "When an event happens" is meaningless when you encompass the whole of the universe. Given some coordinate system you'll inevitably have placed the effect before the cause, if you allow FTL.
How in the hell is transmitting data even remotely a step in the direction of transmitting matter? Because data aren't just transmitted, in the sense of being copied, they are actually transferred, being removed from their original location. You create a physical replica of the object (minus quantum state) somewhere else. You then transmit the quantum state, automatically destroying it in the original object. The object at the destination now is indistinguishable from the object that used to exist in the origin. The non-copiable quantum state remains unique. If human consciousness is connected with this quantum state at all, this gives you a way of transferring human consciousness to an appropriate receptacle.
Expansionist Russia vs expansionist USA... which do we believe, or disbelieve?
False question. USA isn't being expansionist against Russia. Russia isn't being expansionist against America. The field in confrontation is Eastern Europe, where the real situation is as goes:
* Russia expansionist *against* Poland, Czech Republic and her various other former protectorates in Eastern Europe.
* United States in *support* of Poland, Czech Republic and the various other new democracies of Eastern Europe.
Does that make the situation to understand on a moral level?
And I don't see mass-murders of journalists.
Really?
2007
* Vadim Kuznetsov, editor-in-chief of journal "World and home. Saint Petersburg", killed in Saint Petersburg
* Konstantin Brovko, journalist of TV company "Gubernia" (Russian: ""), killed in Khabarovsk
* Ivan Safronov, Military columninst of newspaper "Kommersant". Killed in Moscow on March 2.
2006
* Vaghif Kochetkov, newspaper Trud (Labor), killed in Tula;
* Ilya Zimin, he worked for NTV Russia television channel, killed in Moscow;
* Vyacheslav Akatov, special reporter, "Business Moscow" TV show, killed in Moscow Region;
* Anton Kretenchuk, cameraman, 38th TV Channel, killed in Rostov-on-Don;
* Yevgeny Gerasimenko, newspaper "Saratovsky Rasklad", Saratov;
* Vlad Kidanov, freelance journalist, Cheboksary;
* Alexander Petrov, editor-in-chief, "Right for Choice" magazine, killed near Omsk - in Altai Republic;
* Vyacheslav Plotnikov, reporter, 41st TV Channel, Voronezh;
* Anna Politkovskaya, observer, newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Moscow.
2005
* Pavel Makeyev, reporter for TNT-Pulse Company, Rostov-on-Don;
* Magomedzaghid Varisov, Makhachkala;
* Alexander Pitersky, Baltika Radio reporter, Saint Petersburg;
* Vladimir Pashutin, newspaper Smolensky Literator, Smolensk;
* Tamirlan Kazikhanov, press service head, Anti-Terrorist Center of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs's Main Department for the Southern Federal District, Nalchik;
* Kira Lezhneva, reporter, newspaper "Kamensky Worker", Sverdlovsk Region.
2004
* Yefim Sukhanov, ATK-Media, Archangelsk;
* Farit Urazbayev, cameraman, Vladivostok TV/Radio Company, city of Vladivostok;
* Adlan Khassanov, Reuters reporter, killed in Grozny;
* Shangysh Mondush, correspondent for newspaper Khemchiktin Syldyzy, Tuva Republic;
* Paul Khlebnikov, editor of Russian version of Forbes magazine, Moscow;
* Payl Peloyan, editor of Armyansky Pereulok magazine, Moscow;
* Zoya Ivanova, BGTRK broadcaster, Republic of Buryatia;
* Vladimir Pritchin, editor-in-chief of North Baikal TV/Radio Company, Republic of Buryatia;
* Ian Travinsky, Saint Petersburg, killed in Irkutsk;
2003
* Aleksei Sidorov, Tolyatinskoye Obozreniye, October 9, 2003, Togliatti. He was the second editor-in-chief of local newspaper, "Tolyatinskoye Obozreniye" to be shot to death. His predecessor, Valery Ivanov, was shot in April 2002. The newspaper was known for reporting on organized crime and corruption in the industrial city of Togliatti. [1]
* Yuri Shchekochikhin, Novaya Gazeta, July 3, 2003, Moscow. Deputy editor of the Novaya Gazeta, he died just a few days before his scheduled trip to USA to discuss the results of his journalist investigation with FBI officials. He investigated "Three Whales Corruption Scandal" that involved high-ranking FSB officials. Shchekochikhin died from an "acute allergic reaction" to a substance that was presumably identified as thallium. [2]
* Dmitry Shvets, TV-21 Northwestern Broadcasting, April 18, 2003, Murmansk. He was deputy director of the independent television station TV-21 Northwestern Broadcasting. He was shot dead outs
