This "corrupt government" nonsense really gets to me. The US government is quite possibly one of the least corrupt governments on the planet, yet you act as if you're currently under the boot of the Fourth Reich. Give your head a shake!
No, I mean, you're assuming that those technologies would not have come about anyway. Realistically, "space exploration" has no real relation to the development of the microwave oven - scientists in the aerospace industry were working on developing and refining radar systems, and found out that certain frequencies at an adequate energy level could also be used to cook things. To go from that and say that the microwave owes it's existence to space exploration is a wee bit of a stretch, eh? You could just as easily say that the microwave owes it's development to the "military-industrial complex", or even traffic-enforcement-research:)
I just think it's silly to try and justify the NASA budget by pointing at some spinoffs that are only tangentially related to space exploration. There are much better ways to justify it. And who cares if it's "paid for itself" or not? Some things are worth doing just to be able to point and say "LOOK! WE did that!".
Everything from your television to better breeds of corn to the internet directly or indirectly relied on technologies related to space exploration.
While I agree with the gyst of your comment, statements like this one can be rather misleading. I could just as easily say that most modern technologies are either directly or indirectly related to warfare, and then use that argument to say that war is good, and we should put more money into waging war.
The government, nominally, does whatever it does in the "best interest" of all citizens.
Nope. Governments in general tend to do what is most popular. At least, ones who want to stay in power do. The current US government seems to be bucking that trend rather spectacularly, and the popularity figures reflect that. Still, when it comes to social programs, public perception is much more important to a government than the actual well-being of the citizens. That's why communism keeps rearing it's ugly head even though it's a completely untenable system - because as long as there are people stupid enough to entrust their well being to an all powerful government, there will be political groups willing to pander to them.
Corporations haven't even got a withered little figleaf of concern for anything other than profit.
Which is the way it should be. If they can make a profit, it means they're doing it right. Making a profit is their goal - providing the best service possible is their means. I'm much more suspicious of government run healthcare, which has no reason to offer anything except the most basic level of service. There's a reason why all Canadians who can afford it seek medical help in the US, and why US healthcare-consumers rate their happiness with the quality of service higher than consumers in any other nation in the world.
In other words, the government, if it thinks there are enough votes in it, might screw you. A corporation, if it thinks there is any money in it, will screw you.
Conversely, a corporation will do everything possible to retain it's clientèle, while a Government monopoly has no worries on that front. If you're letting a company screw you, it's your own damn fault for being a shitty consumer. Why should anyone else be forced to support a government run system just because you don't know how to shop wisely?
This is America after all, and we are apparently a long way off from figuring out what virtually every other industrialized democracy has: private insurers are in it for the money, and are not necessarily aligned with your best interests.
And the government is in it for your best interest?
HAH!
You may be a great doctor, but that doesn't mean you understand either politics or market forces.
Why is it that every single time an article is posted about the pentagon, the discussion thread turns into a giant troll-fest? Don't you people have anything better to do? So far, 99% of the comments have been a variation of one of the following:
1) Oh noez! They'll arrest people for being afraid!
2) Itz CHEMACLE WEAPONZ!
3) Dey really R terrorists!
4) OMG 1984!!!!
None of which are even close to being remotely interesting, let alone valid, points. Seriously, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, shut the fuck up. Or at least post anonymously so I don't have to scroll past your drivel.
A perfect God is not only good but also evil, since perfection implies no lacking, including not lacking that which is evil.
By this definition, God must also not be lacking either a penis, a vagina, or the ability to reproduce by fission. So god is a giant hermaphroditic bacterium?
Well, we all know how it ended with the atomic bombs.
Yep, they ended WW2 early, saving hundreds of thousands of lives, and they kept the worlds two superpowers at a relative peace for 40 years, thereby saving millions of lives. They were also the precursor to nuclear power plants, which are the closest we've come to an unlimited, reliable, non-polluting power source. The horrors!
Scientists will probably be our undoing this way. They never wonder IF they should do something, since they only care about HOW they should do something.
The problem is that we didn't "INVENT" biology, it invented us.
We didn't invent fire, metal, nuclear reactions, or bacterial organisms either, we just learned how to harness and use them to our advantage. What makes biology any different?
Because of that, it is very likely that there might be some things going on in there that we have no clue about.
Oh, yeah, we knew EVERYTHING about fire before we started using it. Gotcha. Thanks for the input.
