If the ISS were to explode, just jump off it? Deploy parachutes once you hit atmosphere. I don't see why you need a craft, people jump out of planes all the time.
Sure. And as a side bonus, people on the surface would get to make a wish on a shooting star.
Parts of the Creative industry do not have copyright or Patents at all... The fashion industry , they are almost totally US/Europe based outsource most of their production the the far east, and seem to be doing very well...
The others have already provided a decent response, so I'll take a different tack: I don't really care if the "creative industries" live or die - I'll get along just fine without some goofy hat from Milan, or the newest Bieber album. I'm much more concerned with pharmacutical companies, aerospace manufacturers, electronics designers, etc. What pharma company will want to spend tens of billions of dollars doing research, testing, and getting approval, only to have the patent yanked and given away for free to their competition?
I approve of open licenses... but they have to be voluntary. Provide encouragement for companies to use them. Like, for instance, offer a 10% tax rebate to any company which releases X number of their patents per year. Or figure out some other way to make them competitive. There are plenty of ways to encourage people to release products under open licenses, but just changing the laws and saying "sink or swim" is the wrong move.
Fortunately, nature generally is pretty good at stopping scientists from reproducing--which may ultimately be for the best. I can really only take so much of there pedantic over-analysis of even the most trivial things
Yeah, stupid people often have a gut-level reaction - ranging from trepidation to outright fear - when dealing with subjects which they are poorly equipped to understand. This reaction is readily transformed into hostility aimed at those without such limitations.
James Randi is a liar, pseudo-skeptic, and wanker who pretends to be a skeptic. Why anyone would trust a magician over a REAL scientist is beyond me.
If you think it's a question of trusting a person, you've clearly failed to understand what the discussion is about. I don't trust Randi any more than I trust anyone else; I trust the scientific method.
I'd say the handling of Project Alpha clearly shows that Randi has a better understanding of the scientific method than do many "real scientists", but it's irrelevant anyway since the real question is whether the methodology behind the JREF tests is sufficiently rigid to provide controls against frauds and charlatans while not being overbearing for any 'legitimate' applicants. And the answer is a unequivocal "yes"; the participants take an active role in designing the experiments, and agree to the terms prior to commencing the testing. Then, when they fail, they whine and moan about how unfair Randi is.
No-one has yet to actually apply and follow through. They usually back out at the last second and claim the test is flawed.
That's not actually true. Lots of them have followed through, and they've all failed. The JREF even does live tests at the annual TAM conference in Vegas. Many applicants DO back out, but there have been hundreds, if not thousands, who have been tested. Their case files are held at the JREF library - anyone interested in researching the topic should have no problem getting access.
The first enslaved people in the Americas were American Indians.
I said "in the US", not "in the Americas". Although technically speaking, I'm wrong, because the US wasn't a country at the time when Anthony Johnson won the right to keep a slave for life. Still, the gyst was correct:)
I mentioned the bases because it is something that causes some people in that area to dislike us.
I'm sure some people dislike you because of the Star Wars prequels. How come you're not mentioning that?
Personally, I think the number one reason most people fight offensively (outside of nationalism) is poverty and hunger.
And you're wrong. There's absolutely zero data to support that conclusion. You harp on about how important it is to understand our enemies, and then completely fail to realize that all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were educated, well-off men from middle-class-or-better families. You ignore the fact that Bin Laden comes from a family of billionaires.
People fight because the battle gives their lives meaning. Truly poor people don't need that kind of meaning - they're too busy trying to survive. When poor people DO fight, it's usually because they're being paid more to risk their lives than they can make through other means. While that kind of mercenary mentality can be a problem for us, it's the leaders and the true fanatics whom we need to really be concerned with.
It's just that historically terrorists are very interchangeable with rebels.
People use the terms as if they were interchangeable, but they're not. I would never refer to the American "patriots" as "terrorists", for the most part, although the label might fit a few of them; I would never refer to the Taliban as "freedom fighters", because the only freedom they're interested in is their own freedom to impose an oppressive theocracy on others. The terms have very specific meanings, and the bastardization of the language by others is no reason to stop using them. Chastise those who misuse them, if you wish, but don't harp on me for the sins of others.