Do you have a point? What does democracy have to do with complaining when missiles and radar stations are being pointed at your country? It has lots to do with the legitimacy of Putin complaining about anything that concerns "his" country. When he himself murders Russian citizens by the hundreds, and enslaves them by the millions, complains about missile defense systems in neaby countries seem to me to merely represent his frustration that he may not find it so easy to kill and enslave people in those neighbouring nations as well. the US is putting missiles on Russia's doorstep NO. The US is putting missiles on certain independent nations that requested the presence of those missiles. Those nations possess their own independence and their own sovereignty, and you have no right to diminish them to the status of "Russia's doorstep". They're not Russia's doorstep. They are the living room of the next-door neighbour. You may complain about things put on your own doorstep, but you have no right to complain about things put in the living room of the next-door neighbour.
Interesting thought.
But since CA represent perfect causal determinism, doesn't that mean we people have the time of arrow backwards ourselves when applying it to our own universe? Instead of the past causing the future, the future causes the past.
The reason we don't know the future for sure, is for the same way that we can't tell for certain which of a number of potential preceding causal states created the "current" state in a CA.
Not that I'm an expert, but it seems to me that the physics of solids are slightly different that the physics of fluids.
Two solid objects come into forceful contact. One gives way and loses its shape, the other does not. The one that does not, is the harder material of the two.
Fluids do not factor in this because by definition they do not have a shape in the first place.
You seem to be comparing popular sentiment *now*, with military alliances *then*. That's apples and oranges. If you're to mention Soviet alliances back then, then America still has lots and lots of alliances, about as many as it had in the time of Cold War (it has lost alliances in Latin America but has gained in Eastern Europe) And if you're to talk about popular sentiment, then you've got to consider that countries like Hungary and Chechoslovakia rebelled and had to be invaded to keep them "friendly" to the USSR.
"As others have suggested, if he could have taken some on professional duties in the form of writing about his voyage, he could have partially or wholly written off his tax burden."
But why should he care to do so?
What you're basically saying is that he should have worked his butt off trying to find ways to make up for the sheer financial cost this would burden him with.
Not bloody worth the stress, it seems to me. If I have to work my butt off trying to pay off a debt, I'd rather not get into debt in the first place.
It would take the joy out of the space trip as well, if I knew I was depriving my family from money they could have used elsewhere.
What "managed democracy" means, is that when Russia's people were against a war in Chechnya, Putin caused some Moscow apartment buildings to explode, so that they were now in favor of it. That's what "managed democracy" means. That by mass murder of your own citizens, Putin will get you to want exactly what *he* would like you to want. And it also means that when some Russian reporter threatens to expose facts about the regime that Putin doesn't want you to hear, that reporter gets killed, and the books they wrote get confiscated. If the Russian people desire that, this blissful ignorance, and this sacrifice of their citizens to modify and/or preserve public opinion, then they indeed deserve Putin. However the rest of the region still doesn't. Georgia doesn't deserve Putin as a neighbor, and Moldova doesn't deserve him, and neither does Ukraine.
On top of that the now have some level of freedom. Indications are that they have less freedom now than they used to have -- e.g. people getting killed because they are wearing shorts. Things are still messy That you say "still" implies some transitional period to a better situation. But things are not "messy" in that way at all. Theocracy is advancing in Iraq, while democracy is retreating. The messy transition isn't to a *better* state than the previous one, it's to a worse one. Yes, things are still messy. But unfortunately the end of the messiness will be the consolidation of the Shiite theocracy of Sadr and SCIRI. but there is hope. There's less hope than it used to be. A theocracy is always harder to topple than a secular dictatorship.