But, by all means, please, don't let a little concern stop you. After all, your little example of the atom bomb turned out completely benign, so no worries.
No, you see, I'm not going to let YOUR concern stop me. If I want to make something, and I'm satisfied that I'm doing it right, then I'm bloody well gonna go and do it, and if you get in my way you're going to go home with a bloody nose. If you've got a valid reason why it shouldn't be done, then state your case, but I'm sick and tired of clueless cowards trying to tell me that I can't do something because they "feel" that it might be wrong.
I am not comfortable with humanity taking such reckless leaps without even a clue of what the possible consequences are. Our society has become one of instant gratification
Yes, because all those past, wise societies, spent SO much time thinking about the possible consequences of inventing the space shuttle, the atomic bomb, airplanes, ships, siege weapons, vaccines, indoor plumbing, the wheel, and fire.
I'll never understand this sort of mindset. If it were up to you, we'd still be painting mammoths on cave walls, and you'd be bitching about this new-fangled "art" thing, too.
Who needs loudness. The distinct "clink-clunk" of a weapon being cocked is universally understood to mean "get on the fucking ground before I blow your head off". Anything else is just pillow-talk.
Actually, now that I think about it, judging by the videos I've seen on TV, that's the universal language for anywhere EXCEPT America, where a weapon being cocked seems to mean "please come and argue with me some more".
If you lose your job due to what you do on your own time, your company sucks, and its wrong.
I see. The military, all policing agencies, emergency services, and similar employers are all wrong, but you're right. Let me guess: you often find yourself thinking that if only more people were like you, all the worlds problems would go away, right?
If someone is committing a "crime" that does NOT effect society then the law is wrong and should be ignored.
Such generic definitions can encompass anything, or encompass nothing, based solely on the opinions of the person making that statement. If you think that underage drinking has no effect on society, then you should see no reason why adults having sex with children would be detrimental to society. Other crimes which would could into that category would be driving under the influence, driving without a licence, bestiality, public urination / public nudity, trespassing, petty-theft, etc, etc.
If you cant see the difference between some kids partying at a house, and the other examples I gave, then this discussion is over and you are nothing more then sheep as far as im concerned and you deserve the society you get.
I'm a sheep because you're unable to express your argument in a rational manner?
Listen, if you want to break the law or allow others to break the law, then fill your boots. Just don't try to pretend that there's anything either legal or moral about what you are advocating.
Whether or not it is legal for them to do it is debatable, but your analogy is amazingly stupid. If you were handed evidence that someone had committed a crime, and you wandered over and punished them...well, I urge you to try that some day and see what happens.
You're right when we're talking about major crimes and vigilante justice. However, try stealing from your boss, and see what happens. I guarantee the police won't be the only ones punishing you.
Now, to clarify my position about the school being a 'responsible citizen' , if they were out 'spray painting a building' or 'running over mailboxes' or other similar acts of malice however minor, then we are in agreement.
You make no sense. If they commit one type of illegal act, the school has no business interfering, but if they commit another type of illegal act, the school has a right to interfere?
You're smoking something funny, right?
If you don't like the drinking laws, change them. In the meantime, they should be treated just like every other law in the books.
Do you want your boss to start dictating what you do after hours on your own time (when you are *not* representing the company of course)?
If I do drugs on my own time, I'll get fired. If I engage in any other type of criminal activity, I risk losing my job. You're right - there IS a similarity, but not one that helps your argument.
What's needed is of course persuasion, give-and-take, meeting halfway, international treatises, etc. Of course the current US administration would never think of such solutions, always preferring the bullying approach.
Yeah! Just look at how they're bullying North Korea! Poor Kim runs home crying every day.
The problem here isn't that the US is unwilling to negotiate. The problem is that you seem to be unable to understand that "persuasion", "give-and-take", and "meeting half-way" are not the solution to EVERY situation. And if you really think the US is about to start "bullying" China because of some space-junk, you're out of your friggin' mind.
You know, even as I was hitting the "submit" button, I knew what your answer was going to be. Why? Because that was the only response open to you, other than admitting that you're wrong. And as much as I'm tempted to tell you to just get fucked, I'll take the high road and "correct" my initial comment in order to avoid your nit-picking. So here goes:
"Sure. And it's not your job to interfere if you see vandals spray-painting a building, kids toilet-papering a house, or an 11 year old trying to drive away in her fathers car. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, though."