I haven't seen the Cryps and Bloods defend what they do because they are fighting for their way of life. If they did begin to do that they would move from criminal to some ideological label determined by the very factors I'm bringing up
Not sure about the Cryps and the Bloods, but other criminal organizations certainly have rationalized their actions through various means. But it's irrelevant; I'm completely flabbergasted by you apparent willingness to take such rationalization at face value. Who gives a shit if a rapist wants to call himself a "sex-liberator"? Why should we take such claims seriously?
Terrorists commit terror and are labeled terrorist. The problem is, any fighting force creates terror...
That is, of course, bullshit. If you're going to take that tack, you may as well argue that parents who yell at their kids in order to discipline them are terrorists. It's ridiculous. There's no single clear-cut definition of terrorism, but there is a clear difference between armed factions which use force in a controlled manner in order to overthrow illegitimate authority or maintain legitimate control, and armed factions which use indiscriminate force in order to control others. If I beat the shit out of you because you're threatening to behead my girlfriend unless she wears a veil, I'm not a terrorist, despite the fact that you may feel terror the next time you run into me.
When Osama Bin Laden et al. were fighting our enemy, the Russians, we called them freedom fighters. When they fight us, they're terrorists. Same people, the only thing that really changed is who they're fighting.
Again, nonsense. We never supported the Taliban - they didn't take over Afghanistan until the mid-90's. They didn't even exist until the early 90s.
More importantly, though... when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, millions of Afghans fled. When NATO invaded Afghanistan, millions of Afghans returned. To compare the two is sheer lunacy. The Afghans fighting against Russian rule weren't terrorizing their own co
At least tell me where I defended fascists or murderers. I even tried typing in Caps that I don't support them.
*sigh*
Ok, try this:
"I DON'T LIKE the Bloods and the Cryps, but I don't see why you have to call them 'criminals'. They're just fighting for their way of life, same as we would fight for ours. We send cops to their neighbourhoods, they don't send them to ours. Calling them 'criminals' or 'evil' doesn't help us understand them.
If, after reading that, you still can't understand how retarded you sound to me - or why I think you're defending them - then you're a lost cause. I mean, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy for the most part, but when you start complaining about people who use completely appropriate terminology to describe those whom they oppose, you come across as a drooling cretin. Take a minute to think about what you're saying. I understand full well the importance of understanding your enemy - I simply don't see a reason to turn into mealy-mouthed apologists while we study them.
And, if your silly opposition to the language wasn't bad enough, you just HAD to throw in that "bases in their countries" bullshit, and remove all doubt that you're spreading their propaganda. Up to that point I had thought that maybe you were just some kind of weird pedant, but that phrase removed all doubt.
You said that you don't have to worry about this kind of stuff because you generally don't break the law, etc. I'm merely pointing out that that is not a protection at all when cops are willing to assault you even when you're not breaking any law or doing anything even remotely threatening.
No shit? You mean there's nothing that will 100% for sure protect you from someone who really really wants to kick your ass? Wow. You learn something new every day.
People will assault you whenever they feel like it. It doesn't matter whether they're wearing a uniform or not - if they really feel like kicking your ass, they will. If you're unhappy with that... too bad. Welcome to Earth.
Right. Deal with the legal system afterwards, with no evidence to back up your story because you're too concerned with enabling such abuse by "not pissing them off".
There's always evidence. But hey, don't let me stop you. If you prefer to end up beat to a pulp or dead, you go right ahead. We'll have the enjoyment of reading about you in the news, and you might even get a Darwin Award out of it!
Unless people are willing to hold those in power accountable, we're all just powerless peasants to them.
Which would be fine and dandy if the cops were "in power" but, seeing as they're just a tool of the state, you're aiming at the wrong target. You're trying to bite the finger that keeps poking you in the eye, instead of punching the fucker in the head.
