I'd like to believe that, but see no indication of it. The "occupy" movement is largely children of the eighties and nineties, as are most truthers. Religiosity is down, but conversion to crazy fringe factions is up. And the whole thing is a bit slanted by the fact that most first-world nations have declining birth rates; even if our new generations were the most rational ever, they'll be living in a world awash in the craziness of other cultures.
Don't get me wrong - I think we're generally headed in the right direction, and things do tend to get better over time... but I'd be hesitant to consider "the children of the eighties and nineties" as some sort of panacea. We're all still human beings, with the same frailities, insecurities, and misfiring instincts that our species has always had to struggle with. I don't expect to see any major improvements in human nature during my lifetime.
The issue is that those who are "skeptical" of "man-made global warming" (with a few rare exceptions), and those who "aren't hard-core Darwinists" (a euphemism for "intelligent design", I take it?) by necessity have to reject science as a methodology in order to maintain their beliefs. They accept "science" as the name for a field which gets them useful toys, while completely rejecting the way in which it functions.
Also, the word "Darwinist" is asinine. It's a perfect illustration of the difference between people who take things on faith, and those who try to maintain a scientific approach to life in general. For the former, an idea is necessarily tied to the person who proposed it, and its validity hinges entirely on the character and reputation of that person. For the latter, the individual is irrelevant. Calling someone a "Darwinist" is as absurd as calling them "Newtonist", "Einsteinist", "Maxwellist", or "Saganist". It's a word which has been manufactured by theists for the sole purpose of framing the debate in a way with which they're comfortable; as the weighing of the opinions of prominent figures, rather than an honest, objective analysis of the data.
Bemoan our lack of FTL transit and paw desperately at the sky, while our sad little mudball continues to shout itself to pieces over meaningless displays of tribalistic self-importance, treats the future as its greatest enemy, and continues to believe that such is the best course of action.
You know the difference between a pessimist and an optimist?
Yeah, I use a lot of storage too - the 32 gigs servers as primary storage for the OS, applications, and stuff I need right now on a frequent basis. Everything else I carry on 3 external 2.5" drives.
The USB port is the key thing, and, as you pointed out, most tablets don't have them. For me it was a must, and was the single biggest factor in deciding which model to go with.
I tend to agree that tablets can't replace regular computers, but I have to disagree with your points. I have an Acer A500 - it comes with 32 gigs of storage and a micro-sd slot. More importantly it comes with a USB port. So, to address your concerns:
1. Data storage, "must download everything", and keyboard are taken care of through USB. I can connect a USB hub and plug in as many devices as I want (originally you needed to root the tablet to do this, but I think with the newest updates it's fully supported without root).
2. Small screen - with HDMI output, I can plug into any LCD television or monitor.
3. Battery replacement - this is probably the only valid complaint, but I don't see it as much of an issue. The battery life is so much longer than a laptop that I'm certain I'll end up replacing the tablet before I feel the need to change the battery.
As they become more powerful (hardware AND software) I could definitely see them starting to replace laptops. They're just not there yet.
So let me get this straight... your evidence that the list is being abused hinges on the off-the-cuff remark of an anonymous airport employee?
Why don't you think about that for a minute and then get back to me.
Also, it's worth pointing out that the wikipedia page - and the article it quotes as a source - selectively quote the incident in order to make it appear as if McCormick was denied entry to the plane. This is false. He was selected for secondary screening. I find it amusing that he made such a big deal out of it, and then mentioned that he used to be a marine. I've been selected for secondary screening, WHILE IN UNIFORM, and flying back from a 2 week military exercise.
I've assumed that the US government has been intercepting all our communications since they first had the technical ability.
I look at this the same way I might view a person who said to me "I've always assumed that an invisible Bigfoot watches me whenever I masturbate".
What should we expect from them today? I expect that as soon as they find a terrorism suspect, that they are able to review his/her communications retrospectively; and also those whom he/she had contact with and so on 3 plys deep. To do that, they need an archive of everyone's messages 100% of the time, because they can't know in advance whose they want to review in the future.
Also, they're flying interstellar UFO's out of area 51. And don't forget the Alien Autopsies.
C'mon man... REALLY? This is a tech-site. I know a lot of us are sci-fi fans, too, but primarily we're supposed to be tech geeks. How in the world could anyone who is familiar with modern technology convince themselves that the US government has the capabilities you've just described? Is it a case of paranoia overriding common sense, or is there some other problem?