Now, if you're still looking for a way to nit-pick that comment, then get fucked.
Its not the schools job or duty to police after-hours activities.
Sure. And it's not your job to interfere if you see a robbery in progress, a woman being raped, or someone being assaulted. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, though. Society tends to function much better when everyone does what's necessary regardless of whether or not it's their "job". Conversely, society falls apart when everyone decides to turn a blind eye.
If it were me, I'd call the ACLU. I'm pretty sure they'd send a few lawyers down to help the affected students.
Go ahead and call them. Make sure you record the call, though, so we can all laugh at them telling you to get lost.
No matter how much you may like to think otherwise, neither the world nor the legal code spin around your personal opinions. I would absolutely LOVE to see you explain which laws this policy violates.
It's hard to take you seriously when your post is so rife with spelling errors. The grammar and spelling of a document are good proxies for the quality of its argument.
No, they're not, but I have found that an individuals need to point out spelling mistakes is inversely proportional to his or her intelligence.
OF COURSE! How could I have missed it before? Clearly these kids were actually very responsible young adults, who know that drinking is bad for them. As such, there is absolutely zero possibility that they would ever consume alcohol! Clearly they were only posing with empty bottles in order to be accepted by their peer group. Thank you for bringing this horrible case of libel to my attention! I will immediately spring to the defence of these poor, misunderstood souls.
You make a good point, but you haven't addressed the GP's or my concern, for the simple reason that the legal system (or specifically, the jury system) doesn't have to be rational.
Oh, I agree absolutely. I had the same thought - driverless cars, no matter how much safer, would lead to death-by-lawsuit of car manufacturers under current laws.....at least, it would in the US. Here in Canada, courts limit awards to roughly $300,000 for general damages, so if GM were to market their cars here, they'd face much less risk. The US would likely need to place a similar limit on payouts.
If I get killed by a drunk driving accident, that's tragic. If I get killed by a robot car, that's stupid. As soon as the first family of five dies in a robot car accident it's the Butlerian Jihad, regardless of the system's overall safety rate.
I share your concern, however, keep in mind that most train/subway traffic is, for all intents and purposes, machine controlled. Machines run the scheduling and the traffic signals, the human operators are only there to push buttons. If a relay switch at a station failed, and a light remained green instead of turning red, there is pretty much nothing that the operator of the incoming train could do to avert a collision. Ditto for the switches which control track changes.
Modern aircraft are the same - every airliner you've ever been in is operated through a "fly-by-wire" system, meaning that there's no direct connection between the pilot and the control surfaces. If the computer fails, the aircraft crashes.
Even with cars, over the years we've given more and more control over to computers. Now they control everything from fuel mixture and cylinder timing to ABS and traction control. A computer failure there could also result in a crash.
I think we're quickly approaching the point where the majority of people will be willing to give up all control to a computer, especially if it brings with it added safety and convenience. We could probably speed the transition through the construction of dedicated "driverless" lanes, and large insurance discounts for owners of such vehicles. There's still going to be a lot of opposition and excitement along the way, but I think it's only a question of "when" all vehicles will become driverless, rather than "if".
Amazing. 6 replies to your comment, and every single one of them has managed to entirely miss the point.
Listen, dinks, it's not a question of whether these cars will be used only on highways, or whether we can eliminate traffic lights entirely. The question is, when little Billy and little Susie get turned into pink goo because Daddy had the car on autopilot and it made a mistake, who will be held accountable? You can bet that Mommy won't be very happy.
Of course, the chance of a manufacturer defect exists even in today's cars, and when such a defect leads to a fatality the manufacturer is usually held responsible. So a driverless car which breaks the law or causes an accident should, theoretically, be held to the same standard. "Theoretically" being the operative word.
OK, I'll buy a top of the line 18 watt 'digital' amplifier (your choice), and you buy a top of the line 18 watt tube amp (get one of these), and we'll see which one sounds better with a telecaster plugged straight into it.
Since you've included a guarantee, if my amp sounds crappy, you'll refund my money and give me the 18 watt tube amp.
Deal?
Let me get this straight: you want me to invest several thousands dollars into testing out a proposition in which I have no prospect of gaining anything, but stand to lose a couple thousand dollars based solely on your subjective opinion of what "sounds better".
Unfortunately, buying freeman food also makes the slave food more profitable, albeit in a smaller way.
Boy, you sure got some funny ideas about economics. This is like saying that buying a Macintosh computer will make the Microsoft Windows OS more profitable. Uhhh....wtf???