Well, I suppose you can call "hunger" a drive that's unrelated to emotion, but *logically* you can end hunger by simply killing yourself. You're not going to find a "logical" reason for the choice to survive.
If you take emotion out of the equation, then there's no point in doing anything at all, given how happiness and unhappiness, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, are all emotions. Being inert as a rock is logical when there's no boredom or other emotion to make you desire activity -- letting civilization collapse is as "logical" as the opposite, when there's no emotion that makes one desire its continuation. Logic is only a method used to achieve end goals you've already set; logic is absolutely meaningless without *emotion* first setting what those goals should be.
The greatest thing about Jackson's LOTR trilogy is the amount of respect he & everyone else involved had for Tolkien's original text.
Don't make me laugh. Jackson had utter *lack* of respect for Tolkien's original text and characters. He transformed Gimli (a warrior with the soul of a poet, and the deepest appreciation of beauty in the whole fellowship) into a belching buffoon. He had Faramir (possibly the gentlest character in the book) beat up Gollum. He utterly discredited Denethor, turning him into a subject of slapstick. He removed or changed *all* the characterization from Eowyn's attraction towards Aragorn (an unhealthy attraction based on despair, and intrinsically connected to her later death-wish). He had Arwen change her mind to and fro, regarding whether she'd go to Valinor or choose mortality.
And in the meantime he inserted meaningless diversions, like Aragorn falling off cliffs and people boo-hooing over his presumed death.
Amount of respect? Puh-leez. That they *claimed* to have respect for Tolkien, doesn't mean that they didn't in fact urinate over his bones. The end product of the movies proves that they did.
If you want to see a film production with actual respect for the original I suggest that you take a look at Chronicles of Narnia. Or even Harry Potter.
"don't quite understand that communism ("people should own the means of production they use, and if a particular means needs more than one people to operate, then those people should own it communally") is not exclusive to free market ("everyone is free to produce what they want and trade with whoever they will")."
Not according to Marx in his "Communist Manifesto", who said: "the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Communal worker ownership of the means of production is only *part* of communism, and possibly the most benign part. Unfortunately the abolition of private property means that the *fruits* of production are also communally owned -- and thus in a sense not owned by anyone at all except those handful of individuals that claim to represent the whole of the community.
Most vandals are immature brats whose idea of contributing to wikipedia is posting things like "FUggOTS sYCk!" in the article concerning Homosexuality. It's not as if we need experts to determine whether *those* edits are vandalism or not.
I understand and pretty much agree with everything you're saying on a practical level -- except that I'm not sure we need define "soul" in as limited fashion as that (something that must perforce survive after death in any sort of identifiable fashion, or something separate from the function of the brain synapses).
Though Abrahamic religions have conditioned us to be thinking in terms of immortal and indivisible souls, I think one could equally validly consider soul to be the thing in us that thinks of itself as "I", the thing we feel to be as the thing that actually feels, rather than the thing felt. The focal-point of awareness. If this focal point is merely a construct of the brain, and perishes upon death, that doesn't make it any less real, or so it seems to me.
The judge's speech concerns IIRC the fundamental impossibility to distinguish between the appearance of awareness and actual awareness. A self-diagnosing computer program may be aware of itself in a fashion, but in another way most of us would say that it's not aware of *anything* at all, including itself. A character killed on screen doesn't feel any pain, no matter how realistically the blood splutters on screen. And yet most of us would say that a dog *can* feel pain, every bit as real to it than to humans.
Wouldn't you say that computer programs currently lack some focal-point of awareness that nonetheless both dogs and humans can be said to have?
Someone needs to explain precisely how this "ribbon" feature adds value. It removes the arbitrary division and needless duplication between the functionality of the GUI toolbars and the textual menus that doubled the search-space when a user needed to look for a function that they knew was there but weren't sure how best to access. It combines the visual appeal and quick access of toolbars, with the fullness of capabilities that menus provide. When working in related tasks you used to keep on needing to click on the same menu, to locate a tiny textual menu item (or even subitem of menu item) -- either that or add a toolbar that quite likely wouldn't contain all the functions you needed anyway. Now that is history. You click on a type of action -- you see immediately *all* the functions at your disposal. And they remain visibly at your disposal, not forcing you to go back time and again to the same menu, just to check out which possible actions there are in regards to a given task. In other words -- the ribbon causes less time to be wasted *locating* the action you want.
