Not a bad point as such. The current tangle of government (laws, regulations, bureaucracy and the election process) is the result of centuries of minor changes and adoptions (and some big ones). It is far from an optimal system and I think it would be prudent to actively research and debate improvements that could make the various aspects of nation management better and more democratic.
Laws should always be reasonable and solid, as it is, it seem to me, there are loopholes and cracks that can be exploited by anyone with the resources to do so. One of the fundamentals should always be to ensure that the system itself is running as well as it can; based on experience, research and citizen input.
I was more thinking about the fact that Napalm, unlike a knife, is a wide area of attack none-discriminating weapon. It makes no distinction between friend, foe or civilian. Also it is a weapon capable inflicting severe burn damage without actually killing the victim (at least not immediately). While a knife on the other hand is a very direct weapon where the wielder is given every opportunity to pick his target.
I still think Napalm (or Mark 77 Firebombs if you want to avoid the Geneva Convention); rules the day when it comes to inhuman active weapons (as opposed to anti personnel mines that are inhuman passive weapons). Of course, just because something is inhuman doesn't mean it isn't effective. If it works and they have it, you can be certain that the Army will use it; inhuman or not. Besides it isn't like the population shows any real interest in debating the use of inhuman weapons.
I expect they would probably let an independent contractor do the actual development of the weapon and thus all the consequent research and patents would belong to that contractor.
I think that as the amount of data being transfered continue to increase bandwidth will become more of a commodity. The more bandwidth is worth the harder spammers, and other resource "drains", will be viewed and dealt with.
Perhaps it is just speculation but I think that the internet will continue to be integrated into the infrastructure of society. And the amount of persons with access to the net will also continue to grow. The more people and services depend on the system the greater the problem of spammers will become. The answer might not be harder punishments; but better laws and regulations concerning the usage of the net in general.
Part of the reason behind the current state of affair is the fact the governments haven't really used as much time and resources on understanding the Internet in relations to our society as they should have. Proper and public debate on the issue is a first step; however, so far politicians seem to avoid really thinking about the wider questions regarding the Internet.
Sorry, I seem to have wandered off for a bit here. But just seems to me that the problem with spammers is just a small part of a greater problem. To recap; the Internet is big, complex and still a fairly new concept. Most seem content to just sit back and let uninformed politicians and lobbyists (more informed; but agenda not always for the best of society) make the laws and decisions regarding the future of the Internet. Be it small problems like Spammers, or big concepts like Net Neutrality.
Sounds like a great idea. Now when Windows inevitably crashes it will lock down ALL your data; not just one device. Not to mention the inherent security quality so common in Microsoft products.
Also it should be mentioned that nations and cultures involved in a regional conflict of this complexity all have their own agenda and perception. Simple describing whatever faction is being setup as the enemy at the moment as a "bully" is political nativity at an astounding level.
I reckon the scientists could vary the amount and type of food and training the dogs get; thus over time get empiric data from potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of genetically identical specimens. In due course I am confident cloning could answer many questions about Genetics Vs Environment.
Consider it practice; and as they say practice makes perfect. As they continue to clone and train the dogs they are sure to learn a great deal about the process. Greater understanding combined with advances in other areas (like genetic manipulation) could potentially lead to the development of a (pardon the phrase); super sniffer. Not to mention that any lesson learned would probably be transferable to the development of any other specialized dog (or other animal).
Now I will not judge if this is good or bad, but I reckon the age of Designed Animals is probably inevitable and not too far away.
There is no consensus; therefor; as self-appointed chairman I decide to vote NO to Less Yes Men. Get your affairs in order and start agreeing with what I say.
Never the less Fisker has lunched a product in direct competition with one he designed on contract for Tesla. Even if everything is above board and legal he has still kicked his own reputation in the nuts.
My point of view is that hating $group should be completely legal, as should encouraging hatred. Free speech and reason will, in time, drown out the less reasonable voices. Perhaps given infinite time a band of monkeys could also compose Mozart.
I've always felt there is a certain confusion when it comes to the difference between Free Speech and the freedom to say what you want. While I whole heartedly support the concept about being able to voice your opinions, whatever they might be, and the right to live your life in whatever way you see fit (that do not directly harm others*); I feel I have to disagree with the way certain (yes I generalize) people define it. In a free, open and public debate certain things should be censored; notably; Ad hominem attacks and foul language.