Your idea only works in a world with more demand than supply. The diamond market is WELL known for having much more supply than demand - that's why DeBeers is stockpiling massive quantities of diamonds - if they released them all onto the market, it would drastically lower the price. Even if we stick with the food analogy, there are millions of tonnes of food wasted every year simply because supply outstrips demand, at least in the civilized world.
Not to mention that the whole argument is fucking retarded anyway since:
1) If they weren't killing eachother over diamonds, they'd be killing eachother over something else.
2) If diamonds were to lose all value tomorrow, something else would replace them. You'd just end up with "blood rubies" or "blood gold". Or "no blood for oil".
Face it, as long as human beings continue to exist, there will be people who are willing to kill others in order to accumulate wealth. We can try and limit such acts through economic sanctions, but the best that we can hope for with such methods is a slight reduction. And while I certainly admire your idealism, I don't have time for your naivete.
Slashdot Mirror
This "corrupt government" nonsense really gets to me. The US government is quite possibly one of the least corrupt governments on the planet, yet you act as if you're currently under the boot of the Fourth Reich. Give your head a shake!
No, I mean, you're assuming that those technologies would not have come about anyway. Realistically, "space exploration" has no real relation to the development of the microwave oven - scientists in the aerospace industry were working on developing and refining radar systems, and found out that certain frequencies at an adequate energy level could also be used to cook things. To go from that and say that the microwave owes it's existence to space exploration is a wee bit of a stretch, eh? You could just as easily say that the microwave owes it's development to the "military-industrial complex", or even traffic-enforcement-research :)
I just think it's silly to try and justify the NASA budget by pointing at some spinoffs that are only tangentially related to space exploration. There are much better ways to justify it. And who cares if it's "paid for itself" or not? Some things are worth doing just to be able to point and say "LOOK! WE did that!".
Which is the way it should be. If they can make a profit, it means they're doing it right. Making a profit is their goal - providing the best service possible is their means. I'm much more suspicious of government run healthcare, which has no reason to offer anything except the most basic level of service. There's a reason why all Canadians who can afford it seek medical help in the US, and why US healthcare-consumers rate their happiness with the quality of service higher than consumers in any other nation in the world.
Conversely, a corporation will do everything possible to retain it's clientèle, while a Government monopoly has no worries on that front. If you're letting a company screw you, it's your own damn fault for being a shitty consumer. Why should anyone else be forced to support a government run system just because you don't know how to shop wisely?
HAH!
You may be a great doctor, but that doesn't mean you understand either politics or market forces.
Why is it that every single time an article is posted about the pentagon, the discussion thread turns into a giant troll-fest? Don't you people have anything better to do? So far, 99% of the comments have been a variation of one of the following: 1) Oh noez! They'll arrest people for being afraid! 2) Itz CHEMACLE WEAPONZ! 3) Dey really R terrorists! 4) OMG 1984!!!! None of which are even close to being remotely interesting, let alone valid, points. Seriously, if you don't have anything intelligent to say, shut the fuck up. Or at least post anonymously so I don't have to scroll past your drivel.
I think you dropped your bible.
Oh, yeah, we knew EVERYTHING about fire before we started using it. Gotcha. Thanks for the input.
No, you see, I'm not going to let YOUR concern stop me. If I want to make something, and I'm satisfied that I'm doing it right, then I'm bloody well gonna go and do it, and if you get in my way you're going to go home with a bloody nose. If you've got a valid reason why it shouldn't be done, then state your case, but I'm sick and tired of clueless cowards trying to tell me that I can't do something because they "feel" that it might be wrong.
I'll never understand this sort of mindset. If it were up to you, we'd still be painting mammoths on cave walls, and you'd be bitching about this new-fangled "art" thing, too.
Who needs loudness. The distinct "clink-clunk" of a weapon being cocked is universally understood to mean "get on the fucking ground before I blow your head off". Anything else is just pillow-talk.
Actually, now that I think about it, judging by the videos I've seen on TV, that's the universal language for anywhere EXCEPT America, where a weapon being cocked seems to mean "please come and argue with me some more".
Such generic definitions can encompass anything, or encompass nothing, based solely on the opinions of the person making that statement. If you think that underage drinking has no effect on society, then you should see no reason why adults having sex with children would be detrimental to society. Other crimes which would could into that category would be driving under the influence, driving without a licence, bestiality, public urination / public nudity, trespassing, petty-theft, etc, etc.