Naw, that was just the people on the right side of the political spectrum. The other half of the country spent the next few weeks in mourning, after which they logged on to slashdot in order to post whiny comments and mod each-other "insightful".
hmmm, except black people. I'm pretty sure there were many slaves that were not Christian (and certainly not Western Christians) but were then forced to become so. For there own good of course, savages that they were/sarcasm.
If you look up the history of slavery in the US, you'll find that the first real slave-owner was a black Angolan who was himself once an indentured-servant. He was the first to bring suit in order to retain a servant for life, and the courts ruled in his favor. Things kinda snowballed from there. But the idea that slavery was introduced "for their own good" is ludicrous; nobody ever claimed any such thing. As far as I can tell, slavery became legal because this guy successfully argued that back home in Angola, that's how they do things, and the courts said "well if that's your culture, then sure!".
Many of them would argue they fight for there way of life (that we don't agree with) and against what they see as oppression by a foreign government.
They can argue all they want, it doesn't fucking matter. I don't care if a child-rapist-murderer argues that he's just living life his own way, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop calling him a pedophile and a murderer, and it doesn't mean I'll stand aside and let him do what he wants. There is a quantifiable difference between a society which frees it's people, and a society which oppresses it's people, and there is a quantifiable difference between people who fight for freedom and those who fight for the right to oppress others. If you're unwilling to see that difference, that's your problem - don't expect the rest of us to turn a blind eye.
I don't think you understand how the legal system works. Which is pretty much status-quo for most people in these discussions, but it's still rather sad.
And if they hadn't been filming, they wouldn't have had an issue, which is what the discussion was about. I'm not trying to defend the behavior of these cops in handling the guy who was filming the incident - I was merely telling numbnuts not to bother filming my arrest. I'd much rather not have the cops further aggravated by some guy playing paparazzi. I have a very simple approach to these things: don't piss off the guys with the guns, and deal with any problems through the legal system, afterwards.
I sincerely hope that the next time you encounter a cop he decides to make you kneel down and open your mouth so he can shove his diseased cock in there.
Sounds good. I'll bite, and then sue for $20 mil.
See the difference between me and you? I can turn any situation to my advantage, whereas all you know how to do is whine about being a victim. There's a reason people like me don't have a problem with cops, while idiots like you are constantly having issues with them.
Pure bullshit. I'm know several cops. We go out and party on a regular basis. Our regular circle of friends includes DJs, artists, bartenders, programmers, security guards, airline personnel, graphic designers, mechanics, construction workers, and musicians. Your personal biases don't mean shit - the cops I know are amongst the best friends I've ever had.
That's OK. I will be sure not to record your beating or shooting when it comes to you. Fair enough?
Sure. I have no problem with such a deal, because:
1. I generally try not to break the law. 2. When I do break the law, I generally don't get caught. 3. When I do get caught, I cooperate with the cops.
If you follow those three steps, I guarantee you won't have a problem. I've met a few dick-cops in my times, but by following step 3, the worst I've ever had was them yelling at me, and arresting me after I already l willingly laid down on the ground. Never gotten a bruise out of those confrontations, let alone any serious damage. So yeah, I'd prefer it if you didn't film me, because I can take care of myself, and I'd rather not see my next arrest on youtube, where future bosses can look it up.
While I agree with your overall point, breaking it down on a per-hour basis seems disingenuous because the cost doesn't scale that way. It doesn't cost much to lock prisoners in their cell for 8 hours during the night.
Slashdot Mirror
The register has a much better story:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/citigroup_website_hack_simple/
they actually point out how insanely insecure the setup was.
It's not that big - remember that it can be transported strapped to the top of a 747.
If your definition of "not that big" is "a bit smaller than a 747", there is something VERY wrong with you ....
If the ISS were to explode, just jump off it? Deploy parachutes once you hit atmosphere. I don't see why you need a craft, people jump out of planes all the time.
Sure. And as a side bonus, people on the surface would get to make a wish on a shooting star.
Makes me think of the Babylon 5 intro ...
"Humans and aliens wrapped in two million five hundred thousand tons of spinning metal ... all alone in the night."
Of course, there's no spinning. And not that much metal. And no Mexicans. But, other than that, it's perfect!