The reason I think that is because they do nothing but distract and confuse. So call it censorship or call it moderation, but Ad hominem attacks in particular have nothing to do with Freedom of Speech; in fact they ruin any meaningful debate on the topic.
* I consciously ignore the fact about how one society might live like a parasite on another; it is not relevant to the point I am trying to make here.
Slightly off topic I realize, but my main point is that little things like this happen all the time, all around the country and world. They will continue to happen as well and honestly, there doesn't seem to be a hell of a lot that can be done about it. I reckon there is a lot that could be done, the problem, however, is that people don't care. Under the, "if it doesn't directly involve me I have too busy to get involved" mentality. As long as the majority do not in anyway try to stay informed about these events and exclusively rely on the evening news [TV]; then there will not be any form of political will to take steps against it. Politicians generally want to be re-elected more than they want to stand on principle in, what appears to them, to be minor cases. At least, that is my view on the matter.
Luckily the Mind-Ray is almost complete! Then finally the government can unify the nation by beaming the correct perspective right into your brain! Hurray!
Gradually the term Terrorist is losing its meaning. The definitions used by the media and some politicians twist and turn to suit the situation they present. Yet as with all things that are overused people become immunized and the word loses it's newspaper selling effect.
This always happens when they remake or newmake something. I don't see what all the fuss is about. First of all there is a high number of people, especially younger people, that has not seen this movie, or any other film made before 1990 for that matter, and that never will unless the story is remade.
If the movie is bad either: 1. Dont watch it. Or 2. Forget it. If it is good; have a few laughs, enjoy the show, leave the teater (or turn of the DvD or whatever medium you are using), have a soda and get on with your life. A bad remake does not destroy the original, it only steals a few hours of your time and seriously how much time have you wasted in your life? (Bad movies, books, games, or trying to lear to play the sitar). Surely the loss of two hours is not big deal. Hollywood will continue to produce remakes as long as people keep watching them and they continue to make money. Getting exited, ranting or throwing a fit because they just happen to remake something which matters to you is a waste of time and energy. It is pointless.
So to recap. If good, good. If bad, bad. Whatever the case take a deep breath and move on. There are other things that deserve your attention I am sure.
I am sure George Reeves would be very sad to hear that since he played superman in the movie Superman and the Mole-Men (1951); which you will find if you do the search on IMDB again and use the magic of the scroll button (some reading might also be required).
Slashdot Mirror
Not a bad point as such. The current tangle of government (laws, regulations, bureaucracy and the election process) is the result of centuries of minor changes and adoptions (and some big ones). It is far from an optimal system and I think it would be prudent to actively research and debate improvements that could make the various aspects of nation management better and more democratic.
Laws should always be reasonable and solid, as it is, it seem to me, there are loopholes and cracks that can be exploited by anyone with the resources to do so. One of the fundamentals should always be to ensure that the system itself is running as well as it can; based on experience, research and citizen input.
I was more thinking about the fact that Napalm, unlike a knife, is a wide area of attack none-discriminating weapon. It makes no distinction between friend, foe or civilian. Also it is a weapon capable inflicting severe burn damage without actually killing the victim (at least not immediately). While a knife on the other hand is a very direct weapon where the wielder is given every opportunity to pick his target.
I still think Napalm (or Mark 77 Firebombs if you want to avoid the Geneva Convention); rules the day when it comes to inhuman active weapons (as opposed to anti personnel mines that are inhuman passive weapons). Of course, just because something is inhuman doesn't mean it isn't effective. If it works and they have it, you can be certain that the Army will use it; inhuman or not. Besides it isn't like the population shows any real interest in debating the use of inhuman weapons.
I expect they would probably let an independent contractor do the actual development of the weapon and thus all the consequent research and patents would belong to that contractor.
I think that as the amount of data being transfered continue to increase bandwidth will become more of a commodity. The more bandwidth is worth the harder spammers, and other resource "drains", will be viewed and dealt with.
Perhaps it is just speculation but I think that the internet will continue to be integrated into the infrastructure of society. And the amount of persons with access to the net will also continue to grow. The more people and services depend on the system the greater the problem of spammers will become. The answer might not be harder punishments; but better laws and regulations concerning the usage of the net in general.
Part of the reason behind the current state of affair is the fact the governments haven't really used as much time and resources on understanding the Internet in relations to our society as they should have. Proper and public debate on the issue is a first step; however, so far politicians seem to avoid really thinking about the wider questions regarding the Internet.
