Dude, Google doesn't owe anyone a job. If you want money from them, then tax them. Tax their profits and get your money that way.. it's better for everyone.
Wow, you seek to deny knowledge to people? You have access to this course too. Nobody is entitled to a job. If you want welfare then tax Google's profits and get your money that way.
We are so scared of Zika, that we are willing to get rabies over it. Have you heard how rabies kills? Do you know what rabies is like?
How about controlling there Aedes Aegypti mosquito instead? How about spending some money on making a vaccine? How about increasing NIH funding to the level at which they can fund some research?
Conservatives are the ones who took away thes rights. If conservatives believe in certain unalienable rights, how come they cheered it on when foreigners suspected of terrorism were being tortured or held indefinitely without a trial?
Hmm I dunno.. seeing the pics of Earth clouds it took from just 400 miles away during its Earth flyby I didn't get much hope for seeing anything new or spectacular in Jupiter.
Probably the biggest blunder is to not have porn available. This, combined with the fact that the resolution needs to at least double.. it's no wonder VR will fail this time around as well.
I think we have to wait till the year 2035 -- at least for there to be usable VR. If they had made more porn apps.. the investment would have allowed VR tech to advance to the point of being usable by 2020.
Got any proof that a significant portion is not safe to humans? Humans are living longer and healthier than at any time in history, so you better have some strong evidence proving GMO is bad.
The problem is that the people in the shitty place will eventually come get stuff from you by force. Building doomsday nukes doesn't require a prosperous economy. The only way to prevent WWIII is if everyone has a high standard of living (a life with no fear of starvation or lack of liberty/shelter) combined with libertarian philosophy. How can they get that if there is no interaction? Look, trading with the Japanese and Chinese has made the Japanese and Chinese population improve. I mean, in the mid 1940s if you were told someone carried out a suicide attack you would think it was a Jap. Today the Japs are much more peaceful by any measure -- I mean, they have much less violent crime than most, if not all, European countries.
They can rid of that jerk Kim Jong Un for starters. They can do that. South Korea could easily mount such an operation if they planned it out properly.
Self preservation is not necessarily moral in all instances. I bet there are situations that even you would do actions that are against "self preservation". For example, would you claim self preservation is more important than people you care about getting hurt?
So yeah, you assigned greater value to something and then get upset when others devalue you for their own purpose. If other people's lives mean nothing to you, why do you get upset if they have a similar philosophy?
The only reason you don't try to get stuff from other countries is because you don't need it. I mean, the history of basically every culture involves uh "exploring" and colonizing other lands. The Chinese did it, the Africans did it, even Europe did it to some extent.
My point is, if you had a need for something someone else had, for example fuel, chocolate, gold, building materials or something.. I guarantee you'd be out to get it.. if not for self preservation then for desire not to live in inconvenience. If it means having to make up a religion to "justify" it, that can be done too.
How can you be sure the army will work? Do you realize only a few nukes are enough to cause irreparable damage to the planet? How would you prevent a doomsday Cobalt-60 nuke from set off outside your country? Nowadays there are nuke designs that can be set off outside the target country and will cause enough atmospheric irradiation that it is all over for everyone. Even if countries seal themselves in domes someone will figure out how to break it.
Why have a border? What is the purpose of a border? It is to keep people out because you think they are evil, will drink the milk out the bottle from your fridge, look ugly and smell bad too. Why should poor countries be stuck with keeping the bad people when they would do more damage? At least the richer countries can catch the criminals and jail them or something.
Gotta look out for "your own".. but is that even moral? Does God value the human life of a person in one country over another? You can allow the deaths of thousands to save a few of your own? How is that moral?
Why would you lock yourself out of interacting with foreigners? That will only breed mutual hatred and an arms race. Keeping people out is not sustainable. Eventually the other countries will want in. And there will be a big war. . Eventually there will be a war, that is guaranteed. At some point you are going to want something from another country and they will refuse to give it to you. Or vice versa. They will want something of yours, you will refuse to give it.. and they will try to take it. Then you will war.
The only sustainable future for humanity is for everyone to get along with each other. This is only possible through interaction, through everyone understanding the concepts of free speech, freedom of religion, right to a fair trial before punishment, right not to be tortured etc.