Gamma rays travel at the speed of light.
You mean the way all electromagnetic radiation does? Wow, crazy!
We wouldn't see it coming. There might be one hitting the edge of the atmosphere right now.
Too late to use those mod points...
Hrm ....
3 ... 2 ... 1 ....
Nope, still here! Guess Australia took one for the team.
Parts of the Creative industry do not have copyright or Patents at all ... The fashion industry , they are almost totally US/Europe based outsource most of their production the the far east, and seem to be doing very well ...
The others have already provided a decent response, so I'll take a different tack: I don't really care if the "creative industries" live or die - I'll get along just fine without some goofy hat from Milan, or the newest Bieber album. I'm much more concerned with pharmacutical companies, aerospace manufacturers, electronics designers, etc. What pharma company will want to spend tens of billions of dollars doing research, testing, and getting approval, only to have the patent yanked and given away for free to their competition?
I approve of open licenses ... but they have to be voluntary. Provide encouragement for companies to use them. Like, for instance, offer a 10% tax rebate to any company which releases X number of their patents per year. Or figure out some other way to make them competitive. There are plenty of ways to encourage people to release products under open licenses, but just changing the laws and saying "sink or swim" is the wrong move.
Fortunately, nature generally is pretty good at stopping scientists from reproducing--which may ultimately be for the best. I can really only take so much of there pedantic over-analysis of even the most trivial things
Yeah, stupid people often have a gut-level reaction - ranging from trepidation to outright fear - when dealing with subjects which they are poorly equipped to understand. This reaction is readily transformed into hostility aimed at those without such limitations.
Oh, right ... big words ... sorry, I'll translate: Don't worry! You're perfectly normal!
James Randi is a liar, pseudo-skeptic, and wanker who pretends to be a skeptic. Why anyone would trust a magician over a REAL scientist is beyond me.
If you think it's a question of trusting a person, you've clearly failed to understand what the discussion is about. I don't trust Randi any more than I trust anyone else; I trust the scientific method.
I'd say the handling of Project Alpha clearly shows that Randi has a better understanding of the scientific method than do many "real scientists", but it's irrelevant anyway since the real question is whether the methodology behind the JREF tests is sufficiently rigid to provide controls against frauds and charlatans while not being overbearing for any 'legitimate' applicants. And the answer is a unequivocal "yes"; the participants take an active role in designing the experiments, and agree to the terms prior to commencing the testing. Then, when they fail, they whine and moan about how unfair Randi is.
You can read all about the details here...
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm
and
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html
You're joking, right? :) You couldn't possibly take those 'rebuttals' seriously. Nobody is THAT stupid.
No-one has yet to actually apply and follow through. They usually back out at the last second and claim the test is flawed.
That's not actually true. Lots of them have followed through, and they've all failed. The JREF even does live tests at the annual TAM conference in Vegas. Many applicants DO back out, but there have been hundreds, if not thousands, who have been tested. Their case files are held at the JREF library - anyone interested in researching the topic should have no problem getting access.
Citation needed, sir / ma'am.
The first enslaved people in the Americas were American Indians.
I said "in the US", not "in the Americas". Although technically speaking, I'm wrong, because the US wasn't a country at the time when Anthony Johnson won the right to keep a slave for life. Still, the gyst was correct :)
You're welcome :)
I mentioned the bases because it is something that causes some people in that area to dislike us.
I'm sure some people dislike you because of the Star Wars prequels. How come you're not mentioning that?
Personally, I think the number one reason most people fight offensively (outside of nationalism) is poverty and hunger.
And you're wrong. There's absolutely zero data to support that conclusion. You harp on about how important it is to understand our enemies, and then completely fail to realize that all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were educated, well-off men from middle-class-or-better families. You ignore the fact that Bin Laden comes from a family of billionaires.
People fight because the battle gives their lives meaning. Truly poor people don't need that kind of meaning - they're too busy trying to survive. When poor people DO fight, it's usually because they're being paid more to risk their lives than they can make through other means. While that kind of mercenary mentality can be a problem for us, it's the leaders and the true fanatics whom we need to really be concerned with.
