The reason we prefer those eeevil, sterile, robotically produced, Big Pharma, toxic pills is because:
1. We can control for purity. You know you're getting the good stuff without any contaminants. 2. We can control for dosage. You know you're not getting too little to do any good, or overdosing yourself into a coma.
You don't get any of that with the "natural" products. It's blind guesswork. But hey, if you want to be stupid and treat your life like one giant crap-shoot, feel free. I just wish natural-selection wasn't such a slow process.
Executing 6 million Jews, plus another 5 million Gypsies and homosexuals, was also a tactic. I suppose you'd disagree with the statement "Hitler hated Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals" too? Because that's what you're implying here. If the phrases "they hate our freedoms" and "terrorists just want to kill certain people out of hatred" are "idiotic", then the phrase "Hitler wanted to kill certain people out of hatred" would have to be idiotic also.
I really don't think you've thought this through fully. Before you fire off another vehement response, let your thoughts ferment for a bit. Then, if you can make a clear case for making such a distinction... I'm all ears.
Crap. The meaning of terrorism is the same as it always was -
Attempting to achieve polilical ends by terrorising your enemies.
Talk about a circular definition! You sure you don't want to try that one again?
You know, "shock and awe".
Yeah. Teh Eeevil Amerihcuns. Eleventy.
People who say shit like "they hate our freedom" or "terrorists just want to kill certain people out of hatred" are either idiots with their fingers in their ears or people trying to distract you from what's really going on.
Ah, the irony.
See, you know what I don't get? How some people can be completely comfortable accepting the idea that the actions of Christian extemists are motivated by religion, while simultaneously denying that Islamic terrorism might have a strong, irrational, religious component.
Jimbo Bloggins killing abortion doctors? "It's Tech EEEVIL Chrischoon brainwashed by the bible!"
Mohammed Jihaad flying a plane into a building? "Well, see, you have to understand the geopolitical situation present in unstable nation-states combined with the inherent oppressive tendencies of imperialist capitalist nations controlled by global mega-corporations"
It's a mind-boggling double standard. Personally, I just tend to take people at their word. If someone tells me he killed an abortion doctor because god wanted him to do it, I'll view that the same way as someone telling me he killed a bunch of westerners because Allah hates heathens. While my opinions could possibly be wrong, at least they have the advantage of being consistent. You don't even have that much. It's quite amusing to see you accuse others of having their fingers in their ears, while simultaneously refusing to listen to what the fanatics are saying. Yeah, the end-goal for them is changing our behavior, but if you believe that hatred of our values and way of life isn't a prime motivating factor then you simply haven't been listening.
I knew someone was going to point out that incident:) Yeah, it was pretty horrific and could have been much worse, but, as you said, not carried out by a major player, which is why I didn't mention it.
I don't think they were particularly sophisticated either; otherwise they would have put more effort into the delivery system. True, they were better than your typical Islamic terrorist organization, but that's not really saying much...
1. Curiosity. 2. Chance to develop a better understanding of infectious diseases. 3. Ability to study highly-virulent strains creates an opportunity to develop new control measures.
A crazy person would have a much different list. Hell, ask a maniac to make a top 10 list for why chocolate ice cream is so good, and chances are most of his reasons will come off as paranoid.
Well this news is very depressing, it shows that when the singularity comes (the ability to REALLY control matter at the atomic level)* the potential for abuse may overwhelm the benefits.
Yep. Ever since those asshats discovered fire, it's been all down-hill. It's rare to see a man with your honesty, though! Not many people are willing to stand up and proudly proclaim, "I HATE SCIENTISTS, because ignorance is bliss!".
Naw. Oh, sure the news channels would have a blast (*rimshot*) with it, and everyone would panic for a week or two, but it would have zero long-term effect on the population.
An attack which leaves zero casualties isn't particularly effective at scaring people. While the news channels can draw up power-point charts and neat-o "effect radius" maps, that's just not as "sexy" as big explosions and bodies in the street. How many days in a row can they go on reporting "no casualties today, but wait until tomorrow!"?
You mention Fukushima - other than the usual fringe quacks prattling on (as they were before the incident), and some people being even more convinced that Nukular is Teh Eeevil, what actual effect has it had on people? Has it changed anyone's mind? Affected the way we go about our lives? Changed foreign or domestic policy? Not in my experience. The people who were afraid of nuclear power are still afraid, and people who thought we need more of them are more convinced than ever that we should be building new power-plants. And that was a disaster of a far larger magnitude than a "dirty bomb".
While we're at it, I have to question the word "terrorism" when applied to an attack whose only measurable effects are to cause irrational fear and slightly increase the long-term average death rate. By that definition, Jenny McCarthy is a terrorist.