The 1984 "Big Brother" concept is 1984 - in the 21st century, you will not be arrested because some office drone in the ministry of truth read through all your e-mails and decided you're a bad person. No, in the 21st century you get put on the No Fly List and nobody can friggin' explain to you why , because the reason, as far as the humans involved are concerned, is that some score in some automated system crossed a threshold value.
No, no, and HELL no. Your paranoid-delusions in no way reflect reality. The no-fly list at this point contains some 10,000 names. That's one out of every 30,000 americans. As a comparison, the "Terrorist Watch List" contains 400,000+ names. So, even though the the vast majority of the people on the terrorist-watch-list don't make the "no fly list", you expect me to believe that computer algorithms are automatically putting people on it based on innocent e-mails?
STFU. Seriously.
Yes, this system, like EVERY FRIGGIN' TOOL WE'VE EVER COME UP WITH has the potential to be abused. No, it is not currently being abused, nor is there any indication that it will be in the future. You seriously need to get some perspective.
Now what system is in place to prevent birds from landing in the pool of acid?
Evolution?
I'm having trouble feeling much sympathy for any bird which is stupid enough to land in a pool of acid. I'd suggest we create a new Darwin Awards category for non-human participants.
if you stop pouring cancer-causing chemicals into the air and water.
Um. I'm thinking you need to look up the word "cure". It doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.
we know FOR A FACT that air pollution leads directly to asthma and cancer deaths, and yet every year these money sucking scumfucks push and push and bribe politicians so that they wont have to clean it up, so they can keep their profits and their mansions and their trophy wives and their cocaine habits.
Who do you imagine would end up paying for it?
I know that economics are a poorly understood subject amongst the slashdot crowd, but look, I'll make it really simple; any time you create new obstacles to doing business, it results in one of two things:
1. Increased cost to the customer. 2. Loss of industry to nations which have lower standards.
If you're ok with having all the pollution and jobs outsourced to the third world, or you don't mind paying $3,000 for your iPod, you can have zero emissions in your nation. You just have to convince the rest of the population to make those sacrifices (good luck!).
fuck them, and fuck the morons who think this is going to 'cure' social problems.
New rules for getting modded "insightful" on slashdot:
1. Attack a company. Any company, as long as it doesn't have a fruit in it's name. Bonus points if the company produces a vital product which forms the foundation of modern civilization. 2. Make sure you include lots of vitriol about the evils of money and those who have it. Remember: hyperbole is your friend. 3. Swear lots. The more the better. 4. Ensure that at no point in your diatribe do you actually approach some sort of coherent, rational, fact-based point. A good rule of thumb: if you don't make coherent claims, nobody can prove you wrong!
So compressed, you have 4 megabytes of data...per individual. 7 billion individual human beings means you potentially need 28 petabytes of storage...
I'm not sure why you'd want to store the genome of every human on the planet, but for that kind of project 28 petabytes is peanuts. The newest IBM storage array is 120-ish petabytes. We're talking about storing 4 megabytes per person. In the modern world, most people have at least a 4 gigabyte flash drives. I could store the genomic information of myself, all my relatives, and all my friends, and still have space left over.
There's nothing unsustainable about our economic system - it's our population figures that are unsustainable at this point. We either need more space and more energy, or less people. Playing around with economic systems won't do anything to fix the problem, though it does have the potential to make things worse.
I have the right to a trial by jury, with a lawyer provided for me if needed.
rule of thumb Definition of RULE OF THUMB 1: a method of procedure based on experience and common sense 2: a general principle regarded as roughly correct but not intended to be scientifically accurate
It's also worth mentioning that the limits placed on the judicial process are intended to ensure that your freedom isn't taken away without a damn good reason. That puts it in a whole different category. It's a method for safeguarding all your other rights, not a natural right in and of itself. Still, there's no point in arguing over details - I used the phrase "rule of thumb" for a reason.
Sorry, but I don't think so. Voting doesn't require anyone else - you go and cast your ballot, or you go and raise your hand. Nobody else is required in order for you to perform that action. Your right to do that exists regardless of anyone else - we simply codify that right in order to prevent others from trying to prevent you from performing those actions.
As for personal safety - if you mean that you have the right to defend yourself, and to take reasonable measures in order to safeguard your life and/or well-being, you're right. But again, this doesn't depend on anyone else. If, on the other hand, you mean that you have a right to force other people to protect you, you're completely wrong. Moreover, legal case studies show that nobody has a legal responsibility to protect you. The police can stand on the sidewalk and watch you get repeatedly run over by your ex wife. The doctor at the hospital can stand there sipping his coffee, watching the remaining life drain out of your mangled shell.