It's just that historically terrorists are very interchangeable with rebels.
People use the terms as if they were interchangeable, but they're not. I would never refer to the American "patriots" as "terrorists", for the most part, although the label might fit a few of them; I would never refer to the Taliban as "freedom fighters", because the only freedom they're interested in is their own freedom to impose an oppressive theocracy on others. The terms have very specific meanings, and the bastardization of the language by others is no reason to stop using them. Chastise those who misuse them, if you wish, but don't harp on me for the sins of others.
I haven't seen the Cryps and Bloods defend what they do because they are fighting for their way of life. If they did begin to do that they would move from criminal to some ideological label determined by the very factors I'm bringing up
Not sure about the Cryps and the Bloods, but other criminal organizations certainly have rationalized their actions through various means. But it's irrelevant; I'm completely flabbergasted by you apparent willingness to take such rationalization at face value. Who gives a shit if a rapist wants to call himself a "sex-liberator"? Why should we take such claims seriously?
Terrorists commit terror and are labeled terrorist. The problem is, any fighting force creates terror ...
That is, of course, bullshit. If you're going to take that tack, you may as well argue that parents who yell at their kids in order to discipline them are terrorists. It's ridiculous. There's no single clear-cut definition of terrorism, but there is a clear difference between armed factions which use force in a controlled manner in order to overthrow illegitimate authority or maintain legitimate control, and armed factions which use indiscriminate force in order to control others. If I beat the shit out of you because you're threatening to behead my girlfriend unless she wears a veil, I'm not a terrorist, despite the fact that you may feel terror the next time you run into me.
When Osama Bin Laden et al. were fighting our enemy, the Russians, we called them freedom fighters. When they fight us, they're terrorists. Same people, the only thing that really changed is who they're fighting.
Again, nonsense. We never supported the Taliban - they didn't take over Afghanistan until the mid-90's. They didn't even exist until the early 90s.
More importantly, though ... when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, millions of Afghans fled. When NATO invaded Afghanistan, millions of Afghans returned. To compare the two is sheer lunacy. The Afghans fighting against Russian rule weren't terrorizing their own co
At least tell me where I defended fascists or murderers. I even tried typing in Caps that I don't support them.
*sigh*
Ok, try this:
"I DON'T LIKE the Bloods and the Cryps, but I don't see why you have to call them 'criminals'. They're just fighting for their way of life, same as we would fight for ours. We send cops to their neighbourhoods, they don't send them to ours. Calling them 'criminals' or 'evil' doesn't help us understand them.
If, after reading that, you still can't understand how retarded you sound to me - or why I think you're defending them - then you're a lost cause. I mean, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy for the most part, but when you start complaining about people who use completely appropriate terminology to describe those whom they oppose, you come across as a drooling cretin. Take a minute to think about what you're saying. I understand full well the importance of understanding your enemy - I simply don't see a reason to turn into mealy-mouthed apologists while we study them.
And, if your silly opposition to the language wasn't bad enough, you just HAD to throw in that "bases in their countries" bullshit, and remove all doubt that you're spreading their propaganda. Up to that point I had thought that maybe you were just some kind of weird pedant, but that phrase removed all doubt.
You said that you don't have to worry about this kind of stuff because you generally don't break the law, etc. I'm merely pointing out that that is not a protection at all when cops are willing to assault you even when you're not breaking any law or doing anything even remotely threatening.
No shit? You mean there's nothing that will 100% for sure protect you from someone who really really wants to kick your ass? Wow. You learn something new every day.
People will assault you whenever they feel like it. It doesn't matter whether they're wearing a uniform or not - if they really feel like kicking your ass, they will. If you're unhappy with that ... too bad. Welcome to Earth.
Right. Deal with the legal system afterwards, with no evidence to back up your story because you're too concerned with enabling such abuse by "not pissing them off".
There's always evidence. But hey, don't let me stop you. If you prefer to end up beat to a pulp or dead, you go right ahead. We'll have the enjoyment of reading about you in the news, and you might even get a Darwin Award out of it!
Unless people are willing to hold those in power accountable, we're all just powerless peasants to them.