It's also worth noting that you're talking about nuclear weapons. It can be used to make "dirty" bombs, however.
Only a really stupid terrorist would bother with dirty bombs. The added impact (vs conventional bombs) is negligible, and the risk of detection goes up drastically.
Dirty bombs are one of those "threats" that some military consultant dreamed up because he was asked to come up with an exhaustive list of possibilities, and the media latched on to it because most people are stupid, uninformed animals who react instinctively at the mention of the word "nuclear". A more real threat is chemical and biological (especially biological) warfare, though even there we've seen no serious attempts by any of the major players. Your standard suicide bombings are a much more likely scenario - personally I expected to see at least a few of those pulled off against targets like trains and busses by now, but the American feds seem to be doing an excellent job at stopping them.
There's only 20 years of fossil fuel left in the ground. At least, that's what we were told in the '70s, the 80's, and the 90's. With oil usage increasing as much as it has been lately, mostly because of China, I'd guess that we're now down to 20 years left.
*sigh* why does this crap get modded up?
Nobody told you that there's only 20 years of fossil fuel left in the 70's, or the 80's, or the 90's. Nobody is saying it today. If anyone is telling you these things, their understanding of the situation is obviously as poor as yours.
Perhaps you should look at the industry data and the scientific publications, rather than Fox News or the Huffington post?
Anyone who refers to the Iraq war as a "crusade" is obviously an idiot. The fact that you apparently think roads only existed after the advent of the automobile only serves to cement that assessment. Whether you're intentionally trolling is a different question, but the fact that you got moded "informative" says a lot about the plummeting intelligence of the average slashdot member.
One of the most important achievments of the Roman Empire was the construction of a massive system of roads, starting in 500 BC. I guess the chariot-makers corporations must have had a massive hold over the Roman Senate, huh?
Yes, that's true, but it rather misses the point. There are racist jokes, sexist jokes, dead-baby jokes... all kinds of jokes which have nothing whatsoever to do with "catching errors". Most jokes evoke a mental-image of a common stereotype. I'd say the humour in these situations is simply a form of group-bonding â" the sharing of an experience with like-minded individuals, and re-affirming membership in the group.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that while individuals can often laugh at stereotypes which apply to themselves, they generally only do so in the presence of individuals who do NOT fall into the same category. As an example, I've met plenty of "minority" men who can laugh at racist jokes, and know lots of women who will laugh at sexist jokes... but I can't picture a group composed only of black men telling a "nigger" joke, or a group of women telling sexist jokes. When they tell/laugh-at such jokes, it's generally in larger, more diverse groups. It serves as a bonding ritual, showing the ability to downplay the obvious differences/stereotypes and belong to the larger group.
The "error" thing they refer to might be applicable to a small subset of jokes, but it's certainly not the rule, nor is it the most important function of humour.
Calling that humour is a massive strech. You see similar behaviour in youg children - they annoy the crap out of you when you're trying to do something, then wonder off to do something else as soon as you finally acknowledge them. It's a desire for attention, not an attempt to be funny.
It's no surprise - the "new left" are the quickest to silence any dissent, and they love their mod points. I can trash the far-right all day long and get maybe one "troll" mod which gets balanced out by multiple "insightful" mods. But make a negative comment about the far-left, and you're downmoded into oblivion within seconds. I expected to be downmoded, but it needed to be said.
On the other hand, the consequences for the human collective if such an infrastructure is left in private hands would be nothing less than THE END of any chance of reigning in the One Percent that nearly controls everything now.
It's funny how a certain lunatic fringe keeps using that phrase, when they really mean to say "jews".
However, forgive me if "be injected or face penalties" seems a bit too close to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.
No, I won't forgive you - that is by far the stupidest comment I've seen so far. It's equivalent to comparing government mandated pest-control measures to the holocaust.
Communism is as communism does. While the "HURR DURR" people may not have an in-depth understanding of the communist ideology or the writings of Marx et. al, they;re still far better than the twits who go on insisting that REAL communism is some kind of panacea which just hasn't worked because of $random_conspiracy_theory.
Slashdot Mirror
I can see where you get your monicker.
The reason we prefer those eeevil, sterile, robotically produced, Big Pharma, toxic pills is because:
1. We can control for purity. You know you're getting the good stuff without any contaminants.
2. We can control for dosage. You know you're not getting too little to do any good, or overdosing yourself into a coma.
You don't get any of that with the "natural" products. It's blind guesswork. But hey, if you want to be stupid and treat your life like one giant crap-shoot, feel free. I just wish natural-selection wasn't such a slow process.
A month later they realized the printer wasn't outputting periods.
Should have taken my advice.
Of course it's a tactic. So what?
