A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Luckily for you, putting up a shelf isn't on the list.
Actually, abstract thought might not be as recent or require as much evolutionary development as is often thought either.
While I agree that this is a possibility, I think it's rather funny that you're using the behavior of a modern-day chimp as evidence. You do realize that the chimp in that video has had just as much time and "evolutionary development" as we have, don't you?
Oh, ok. I was going to say something about Spun's claimed number of sexual partners, but after running them through your filter they appear to be at least somewhat plausible.
Seriously? Nuclear explosions don't destroy anything. They split atoms into smaller atoms (or merge two atoms into a larger atom with fusion) which releases energy held up in the atom itself. Matter is definitely not destroyed.
That depends on how you define "matter" - it doesn't exactly have a very clear scientific definition. However, the rest mass of the stuff you have left over after the nuclear reaction will always be less than the rest mass of the fuel you used, so yes, something IS destroyed.
Also, saying that "nuclear explosions don't destroy anything" is really, REALLY bad phrasing for what you were trying to describe:)
It was in the news even, and it ignited a moral debate. That cost to society was NZ$1,100,000.
The point being, the cost of the helicoptor recovery was less than this, at about $5000 per hour.
Flawed stats. Did they take into account the percentage of the people saved that will be criminals - a net loss for society? Did they do any calculations to look at how much all the other life-saving services would cost, and add it to the helicopter bill? Did they look at what percentage of cases actually survive, versus how many die?
My guess is no, no, and no. If you spend NZ$20,000,000 to try and save 40 people, and end up with two homeless guys, a drug addict, 2 murderers, a career burglar, a man in his 80's, and 33 corpses, you've actually not only wasted $20 mil but have ensured that these people will continue to be a drain on your finances.
Now, that's not to say that saving people isn't worthwhile. Personally, I don't much care about the financial aspects. I'm just pointing out that the figures you're quoting are far too simplistic.
Of course, the right of free speech - at least for everything beyond what the owner can personally defend against the world by means of force -- is also one of limited and artificially constructed grants of rights. Which isn't to say that property law is a branch of speech laws, but rather that free speech rights are just as artificial.
the UN inspector concluded that Iraq's weapons of mass desctruction had been destroyed. That Iraq was a few weeks late with some demands, and small amounts of nerve gas was missing due to an accounting error, doesn't change the conclusion.
Where I live, in Northern Europe, everybody knew that.
There's no doubt that Iraq failed to comply with resolution 1441. You could argue that this in itself was not sufficient reason to invade, if you want. Personally, I think using "WMD" as the excuse was pretty stupid; they had plenty of better reasons to pick from. However, to claim that "everyone knew" that Iraq didn't have such weaponry... well, you're either lying to me or you're lying to yourself.
Even in the USA there were a lot of people who saw that Bush had decided to invade Iraq and was looking for an excuse. For example, The Onion satirised it in a news story where Iraq "provoked" Bush by complying with his every demand.
Ah, yes, that hotbed of political insight, The Onion. Well clearly I must be wrong, then.
But what if that which endangers those civilians leads to a faster resolution?
What if a faster resolution leads to more death and suffering?
We can play the what-if game all day. I don't see much value in it.
It seems like they want people to realise how retarded the war in Afghanistan is, and erode as much support for it as possible, in order to shorten it.
Thank you - you're the first person on here to openly acknowledge that WikiLeaks is a propaganda outlet, and that you fully support their attempts to "persuade" people. Given your eagerness to throw the middle east back into chaos and tribalism just so that we can avoid pissing off "Islam"... well, I'm not sure that I'd like you as a person, but I can at least respect your honesty.
No, that's just dumb. How could me showing a video cause more hostages to die? Your version makes no sense.
The way you say it you've conflated Wikileaks and the Taliban, because you're biased against wikileaks and are actively trying to smear them, apparently.
I don't need to smear them - their (his) actions speak for themselves. I can see the point you think you're objecting to, though. No, in no part of that "allegory" did I conflate wikileaks with the Taliban. The Taliban doesn't pretend to care if their victims are innocent or not.
maybe you might want to look at what the real issue is here.
That's exactly what I was doing.
Of course, YOUR idea of "the real issue" is every bit as silly as the actual issue (which I discussed). The idea that governments should just freely give out all classified information in order to avoid having it leaked is only surpassed in foolishness by the idea that freedom of the press and protection of civilians are incompatible.
Sounds like a long process. By the same logic, all we have to do is wait until oil gets too expensive for the average person to afford, and the companies will have no choice but to produce more efficient cars.