Which would be fine and dandy if the cops were "in power" but, seeing as they're just a tool of the state, you're aiming at the wrong target. You're trying to bite the finger that keeps poking you in the eye, instead of punching the fucker in the head.
Yep, you're right, there's no reason to get emotional about a nitwit defending fascists and murderers. Carry on, good sir!
Naw, that was just the people on the right side of the political spectrum. The other half of the country spent the next few weeks in mourning, after which they logged on to slashdot in order to post whiny comments and mod each-other "insightful".
hmmm, except black people. I'm pretty sure there were many slaves that were not Christian (and certainly not Western Christians) but were then forced to become so. For there own good of course, savages that they were /sarcasm.
If you look up the history of slavery in the US, you'll find that the first real slave-owner was a black Angolan who was himself once an indentured-servant. He was the first to bring suit in order to retain a servant for life, and the courts ruled in his favor. Things kinda snowballed from there. But the idea that slavery was introduced "for their own good" is ludicrous; nobody ever claimed any such thing. As far as I can tell, slavery became legal because this guy successfully argued that back home in Angola, that's how they do things, and the courts said "well if that's your culture, then sure!".
Many of them would argue they fight for there way of life (that we don't agree with) and against what they see as oppression by a foreign government.
They can argue all they want, it doesn't fucking matter. I don't care if a child-rapist-murderer argues that he's just living life his own way, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop calling him a pedophile and a murderer, and it doesn't mean I'll stand aside and let him do what he wants. There is a quantifiable difference between a society which frees it's people, and a society which oppresses it's people, and there is a quantifiable difference between people who fight for freedom and those who fight for the right to oppress others. If you're unwilling to see that difference, that's your problem - don't expect the rest of us to turn a blind eye.
I don't think you understand how the legal system works. Which is pretty much status-quo for most people in these discussions, but it's still rather sad.
And if they hadn't been filming, they wouldn't have had an issue, which is what the discussion was about. I'm not trying to defend the behavior of these cops in handling the guy who was filming the incident - I was merely telling numbnuts not to bother filming my arrest. I'd much rather not have the cops further aggravated by some guy playing paparazzi. I have a very simple approach to these things: don't piss off the guys with the guns, and deal with any problems through the legal system, afterwards.
I agree with you completely. However, none of that has anything to do with what I said.
I sincerely hope that the next time you encounter a cop he decides to make you kneel down and open your mouth so he can shove his diseased cock in there.
Sounds good. I'll bite, and then sue for $20 mil.
See the difference between me and you? I can turn any situation to my advantage, whereas all you know how to do is whine about being a victim. There's a reason people like me don't have a problem with cops, while idiots like you are constantly having issues with them.
Pure bullshit. I'm know several cops. We go out and party on a regular basis. Our regular circle of friends includes DJs, artists, bartenders, programmers, security guards, airline personnel, graphic designers, mechanics, construction workers, and musicians. Your personal biases don't mean shit - the cops I know are amongst the best friends I've ever had.
That's OK. I will be sure not to record your beating or shooting when it comes to you. Fair enough?
Sure. I have no problem with such a deal, because:
1. I generally try not to break the law.
2. When I do break the law, I generally don't get caught.
3. When I do get caught, I cooperate with the cops.
If you follow those three steps, I guarantee you won't have a problem. I've met a few dick-cops in my times, but by following step 3, the worst I've ever had was them yelling at me, and arresting me after I already l willingly laid down on the ground. Never gotten a bruise out of those confrontations, let alone any serious damage. So yeah, I'd prefer it if you didn't film me, because I can take care of myself, and I'd rather not see my next arrest on youtube, where future bosses can look it up.
Thanks!
While I agree with your overall point, breaking it down on a per-hour basis seems disingenuous because the cost doesn't scale that way. It doesn't cost much to lock prisoners in their cell for 8 hours during the night.
Your analogy is flawed. Launching a nuke is an act of war, and the Pentagon is heavily protected by anti-missile and early warning systems
Of course it is. You'd fit right in with the 9/11 conspiracy crowd!