Executing 6 million Jews, plus another 5 million Gypsies and homosexuals, was also a tactic. I suppose you'd disagree with the statement "Hitler hated Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals" too? Because that's what you're implying here. If the phrases "they hate our freedoms" and "terrorists just want to kill certain people out of hatred" are "idiotic", then the phrase "Hitler wanted to kill certain people out of hatred" would have to be idiotic also.
I really don't think you've thought this through fully. Before you fire off another vehement response, let your thoughts ferment for a bit. Then, if you can make a clear case for making such a distinction ... I'm all ears.
Crap. The meaning of terrorism is the same as it always was -
Attempting to achieve polilical ends by terrorising your enemies.
Talk about a circular definition! You sure you don't want to try that one again?
You know, "shock and awe".
Yeah. Teh Eeevil Amerihcuns. Eleventy.
People who say shit like "they hate our freedom" or "terrorists just want to kill certain people out of hatred" are either idiots with their fingers in their ears or people trying to distract you from what's really going on.
Ah, the irony.
See, you know what I don't get? How some people can be completely comfortable accepting the idea that the actions of Christian extemists are motivated by religion, while simultaneously denying that Islamic terrorism might have a strong, irrational, religious component.
Jimbo Bloggins killing abortion doctors?
"It's Tech EEEVIL Chrischoon brainwashed by the bible!"
Mohammed Jihaad flying a plane into a building?
"Well, see, you have to understand the geopolitical situation present in unstable nation-states combined with the inherent oppressive tendencies of imperialist capitalist nations controlled by global mega-corporations"
It's a mind-boggling double standard. Personally, I just tend to take people at their word. If someone tells me he killed an abortion doctor because god wanted him to do it, I'll view that the same way as someone telling me he killed a bunch of westerners because Allah hates heathens. While my opinions could possibly be wrong, at least they have the advantage of being consistent. You don't even have that much. It's quite amusing to see you accuse others of having their fingers in their ears, while simultaneously refusing to listen to what the fanatics are saying. Yeah, the end-goal for them is changing our behavior, but if you believe that hatred of our values and way of life isn't a prime motivating factor then you simply haven't been listening.
I knew someone was going to point out that incident :) Yeah, it was pretty horrific and could have been much worse, but, as you said, not carried out by a major player, which is why I didn't mention it.
I don't think they were particularly sophisticated either; otherwise they would have put more effort into the delivery system. True, they were better than your typical Islamic terrorist organization, but that's not really saying much ...
Heh.... funny, heard of the expression "Curiosity killed the cat?".
Yeah - ignorant little people have long been telling stories to discourage their betters from trying new things.
Depends on who's making the list, doesn't it?
Personally my list would go something like this:
1. Curiosity.
2. Chance to develop a better understanding of infectious diseases.
3. Ability to study highly-virulent strains creates an opportunity to develop new control measures.
A crazy person would have a much different list. Hell, ask a maniac to make a top 10 list for why chocolate ice cream is so good, and chances are most of his reasons will come off as paranoid.
Well this news is very depressing, it shows that when the singularity comes (the ability to REALLY control matter at the atomic level)* the potential for abuse may overwhelm the benefits.
Yeah. Not the first time
That's not cynicism, that's paranoia. I know, the line between them can be a fine one, but you've crossed it and started sprinting.
This is why the world hates scientists.
Yep. Ever since those asshats discovered fire, it's been all down-hill. It's rare to see a man with your honesty, though! Not many people are willing to stand up and proudly proclaim, "I HATE SCIENTISTS, because ignorance is bliss!".
Naw. Oh, sure the news channels would have a blast (*rimshot*) with it, and everyone would panic for a week or two, but it would have zero long-term effect on the population.
An attack which leaves zero casualties isn't particularly effective at scaring people. While the news channels can draw up power-point charts and neat-o "effect radius" maps, that's just not as "sexy" as big explosions and bodies in the street. How many days in a row can they go on reporting "no casualties today, but wait until tomorrow!"?
You mention Fukushima - other than the usual fringe quacks prattling on (as they were before the incident), and some people being even more convinced that Nukular is Teh Eeevil, what actual effect has it had on people? Has it changed anyone's mind? Affected the way we go about our lives? Changed foreign or domestic policy? Not in my experience. The people who were afraid of nuclear power are still afraid, and people who thought we need more of them are more convinced than ever that we should be building new power-plants. And that was a disaster of a far larger magnitude than a "dirty bomb".
While we're at it, I have to question the word "terrorism" when applied to an attack whose only measurable effects are to cause irrational fear and slightly increase the long-term average death rate. By that definition, Jenny McCarthy is a terrorist.