What's better, censored information or no information?
It depends. I'd say that usually "censored information" is the worst one, in the same way that poisoned food is even worse than no food at all.
Keep in mind that by "censored" here one doesn't mean censored for reasons of prudishness as usually happens in America, some misguided attempt to improve the society's morals. Instead we mean the kind of censoreship that deliberate attempts to keep the people from opposing their government's tyranny, while at the same time providing them the illussion that they're are offering them free flow of information.
There's only caveat I'll make, which is that if Google, etc, specifically notes in their pages that a result has been censored (I fail to remember if they do or don't), this may help counteract or even subvert the intents of the Chinese government with this censorship.
Have you noticed how religious people have turned from actual believing to something specific to a generic defense of religiousness? There's probably nothing at all in Christianity's teachings that tells you that what the monk did was right (especially given how Jesus has already taught us how to pray, and supposedly doesn't need any fancier prayers) -- but you defend him on the general basis of defending religiousness.
Isn't the whole point of "sinning", that sometimes through Free Will people do things that God would have preferred them to do otherwise, or not do at all? In which case, you have no idea whether God wanted that monk to destroy mathematical knowledge or not, and it's only the deadly sin of Pride that makes you think you understand God's plans regarding this issue.
"Wow, 9/11 wasn't a violent time that tore the world apart?"
Compared to the number of dead in the American Civil War, or of World War 2, you mean? Hardly.
"Is this Osama posting from his cave in Pakistan??? If so, hopefully the CIA is reading what you wrote, backtracking your IP address and sending some visitors."
Yeah, you're definitely making my point about civil liberties there.
"It's not about Western democracy because democracy simply means the people get to chose (if they chose B over A they got to live with that)."
American citizens chose Bush for President, they didn't choose him to be a King with his "signing statements" and the like, torturing people at will. I'm afraid I've got lots more respect for democracy than you can even begin to comprehend.
"And I know it's not "secular" (which means to put Man above God)"
It was Jesus who was the first and foremost secularist actually, as the defining statement of secularism is "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give unto God that which is God's".
His supposed believers never miss a chance to piss on Jesus' corpse ofcourse.
Lincoln lived in a time of civil war that tore his nation apart, and FDR lived during a violent world war that killed dozens of millions of people in a handful of short years. Both those wars were limited in duration; the dangers therefore were likewise limited in duration.
Bush's only explanation for *his* actions are the terrible power that WMDs have. Since technology won't ever go backwards, that means that the civil rights violations he causes to be will be for ever.
"if you don't think the Islamic Radicals want to eliminate the concepts of Western society you have your head in the sand."
Which sure explains why Bush didn't choose to attack Islamic radicals like Iran, Sudan, Hamas, Hezbollah or their Syrian sponsors, but he only attacked the *secular* Baathist regime in Iraq instead, *allowing* Islamic radicals like Sadr and SCIRI to take the whole nation over like that.
Why does Bush *love* Islamic radicals so much that he handed them a whole nation as a gift, can you tell me that? Why does Bush love all of the *methods* of the Islamic radicals as well, including the usage of torture, and the appeals to godly crusades (aka jihads)? Why does the only constitutional amendment he proposed have to do with supporting the religious radicals' quest to bash gay people, instead of something meant to battle religious radicalism perhaps?
Why, in short, does Bush seem to do everything in his power to blur every line imaginable between Western secular democracy and Islamofascism, instead of seeking the emphasize the differences? Why does he seek to *destroy* the moral superiority of Western democracy, and seeks instead to have it displayed to the Middle-east in the most twisted and vile manner possible, with bombings followed by anarchy followed by arbitrary arrest, torture and sexual humiliation?
What amazing propaganda gifts Bush has handed over to the islamofascists in the whole of the Third World! What nations will now *ever* seek American "liberation", when they know what those words really mean to Bush and his followers?
Is this the president you trust to be the banner-bearer of Western civilisation? This irresponsible torturer with messianic delusions? This propaganda tool of the Islamofascists?