You're joking, right? You want people to send mail to the traitorous piece of shit who started this mess, and endangered the lives of hundreds of Afghans as well as coalition soldiers? Right. Ask your community-college veterans what they think about that one.
So true. This one time when I tried to rob a bank, I asked the cops for help so that I could do it safely without hurting anyone. But the fucking pigs just wanted to stop me. Clearly it wasn't my fault that people died.
That's right, it's their fault for siding with the western capitalist pigdogs over the greater glory of Islamic Justice!
Seriously, I expect your kinds of responses from the fascist theocratic assholes whom we're currently fighting, but it's rather sickening to see such behavior from a supposedly educated, enlightened, and tolerant citizen of the free world. I guess every society has it's collaborators.
Look, you either have a: freedom of the press, or b: you give it up for "safety of civilians". There isn't an imbetween.
Right. Guess we've just hallucinated the last hundred years or so.
Only fools see such issues as black and white. The statement you've just made sounds every bit as retarded as Bush and his "You're either with us or against us" nonsense. Mature adults understand that life is a series of compromises rather than a list of ultimatums.
There's a reason that gas cars are cheaper. The oil companies are not stupid. They know the price point at which alternative fuels become competitive with gas and they keep the price a little below that.
Which explains why hybrids are so popular in Europe.
Wait, what?
You do realize that there's a whole lot of places (we call them "countries") outside of the US, where the fuel prices are completely different, don't you?
f his buying a hybrid kicks in to the car companies that they should make hybrids and they do, then in the long term it will create much more efficient cars everywhere rather than just his one bike trip back and forth to work and the store.
Either that or it will show them that creating a "good enough" product for the ultra-trendy is a good way to make money without trying too hard.
Slashdot Mirror
lol, you think evolution is progress and that progress is getting smarter
I do? Interesting. I'd be curious to know how you've come to that conclusion, given that I was saying the exact opposite.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Luckily for you, putting up a shelf isn't on the list.
Actually, abstract thought might not be as recent or require as much evolutionary development as is often thought either.
While I agree that this is a possibility, I think it's rather funny that you're using the behavior of a modern-day chimp as evidence. You do realize that the chimp in that video has had just as much time and "evolutionary development" as we have, don't you?
Oh, ok. I was going to say something about Spun's claimed number of sexual partners, but after running them through your filter they appear to be at least somewhat plausible.
Not to mention, what is the appeal of having 10 sexual partners in a week if you do not plan to impregnate all of them?
You're either a female or a eunuch. Either way, I'm guessing you don't do sports fishing, either.
Seriously? Nuclear explosions don't destroy anything. They split atoms into smaller atoms (or merge two atoms into a larger atom with fusion) which releases energy held up in the atom itself. Matter is definitely not destroyed.
That depends on how you define "matter" - it doesn't exactly have a very clear scientific definition. However, the rest mass of the stuff you have left over after the nuclear reaction will always be less than the rest mass of the fuel you used, so yes, something IS destroyed.
Also, saying that "nuclear explosions don't destroy anything" is really, REALLY bad phrasing for what you were trying to describe :)
And hence we have a "consensus" on torture. Its not black or white but a few shades of grey.
Exactly! I'm glad we agree.
You don't see value in thinking about the consequences of various courses of action?
Theory without data is masturbation.
It was in the news even, and it ignited a moral debate. That cost to society was NZ$1,100,000.
The point being, the cost of the helicoptor recovery was less than this, at about $5000 per hour.
Flawed stats. Did they take into account the percentage of the people saved that will be criminals - a net loss for society? Did they do any calculations to look at how much all the other life-saving services would cost, and add it to the helicopter bill? Did they look at what percentage of cases actually survive, versus how many die?
My guess is no, no, and no. If you spend NZ$20,000,000 to try and save 40 people, and end up with two homeless guys, a drug addict, 2 murderers, a career burglar, a man in his 80's, and 33 corpses, you've actually not only wasted $20 mil but have ensured that these people will continue to be a drain on your finances.
Now, that's not to say that saving people isn't worthwhile. Personally, I don't much care about the financial aspects. I'm just pointing out that the figures you're quoting are far too simplistic.
No, you're thinking of cloning. Rape would be creating a derivative work without the authors permission.
Of course, the right of free speech - at least for everything beyond what the owner can personally defend against the world by means of force -- is also one of limited and artificially constructed grants of rights. Which isn't to say that property law is a branch of speech laws, but rather that free speech rights are just as artificial.