It's also worth noting that you're talking about nuclear weapons. It can be used to make "dirty" bombs, however.
Only a really stupid terrorist would bother with dirty bombs. The added impact (vs conventional bombs) is negligible, and the risk of detection goes up drastically.
Dirty bombs are one of those "threats" that some military consultant dreamed up because he was asked to come up with an exhaustive list of possibilities, and the media latched on to it because most people are stupid, uninformed animals who react instinctively at the mention of the word "nuclear". A more real threat is chemical and biological (especially biological) warfare, though even there we've seen no serious attempts by any of the major players. Your standard suicide bombings are a much more likely scenario - personally I expected to see at least a few of those pulled off against targets like trains and busses by now, but the American feds seem to be doing an excellent job at stopping them.
There's only 20 years of fossil fuel left in the ground. At least, that's what we were told in the '70s, the 80's, and the 90's. With oil usage increasing as much as it has been lately, mostly because of China, I'd guess that we're now down to 20 years left.
*sigh* why does this crap get modded up?
Nobody told you that there's only 20 years of fossil fuel left in the 70's, or the 80's, or the 90's. Nobody is saying it today. If anyone is telling you these things, their understanding of the situation is obviously as poor as yours.
Perhaps you should look at the industry data and the scientific publications, rather than Fox News or the Huffington post?
Just an idea ...
Anyone who refers to the Iraq war as a "crusade" is obviously an idiot. The fact that you apparently think roads only existed after the advent of the automobile only serves to cement that assessment. Whether you're intentionally trolling is a different question, but the fact that you got moded "informative" says a lot about the plummeting intelligence of the average slashdot member.
One of the most important achievments of the Roman Empire was the construction of a massive system of roads, starting in 500 BC. I guess the chariot-makers corporations must have had a massive hold over the Roman Senate, huh?
Fun experiment: go through each of his statements and replace "god" with "bigfoot". Then re-read them and see how wise they sound.
Yes, that's true, but it rather misses the point. There are racist jokes, sexist jokes, dead-baby jokes ... all kinds of jokes which have nothing whatsoever to do with "catching errors". Most jokes evoke a mental-image of a common stereotype. I'd say the humour in these situations is simply a form of group-bonding â" the sharing of an experience with like-minded individuals, and re-affirming membership in the group.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that while individuals can often laugh at stereotypes which apply to themselves, they generally only do so in the presence of individuals who do NOT fall into the same category. As an example, I've met plenty of "minority" men who can laugh at racist jokes, and know lots of women who will laugh at sexist jokes ... but I can't picture a group composed only of black men telling a "nigger" joke, or a group of women telling sexist jokes. When they tell/laugh-at such jokes, it's generally in larger, more diverse groups. It serves as a bonding ritual, showing the ability to downplay the obvious differences/stereotypes and belong to the larger group.
The "error" thing they refer to might be applicable to a small subset of jokes, but it's certainly not the rule, nor is it the most important function of humour.
Calling that humour is a massive strech. You see similar behaviour in youg children - they annoy the crap out of you when you're trying to do something, then wonder off to do something else as soon as you finally acknowledge them. It's a desire for attention, not an attempt to be funny.
And this is akin to saying "the problem with all this crime is that we have laws!"
Yes, exactly! We've created a society where everyone is a criminal. In most cases it's the law that's the problem - not the "criminals".
It's no surprise - the "new left" are the quickest to silence any dissent, and they love their mod points. I can trash the far-right all day long and get maybe one "troll" mod which gets balanced out by multiple "insightful" mods. But make a negative comment about the far-left, and you're downmoded into oblivion within seconds. I expected to be downmoded, but it needed to be said.
I'm sorry, all I heard was "blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore".
Also, you're an idiot. My comment was a jab at the vehement antisemitism amongst the OWS twits.
On the other hand, the consequences for the human collective if such an infrastructure is left in private hands would be nothing less than THE END of any chance of reigning in the One Percent that nearly controls everything now.
It's funny how a certain lunatic fringe keeps using that phrase, when they really mean to say "jews".
Either your definition of "everywhere" stops at the US border or you really believe Thanksgiving and Black Friday are global phenomena.
Eh. Clearly the bigger mistake was assuming that geeks eat turkey, and venture offline for shopping.
However, forgive me if "be injected or face penalties" seems a bit too close to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.
No, I won't forgive you - that is by far the stupidest comment I've seen so far. It's equivalent to comparing government mandated pest-control measures to the holocaust.
Communism is as communism does. While the "HURR DURR" people may not have an in-depth understanding of the communist ideology or the writings of Marx et. al, they;re still far better than the twits who go on insisting that REAL communism is some kind of panacea which just hasn't worked because of $random_conspiracy_theory.