The problem with what you're defining as "rights" is that they hinge on forcing other people to do something for you. That's wrong.
Sure. I never claimed slashdot's system was perfect. However, it's vastly better than a "plus only" system if one of our goals is to minimize misinformation.
The problem with a "plus only" system is that it encourages the spread of bullshit. You can make up complete nonsense that sounds plausible and intelligent, get modded to +50, and that rating can never be taken away. Even when someone posts a comment explaining in detail why everything you've said is factually wrong, their comment has to play catch-up before anyone will even see it.
The solution to Slashdot would be to have a similar double blind system. If you wish to mod comments on a story, you shouldn't be able to see who the poster is. From the story link on the main page, you'll get an option to either comment on the story and see who the other commenters are or mod comments and not know who the authors are. If you choose the comment option, you won't be able to go back and mod later.
That's not really a solution. Oh, it might help a bit, but the really dedicated Stasi will simply browse anonymous, and log-in to down-mod. The only way to make it work is to require all visitors to log in - something which I'm sure/. has no interest in (and I don't particularly like the idea, either).
Oh, I know, I was agreeing with him. The irresponsible bastard who invented fire should have had his head crushed with a rock before he had a chance to really get it going. Especially when he started teaching others to do it, without concern for the potential risk that some nutcase could take this research and burn down the whole damn forest.
That would explain why my neurologist (and many of his peers, according to him) refuse to prescribe generic seizure medication, as many of us will seize on generics. "Sort of a crapshoot", he told me.
Yeah, I looked it up, and you're right: thousands of years of research and experience have clearly shown that anecdotes are the best method for judging the efficacy of medication. Tomorrow I'll go visit a witch doctor to ask if he perform recto-cranial extractions. I'll let you know how it goes.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to believe that, but see no indication of it. The "occupy" movement is largely children of the eighties and nineties, as are most truthers. Religiosity is down, but conversion to crazy fringe factions is up. And the whole thing is a bit slanted by the fact that most first-world nations have declining birth rates; even if our new generations were the most rational ever, they'll be living in a world awash in the craziness of other cultures.
Don't get me wrong - I think we're generally headed in the right direction, and things do tend to get better over time ... but I'd be hesitant to consider "the children of the eighties and nineties" as some sort of panacea. We're all still human beings, with the same frailities, insecurities, and misfiring instincts that our species has always had to struggle with. I don't expect to see any major improvements in human nature during my lifetime.
The issue is that those who are "skeptical" of "man-made global warming" (with a few rare exceptions), and those who "aren't hard-core Darwinists" (a euphemism for "intelligent design", I take it?) by necessity have to reject science as a methodology in order to maintain their beliefs. They accept "science" as the name for a field which gets them useful toys, while completely rejecting the way in which it functions.
Also, the word "Darwinist" is asinine. It's a perfect illustration of the difference between people who take things on faith, and those who try to maintain a scientific approach to life in general. For the former, an idea is necessarily tied to the person who proposed it, and its validity hinges entirely on the character and reputation of that person. For the latter, the individual is irrelevant. Calling someone a "Darwinist" is as absurd as calling them "Newtonist", "Einsteinist", "Maxwellist", or "Saganist". It's a word which has been manufactured by theists for the sole purpose of framing the debate in a way with which they're comfortable; as the weighing of the opinions of prominent figures, rather than an honest, objective analysis of the data.
Bemoan our lack of FTL transit and paw desperately at the sky, while our sad little mudball continues to shout itself to pieces over meaningless displays of tribalistic self-importance, treats the future as its greatest enemy, and continues to believe that such is the best course of action.
You know the difference between a pessimist and an optimist?
Pessimists suck :(
And... how come we haven't heard from any other civilizations on any of those planets?
They received a bunch of broadcasts containing our political debates, and concluded that there is no intelligent life on this planet.
Yeah, I use a lot of storage too - the 32 gigs servers as primary storage for the OS, applications, and stuff I need right now on a frequent basis. Everything else I carry on 3 external 2.5" drives.
The USB port is the key thing, and, as you pointed out, most tablets don't have them. For me it was a must, and was the single biggest factor in deciding which model to go with.
I tend to agree that tablets can't replace regular computers, but I have to disagree with your points. I have an Acer A500 - it comes with 32 gigs of storage and a micro-sd slot. More importantly it comes with a USB port. So, to address your concerns:
1. Data storage, "must download everything", and keyboard are taken care of through USB. I can connect a USB hub and plug in as many devices as I want (originally you needed to root the tablet to do this, but I think with the newest updates it's fully supported without root).