FTFY
YW :)
the UN inspector concluded that Iraq's weapons of mass desctruction had been destroyed. That Iraq was a few weeks late with some demands, and small amounts of nerve gas was missing due to an accounting error, doesn't change the conclusion.
Where I live, in Northern Europe, everybody knew that.
Ok, then everybody is wrong.
There's no doubt that Iraq failed to comply with resolution 1441. You could argue that this in itself was not sufficient reason to invade, if you want. Personally, I think using "WMD" as the excuse was pretty stupid; they had plenty of better reasons to pick from. However, to claim that "everyone knew" that Iraq didn't have such weaponry ... well, you're either lying to me or you're lying to yourself.
Even in the USA there were a lot of people who saw that Bush had decided to invade Iraq and was looking for an excuse. For example, The Onion satirised it in a news story where Iraq "provoked" Bush by complying with his every demand.
Ah, yes, that hotbed of political insight, The Onion. Well clearly I must be wrong, then.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. War wasn't the only option on the table.
Very true, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
But what if that which endangers those civilians leads to a faster resolution?
What if a faster resolution leads to more death and suffering?
We can play the what-if game all day. I don't see much value in it.
It seems like they want people to realise how retarded the war in Afghanistan is, and erode as much support for it as possible, in order to shorten it.
Thank you - you're the first person on here to openly acknowledge that WikiLeaks is a propaganda outlet, and that you fully support their attempts to "persuade" people. Given your eagerness to throw the middle east back into chaos and tribalism just so that we can avoid pissing off "Islam" ... well, I'm not sure that I'd like you as a person, but I can at least respect your honesty.
This is the honest version of your allegory.
No, that's just dumb. How could me showing a video cause more hostages to die? Your version makes no sense.
The way you say it you've conflated Wikileaks and the Taliban, because you're biased against wikileaks and are actively trying to smear them, apparently.
I don't need to smear them - their (his) actions speak for themselves. I can see the point you think you're objecting to, though. No, in no part of that "allegory" did I conflate wikileaks with the Taliban. The Taliban doesn't pretend to care if their victims are innocent or not.
You lost all credibility after using the phrase "illegal wars".
First, the war was based on fabricated information
I think what you meant to write is: "911 WUZ AND INSIDE JOOB!!!11!!11!1LULZ1"
the people of Iraq ... chaos in Iraq ... best interests of Iraq ...
Hi. This is Afghanistan calling. Ever heard of me?
maybe you might want to look at what the real issue is here.
That's exactly what I was doing.
Of course, YOUR idea of "the real issue" is every bit as silly as the actual issue (which I discussed). The idea that governments should just freely give out all classified information in order to avoid having it leaked is only surpassed in foolishness by the idea that freedom of the press and protection of civilians are incompatible.
Sounds like a long process. By the same logic, all we have to do is wait until oil gets too expensive for the average person to afford, and the companies will have no choice but to produce more efficient cars.
Somehow I don't think it's that simple.
You're joking, right? You want people to send mail to the traitorous piece of shit who started this mess, and endangered the lives of hundreds of Afghans as well as coalition soldiers? Right. Ask your community-college veterans what they think about that one.
So true. This one time when I tried to rob a bank, I asked the cops for help so that I could do it safely without hurting anyone. But the fucking pigs just wanted to stop me. Clearly it wasn't my fault that people died.
That's right, it's their fault for siding with the western capitalist pigdogs over the greater glory of Islamic Justice!
Seriously, I expect your kinds of responses from the fascist theocratic assholes whom we're currently fighting, but it's rather sickening to see such behavior from a supposedly educated, enlightened, and tolerant citizen of the free world. I guess every society has it's collaborators.
Look, you either have a: freedom of the press, or b: you give it up for "safety of civilians". There isn't an imbetween.
Right. Guess we've just hallucinated the last hundred years or so.
Only fools see such issues as black and white. The statement you've just made sounds every bit as retarded as Bush and his "You're either with us or against us" nonsense. Mature adults understand that life is a series of compromises rather than a list of ultimatums.
There's a reason that gas cars are cheaper. The oil companies are not stupid. They know the price point at which alternative fuels become competitive with gas and they keep the price a little below that.
Which explains why hybrids are so popular in Europe.
Wait, what?
You do realize that there's a whole lot of places (we call them "countries") outside of the US, where the fuel prices are completely different, don't you?
f his buying a hybrid kicks in to the car companies that they should make hybrids and they do, then in the long term it will create much more efficient cars everywhere rather than just his one bike trip back and forth to work and the store.
Either that or it will show them that creating a "good enough" product for the ultra-trendy is a good way to make money without trying too hard.