I'm a sheep because you're unable to express your argument in a rational manner?
Listen, if you want to break the law or allow others to break the law, then fill your boots. Just don't try to pretend that there's anything either legal or moral about what you are advocating.
You're smoking something funny, right?
If you don't like the drinking laws, change them. In the meantime, they should be treated just like every other law in the books.
If I do drugs on my own time, I'll get fired. If I engage in any other type of criminal activity, I risk losing my job. You're right - there IS a similarity, but not one that helps your argument.
The problem here isn't that the US is unwilling to negotiate. The problem is that you seem to be unable to understand that "persuasion", "give-and-take", and "meeting half-way" are not the solution to EVERY situation. And if you really think the US is about to start "bullying" China because of some space-junk, you're out of your friggin' mind.
You know, even as I was hitting the "submit" button, I knew what your answer was going to be. Why? Because that was the only response open to you, other than admitting that you're wrong. And as much as I'm tempted to tell you to just get fucked, I'll take the high road and "correct" my initial comment in order to avoid your nit-picking. So here goes:
"Sure. And it's not your job to interfere if you see vandals spray-painting a building, kids toilet-papering a house, or an 11 year old trying to drive away in her fathers car. Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, though."
Now, if you're still looking for a way to nit-pick that comment, then get fucked.
If it were me, I'd call the ACLU. I'm pretty sure they'd send a few lawyers down to help the affected students. Go ahead and call them. Make sure you record the call, though, so we can all laugh at them telling you to get lost.
No matter how much you may like to think otherwise, neither the world nor the legal code spin around your personal opinions. I would absolutely LOVE to see you explain which laws this policy violates.
Go ahead. I'll be right here.
Just sayin'.
OF COURSE! How could I have missed it before? Clearly these kids were actually very responsible young adults, who know that drinking is bad for them. As such, there is absolutely zero possibility that they would ever consume alcohol! Clearly they were only posing with empty bottles in order to be accepted by their peer group. Thank you for bringing this horrible case of libel to my attention! I will immediately spring to the defence of these poor, misunderstood souls.
Modern aircraft are the same - every airliner you've ever been in is operated through a "fly-by-wire" system, meaning that there's no direct connection between the pilot and the control surfaces. If the computer fails, the aircraft crashes.
Even with cars, over the years we've given more and more control over to computers. Now they control everything from fuel mixture and cylinder timing to ABS and traction control. A computer failure there could also result in a crash.
I think we're quickly approaching the point where the majority of people will be willing to give up all control to a computer, especially if it brings with it added safety and convenience. We could probably speed the transition through the construction of dedicated "driverless" lanes, and large insurance discounts for owners of such vehicles. There's still going to be a lot of opposition and excitement along the way, but I think it's only a question of "when" all vehicles will become driverless, rather than "if".
Amazing. 6 replies to your comment, and every single one of them has managed to entirely miss the point.
Listen, dinks, it's not a question of whether these cars will be used only on highways, or whether we can eliminate traffic lights entirely. The question is, when little Billy and little Susie get turned into pink goo because Daddy had the car on autopilot and it made a mistake, who will be held accountable? You can bet that Mommy won't be very happy.
Of course, the chance of a manufacturer defect exists even in today's cars, and when such a defect leads to a fatality the manufacturer is usually held responsible. So a driverless car which breaks the law or causes an accident should, theoretically, be held to the same standard. "Theoretically" being the operative word.
You must be a guitarist
Your idea only works in a world with more demand than supply. The diamond market is WELL known for having much more supply than demand - that's why DeBeers is stockpiling massive quantities of diamonds - if they released them all onto the market, it would drastically lower the price. Even if we stick with the food analogy, there are millions of tonnes of food wasted every year simply because supply outstrips demand, at least in the civilized world.
Not to mention that the whole argument is fucking retarded anyway since:
1) If they weren't killing eachother over diamonds, they'd be killing eachother over something else.
2) If diamonds were to lose all value tomorrow, something else would replace them. You'd just end up with "blood rubies" or "blood gold". Or "no blood for oil".
Face it, as long as human beings continue to exist, there will be people who are willing to kill others in order to accumulate wealth. We can try and limit such acts through economic sanctions, but the best that we can hope for with such methods is a slight reduction. And while I certainly admire your idealism, I don't have time for your naivete.