2. Small screen - with HDMI output, I can plug into any LCD television or monitor.
3. Battery replacement - this is probably the only valid complaint, but I don't see it as much of an issue. The battery life is so much longer than a laptop that I'm certain I'll end up replacing the tablet before I feel the need to change the battery.
As they become more powerful (hardware AND software) I could definitely see them starting to replace laptops. They're just not there yet.
So let me get this straight ... your evidence that the list is being abused hinges on the off-the-cuff remark of an anonymous airport employee?
Why don't you think about that for a minute and then get back to me.
Also, it's worth pointing out that the wikipedia page - and the article it quotes as a source - selectively quote the incident in order to make it appear as if McCormick was denied entry to the plane. This is false. He was selected for secondary screening. I find it amusing that he made such a big deal out of it, and then mentioned that he used to be a marine. I've been selected for secondary screening, WHILE IN UNIFORM, and flying back from a 2 week military exercise.
Context matters.
I've assumed that the US government has been intercepting all our communications since they first had the technical ability.
I look at this the same way I might view a person who said to me "I've always assumed that an invisible Bigfoot watches me whenever I masturbate".
What should we expect from them today? I expect that as soon as they find a terrorism suspect, that they are able to review his/her communications retrospectively; and also those whom he/she had contact with and so on 3 plys deep. To do that, they need an archive of everyone's messages 100% of the time, because they can't know in advance whose they want to review in the future.
Also, they're flying interstellar UFO's out of area 51. And don't forget the Alien Autopsies.
C'mon man ... REALLY? This is a tech-site. I know a lot of us are sci-fi fans, too, but primarily we're supposed to be tech geeks. How in the world could anyone who is familiar with modern technology convince themselves that the US government has the capabilities you've just described? Is it a case of paranoia overriding common sense, or is there some other problem?
The 1984 "Big Brother" concept is 1984 - in the 21st century, you will not be arrested because some office drone in the ministry of truth read through all your e-mails and decided you're a bad person. No, in the 21st century you get put on the No Fly List and nobody can friggin' explain to you why , because the reason, as far as the humans involved are concerned, is that some score in some automated system crossed a threshold value.
No, no, and HELL no. Your paranoid-delusions in no way reflect reality. The no-fly list at this point contains some 10,000 names. That's one out of every 30,000 americans. As a comparison, the "Terrorist Watch List" contains 400,000+ names. So, even though the the vast majority of the people on the terrorist-watch-list don't make the "no fly list", you expect me to believe that computer algorithms are automatically putting people on it based on innocent e-mails?
STFU. Seriously.
Yes, this system, like EVERY FRIGGIN' TOOL WE'VE EVER COME UP WITH has the potential to be abused. No, it is not currently being abused, nor is there any indication that it will be in the future. You seriously need to get some perspective.
Now what system is in place to prevent birds from landing in the pool of acid?
Evolution?
I'm having trouble feeling much sympathy for any bird which is stupid enough to land in a pool of acid. I'd suggest we create a new Darwin Awards category for non-human participants.
you know what would ACTUALLY cure cancer?
if you stop pouring cancer-causing chemicals into the air and water.
Um. I'm thinking you need to look up the word "cure". It doesn't mean what you apparently think it means.
we know FOR A FACT that air pollution leads directly to asthma and cancer deaths, and yet every year these money sucking scumfucks push and push and bribe politicians so that they wont have to clean it up, so they can keep their profits and their mansions and their trophy wives and their cocaine habits.
Who do you imagine would end up paying for it?
I know that economics are a poorly understood subject amongst the slashdot crowd, but look, I'll make it really simple; any time you create new obstacles to doing business, it results in one of two things:
1. Increased cost to the customer.
2. Loss of industry to nations which have lower standards.
If you're ok with having all the pollution and jobs outsourced to the third world, or you don't mind paying $3,000 for your iPod, you can have zero emissions in your nation. You just have to convince the rest of the population to make those sacrifices (good luck!).
fuck them, and fuck the morons who think this is going to 'cure' social problems.
New rules for getting modded "insightful" on slashdot:
1. Attack a company. Any company, as long as it doesn't have a fruit in it's name. Bonus points if the company produces a vital product which forms the foundation of modern civilization.
2. Make sure you include lots of vitriol about the evils of money and those who have it. Remember: hyperbole is your friend.