Its true a lot of third worlders don't understand these concepts, and you are afraid they will bring it to your country. But how does isolating these countries help? How will they learn these ideas if not through interaction? If you are cool with them never learning the values of freedom, eventually they will war. They will be ruled by dictators who build big weapons and will eventually try to take your stuff by force.. it may take 50 years or 100.. but they will.. and with the nukes of today if even a few get through it's devastating.
Ever noticed that all the places that have ancient border walls are now tourist attractions that you can visit from both sides and still be in the sea country. It's not like the Great Wall of China or Emperor Hadrian's wall demarcates a border to this day.. What we have are failed empires.
I don't think it's wrong. I should have the right not to work with people who vote for things that might harm me personally. For example, would you want to work with a racist who spends his personal time trying to harm you because of your race?
I don't mind losing money if it means that someone evil doesn't get more power than they already have.
So basically our race and species, which society tells us we should care about over ourselves (you have to wonder why), is more important than our lives.
Anyway it can't be correct that cancer is needed to improve the gene pool. In fact eliminating anything from the gene pool a bad idea. Eliminating cells is fine because they are clones mostly. Apoptosis occurs in cells of which there are a trillion in duplicate. Ok let's say for example and hypothetically, someone (not me) may have a gene for trolling on slashdot, which you may find annoying and want to eliminate. But what if they also have a gene that is useful in an upcoming robot war? You can't write off an entire genome because of a few bad genes. Eliminating a entire organism is very different than strategically than eliminating a single cell.
Anyway this is a moot point, we have the technology now to edit and fix bad genes.
Eliminating genes from the gene pool should only be done as a last resort. Many people who get cancer are intelligent, useful, and productive members of society. Cancer doesn't target the people who are no good for the tribe. Therefore, it makes no sense evolutionarily for cancer to be a useful weeding process. Cancer itself is the result of bad genes, it doesn't result in death because evolution is helped by it.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, Google doesn't owe anyone a job. If you want money from them, then tax them. Tax their profits and get your money that way .. it's better for everyone.
Wow, you seek to deny knowledge to people? You have access to this course too. Nobody is entitled to a job. If you want welfare then tax Google's profits and get your money that way.
So human rights don't exist? Then how did the right to independence from Britain come about?
We are so scared of Zika, that we are willing to get rabies over it. Have you heard how rabies kills? Do you know what rabies is like?
How about controlling there Aedes Aegypti mosquito instead? How about spending some money on making a vaccine? How about increasing NIH funding to the level at which they can fund some research?
Conservatives are the ones who took away thes rights. If conservatives believe in certain unalienable rights, how come they cheered it on when foreigners suspected of terrorism were being tortured or held indefinitely without a trial?
Are you an idiot? Or being sarcastic? -- I hope so. The Snow White story has been around for hundreds of years. Google it.
Hmm I dunno .. seeing the pics of Earth clouds it took from just 400 miles away during its Earth flyby I didn't get much hope for seeing anything new or spectacular in Jupiter.
That's Monsanto's business practice, not an issue caused by a genetically modified organism.
Probably the biggest blunder is to not have porn available. This, combined with the fact that the resolution needs to at least double .. it's no wonder VR will fail this time around as well.
I think we have to wait till the year 2035 -- at least for there to be usable VR. If they had made more porn apps .. the investment would have allowed VR tech to advance to the point of being usable by 2020.
Got any proof that a significant portion is not safe to humans? Humans are living longer and healthier than at any time in history, so you better have some strong evidence proving GMO is bad.
Why don't you bash Monsanto instead of bashing GMOs? It's like bashing Ford for bad drivers.
I invented it too in 2005, where's my money: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I am suing Apple and then I filed a larger copy of the lawsuit with Samsung.
The problem is that the people in the shitty place will eventually come get stuff from you by force. Building doomsday nukes doesn't require a prosperous economy. The only way to prevent WWIII is if everyone has a high standard of living (a life with no fear of starvation or lack of liberty/shelter) combined with libertarian philosophy. How can they get that if there is no interaction? Look, trading with the Japanese and Chinese has made the Japanese and Chinese population improve. I mean, in the mid 1940s if you were told someone carried out a suicide attack you would think it was a Jap. Today the Japs are much more peaceful by any measure -- I mean, they have much less violent crime than most, if not all, European countries.
They can rid of that jerk Kim Jong Un for starters. They can do that. South Korea could easily mount such an operation if they planned it out properly.
Self preservation is not necessarily moral in all instances. I bet there are situations that even you would do actions that are against "self preservation". For example, would you claim self preservation is more important than people you care about getting hurt?