Sorry, I seem to have wandered off for a bit here. But just seems to me that the problem with spammers is just a small part of a greater problem. To recap; the Internet is big, complex and still a fairly new concept. Most seem content to just sit back and let uninformed politicians and lobbyists (more informed; but agenda not always for the best of society) make the laws and decisions regarding the future of the Internet. Be it small problems like Spammers, or big concepts like Net Neutrality.
No worries, in a few generations Genetic Manipulation and homegrown eyes will remove Blindness as an issue ;)
Sounds like a great idea. Now when Windows inevitably crashes it will lock down ALL your data; not just one device. Not to mention the inherent security quality so common in Microsoft products.
Also it should be mentioned that nations and cultures involved in a regional conflict of this complexity all have their own agenda and perception. Simple describing whatever faction is being setup as the enemy at the moment as a "bully" is political nativity at an astounding level.
I reckon the scientists could vary the amount and type of food and training the dogs get; thus over time get empiric data from potentially hundreds, if not thousands, of genetically identical specimens. In due course I am confident cloning could answer many questions about Genetics Vs Environment.
Consider it practice; and as they say practice makes perfect. As they continue to clone and train the dogs they are sure to learn a great deal about the process. Greater understanding combined with advances in other areas (like genetic manipulation) could potentially lead to the development of a (pardon the phrase); super sniffer. Not to mention that any lesson learned would probably be transferable to the development of any other specialized dog (or other animal).
Now I will not judge if this is good or bad, but I reckon the age of Designed Animals is probably inevitable and not too far away.
There is no consensus; therefor; as self-appointed chairman I decide to vote NO to Less Yes Men. Get your affairs in order and start agreeing with what I say.
Never the less Fisker has lunched a product in direct competition with one he designed on contract for Tesla. Even if everything is above board and legal he has still kicked his own reputation in the nuts.
Hurray I forgot I needed to format my text with code. :P
I've always felt there is a certain confusion when it comes to the difference between Free Speech and the freedom to say what you want. While I whole heartedly support the concept about being able to voice your opinions, whatever they might be, and the right to live your life in whatever way you see fit (that do not directly harm others*); I feel I have to disagree with the way certain (yes I generalize) people define it. In a free, open and public debate certain things should be censored; notably; Ad hominem attacks and foul language. The reason I think that is because they do nothing but distract and confuse. So call it censorship or call it moderation, but Ad hominem attacks in particular have nothing to do with Freedom of Speech; in fact they ruin any meaningful debate on the topic. * I consciously ignore the fact about how one society might live like a parasite on another; it is not relevant to the point I am trying to make here.
Boobs > Boring Corruption Articles.
Being corrupt doesn't automatically mean you are smart ;)
Though I doubt that WB would be hiring a peon ;-)
Unless it helps their case"Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?" Busy looking the other way?
On a related note. "To Be Decided By The Market" sounds suspiciously like "the party with the most money decides". As in; "pay us and we'll agree".
Luckily the Mind-Ray is almost complete! Then finally the government can unify the nation by beaming the correct perspective right into your brain! Hurray!
Gradually the term Terrorist is losing its meaning. The definitions used by the media and some politicians twist and turn to suit the situation they present. Yet as with all things that are overused people become immunized and the word loses it's newspaper selling effect.
This always happens when they remake or newmake something. I don't see what all the fuss is about. First of all there is a high number of people, especially younger people, that has not seen this movie, or any other film made before 1990 for that matter, and that never will unless the story is remade.
If the movie is bad either: 1. Dont watch it. Or 2. Forget it. If it is good; have a few laughs, enjoy the show, leave the teater (or turn of the DvD or whatever medium you are using), have a soda and get on with your life. A bad remake does not destroy the original, it only steals a few hours of your time and seriously how much time have you wasted in your life? (Bad movies, books, games, or trying to lear to play the sitar). Surely the loss of two hours is not big deal. Hollywood will continue to produce remakes as long as people keep watching them and they continue to make money. Getting exited, ranting or throwing a fit because they just happen to remake something which matters to you is a waste of time and energy. It is pointless.
So to recap. If good, good. If bad, bad. Whatever the case take a deep breath and move on. There are other things that deserve your attention I am sure.
I am sure George Reeves would be very sad to hear that since he played superman in the movie Superman and the Mole-Men (1951); which you will find if you do the search on IMDB again and use the magic of the scroll button (some reading might also be required).