3. Swear lots. The more the better.
4. Ensure that at no point in your diatribe do you actually approach some sort of coherent, rational, fact-based point. A good rule of thumb: if you don't make coherent claims, nobody can prove you wrong!
So compressed, you have 4 megabytes of data...per individual. 7 billion individual human beings means you potentially need 28 petabytes of storage...
I'm not sure why you'd want to store the genome of every human on the planet, but for that kind of project 28 petabytes is peanuts. The newest IBM storage array is 120-ish petabytes. We're talking about storing 4 megabytes per person. In the modern world, most people have at least a 4 gigabyte flash drives. I could store the genomic information of myself, all my relatives, and all my friends, and still have space left over.
Our tax dollars hard at work, fostering galactic pyromaniacs. Where can I opt out my hard earned cash?
Try here:
http://www.farecompare.com/flights/New_York-NYC/Abu_Dhabi-AUH/market.html
Just make sure you click the "one way" radio-button.
Good luck!
That's what 'they' WANT you to think!
Yep, and wouldn't it be better if they could just revert the genetic modifications that cause the female mosquito to need blood?
You know what would be even cooler? If they could revert the genetic modifications that cause humans to need food and water!
There's nothing unsustainable about our economic system - it's our population figures that are unsustainable at this point. We either need more space and more energy, or less people. Playing around with economic systems won't do anything to fix the problem, though it does have the potential to make things worse.
I have the right to a trial by jury, with a lawyer provided for me if needed.
rule of thumb
Definition of RULE OF THUMB
1: a method of procedure based on experience and common sense
2: a general principle regarded as roughly correct but not intended to be scientifically accurate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rule%20of%20thumb
It's also worth mentioning that the limits placed on the judicial process are intended to ensure that your freedom isn't taken away without a damn good reason. That puts it in a whole different category. It's a method for safeguarding all your other rights, not a natural right in and of itself. Still, there's no point in arguing over details - I used the phrase "rule of thumb" for a reason.
Sorry, but I don't think so. Voting doesn't require anyone else - you go and cast your ballot, or you go and raise your hand. Nobody else is required in order for you to perform that action. Your right to do that exists regardless of anyone else - we simply codify that right in order to prevent others from trying to prevent you from performing those actions.
As for personal safety - if you mean that you have the right to defend yourself, and to take reasonable measures in order to safeguard your life and/or well-being, you're right. But again, this doesn't depend on anyone else. If, on the other hand, you mean that you have a right to force other people to protect you, you're completely wrong. Moreover, legal case studies show that nobody has a legal responsibility to protect you. The police can stand on the sidewalk and watch you get repeatedly run over by your ex wife. The doctor at the hospital can stand there sipping his coffee, watching the remaining life drain out of your mangled shell.
The problem with what you're defining as "rights" is that they hinge on forcing other people to do something for you. That's wrong.
Exactly. A good rule of thumb: if your "right" requires others to do something for you, it's not a right - it's a service.
Sure. I never claimed slashdot's system was perfect. However, it's vastly better than a "plus only" system if one of our goals is to minimize misinformation.
The problem with a "plus only" system is that it encourages the spread of bullshit. You can make up complete nonsense that sounds plausible and intelligent, get modded to +50, and that rating can never be taken away. Even when someone posts a comment explaining in detail why everything you've said is factually wrong, their comment has to play catch-up before anyone will even see it.
The solution to Slashdot would be to have a similar double blind system. If you wish to mod comments on a story, you shouldn't be able to see who the poster is. From the story link on the main page, you'll get an option to either comment on the story and see who the other commenters are or mod comments and not know who the authors are. If you choose the comment option, you won't be able to go back and mod later.
That's not really a solution. Oh, it might help a bit, but the really dedicated Stasi will simply browse anonymous, and log-in to down-mod. The only way to make it work is to require all visitors to log in - something which I'm sure /. has no interest in (and I don't particularly like the idea, either).
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Oh, I know, I was agreeing with him. The irresponsible bastard who invented fire should have had his head crushed with a rock before he had a chance to really get it going. Especially when he started teaching others to do it, without concern for the potential risk that some nutcase could take this research and burn down the whole damn forest.
That would explain why my neurologist (and many of his peers, according to him) refuse to prescribe generic seizure medication, as many of us will seize on generics. "Sort of a crapshoot", he told me.
Yeah, I looked it up, and you're right: thousands of years of research and experience have clearly shown that anecdotes are the best method for judging the efficacy of medication. Tomorrow I'll go visit a witch doctor to ask if he perform recto-cranial extractions. I'll let you know how it goes.