So yeah, you assigned greater value to something and then get upset when others devalue you for their own purpose. If other people's lives mean nothing to you, why do you get upset if they have a similar philosophy?
The only reason you don't try to get stuff from other countries is because you don't need it. I mean, the history of basically every culture involves uh "exploring" and colonizing other lands. The Chinese did it, the Africans did it, even Europe did it to some extent.
My point is, if you had a need for something someone else had, for example fuel, chocolate, gold, building materials or something .. I guarantee you'd be out to get it .. if not for self preservation then for desire not to live in inconvenience. If it means having to make up a religion to "justify" it, that can be done too.
How can you be sure the army will work? Do you realize only a few nukes are enough to cause irreparable damage to the planet? How would you prevent a doomsday Cobalt-60 nuke from set off outside your country? Nowadays there are nuke designs that can be set off outside the target country and will cause enough atmospheric irradiation that it is all over for everyone. Even if countries seal themselves in domes someone will figure out how to break it.
"ECMA"Script? I would love to adopt it, but I want my web site to be accessible from the UK.
Why have a border? What is the purpose of a border? It is to keep people out because you think they are evil, will drink the milk out the bottle from your fridge, look ugly and smell bad too. Why should poor countries be stuck with keeping the bad people when they would do more damage? At least the richer countries can catch the criminals and jail them or something.
Gotta look out for "your own" .. but is that even moral? Does God value the human life of a person in one country over another? You can allow the deaths of thousands to save a few of your own? How is that moral?
Why would you lock yourself out of interacting with foreigners? That will only breed mutual hatred and an arms race. Keeping people out is not sustainable. Eventually the other countries will want in. And there will be a big war. . Eventually there will be a war, that is guaranteed. At some point you are going to want something from another country and they will refuse to give it to you. Or vice versa. They will want something of yours, you will refuse to give it .. and they will try to take it. Then you will war.
The only sustainable future for humanity is for everyone to get along with each other. This is only possible through interaction, through everyone understanding the concepts of free speech, freedom of religion, right to a fair trial before punishment, right not to be tortured etc.
Its true a lot of third worlders don't understand these concepts, and you are afraid they will bring it to your country. But how does isolating these countries help? How will they learn these ideas if not through interaction? If you are cool with them never learning the values of freedom, eventually they will war. They will be ruled by dictators who build big weapons and will eventually try to take your stuff by force .. it may take 50 years or 100 .. but they will .. and with the nukes of today if even a few get through it's devastating.
Ever noticed that all the places that have ancient border walls are now tourist attractions that you can visit from both sides and still be in the sea country. It's not like the Great Wall of China or Emperor Hadrian's wall demarcates a border to this day .. What we have are failed empires.
One place you can't drive to on that road ... the UK!
LOL
Panasonic is minting money with those batteries. Tesla uses them too in their battery packs.
If I am the one hiring..
I don't have to tolerate someone who does evil. Would you work with someone you knew was a pedophile?
I don't think it's wrong. I should have the right not to work with people who vote for things that might harm me personally. For example, would you want to work with a racist who spends his personal time trying to harm you because of your race?
I don't mind losing money if it means that someone evil doesn't get more power than they already have.
The real solution is to allow more housing units to be built. Homeowners would never vote for that though.
So basically our race and species, which society tells us we should care about over ourselves (you have to wonder why), is more important than our lives.
Anyway it can't be correct that cancer is needed to improve the gene pool. In fact eliminating anything from the gene pool a bad idea. Eliminating cells is fine because they are clones mostly. Apoptosis occurs in cells of which there are a trillion in duplicate. Ok let's say for example and hypothetically, someone (not me) may have a gene for trolling on slashdot, which you may find annoying and want to eliminate. But what if they also have a gene that is useful in an upcoming robot war? You can't write off an entire genome because of a few bad genes. Eliminating a entire organism is very different than strategically than eliminating a single cell.
Anyway this is a moot point, we have the technology now to edit and fix bad genes.
Eliminating genes from the gene pool should only be done as a last resort. Many people who get cancer are intelligent, useful, and productive members of society. Cancer doesn't target the people who are no good for the tribe. Therefore, it makes no sense evolutionarily for cancer to be a useful weeding process. Cancer itself is the result of bad genes, it doesn't result in death because evolution is helped by it.