> While the roads are clear, there are still a number of skateboarders who will go easily 5 miles across town. You know they do, when you get stuck in commute traffic and twenty minutes later arrive to see the same skateboarder you saw a long ways back.
I can attest to the validity of that scenario, only I've been in the opposite position: I commuted everywhere (school, work, shopping, home) on bicycle, and the rush hour traffic got so bad that all the cars were either crawling down the road or standing still....while I whizzed by everyone in the bike lane.
The really excruciating irony is that I've done the same thing while cranking away on an uphill stretch of road.
> I was born in the early 80's, so I don't even remember Iran-Contra >... > I'm lazy and want breakfast--otherwise I'd look 'em up.
Well, I was born in the early 70's, so I *do* remember Iran-Contra. What's more, how fucking lazy do you have to be if you can't type in "Iran Contra" on Wiki?
> The Iran-Contra Affair was a political scandal occurring in 1987 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the profits to continue funding anti-Communist rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua. Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials. The affair is still shrouded in secrecy. After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. A week later, however, on November 13, Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.
One of the most ignoble moments in American history was Ronnie "Raygun" appearing before the Tower Commission: time after time he responded to questions with "I don't recall.... I don't recall.... I don't remember any meetings." Which meant he was either deliberately evading the truth or mentally incapable of being the chief executive.
> Perhaps, it is because HAD Apple gained the marketshare that Microsoft did, not only would we have closed software, we would also have closed hardware.
Ironically, Apple Computer did have an enormous share of the market in its early, Apple II years -- then Steve Jobs went and commandeered the low-cost Apple II development project, codenamed "Macintosh", whereupon he royally screwed with it by turning it into the overhyped, overpriced closed-design system we've all come to know and [love/hate].
Since it didn't make sense for Apple to support two mutually incompatible product lines (Apple II vs. Macintosh), the entire Apple II series was scrapped in favor of the Mac -- thereby pissing off one of the largest user bases in existence, including Yours Truly. As a result, a lot of disgruntled Apple II users went and got IBM PCs or clones instead; the only alternative was to submit to the lock-in of the Mac's architecture. So, yes, an Apple-dominated computer market would have likely resulted in a straitjacketed platform that would have rivaled (if not overshadowed) what Micro$oft accomplished.
Btw: Hey, Steve Jobs! YOU *STILL* OWE WOZNIAK MONEY, YOU BACKSTABBING LIAR!!
>> "It's been especially nice for them because none of that crap gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows..." > > You mean software?
Obviously the GP meant "crapware" -- which should have been evident from the post, but hey, "better safe than sorry," right? So here's a revised version for your benefit:
"It's been especially nice for them because none of that [ad / bundle / crap / mal / spy / stealth]ware gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows..."
> After 10 years, your operating system (I assume you're a linux zealot by your demeanor) still has a lower market share than Windows 98. Vista has been out for nine months and already has a larger market share then Windows 2000, OS X and Linux combined. > > Who's failing again?
Hmmm.... Do I smell astroturf?
Seriously, you might want to take a lesson or two from Dr. Hatsumi, who was featured in a story right here on Slashdot:
Two of the many pieces of wisdom Dr. Hatsumi teaches to his students are "Either you leave the fight happy, healthy, and able to walk home...or you don't" and "If you think the only way to defeat your enemies is to destroy them, then you have already lost."
To put this in context, the numerous but small Ninja clans faced an extremely powerful enemy -- the Samurai warriors, who were given orders by Japan's daimyo lords and the Shogun warlord to oppress and kill the Ninja and their families. To fight such an enemy in conventional toe-to-toe warfare would have been suicidal, so the Ninja adopted the survivalist hide-hit-and-run strategy that made them notorious and even revered throughout the land. The Ninja's goal wasn't to wipe out the Samurai and topple the Japanese government, but to always thwart their enemies' efforts at exterminating them.
In the end, the Samurai lived long enough to see their warrior class abolished by their own government -- while the Ninja continued to survive and endure to modern times. Even now, Dr. Hatsumi is greatly sought by military forces and security agencies as a valuable instructor in the fighting arts.
By comparison, the great Gates Mega Software corporation (empire) is on the record for having declared Linux and its various distros (clans) as The Enemy:
So, Micro$oft wants to wipe out Linux, while Linux wants to survive. Therefore, if Micro$oft hasn't wiped out Linux, they haven't won. If Linux is surviving, it hasn't lost.
"But Linux will *never* be as big and powerful as Micro$oft, so haha!" Yes, and the Ninja were *never* as big and powerful as the Samurai. Thing is, the Samurai are no more. The Ninja are still here:
>> Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW so we will not have to face a situation similar to their's TOMORROW. > > Me thinks that if you were truely censored I wouldn't be reading your post.
So you propose that the only possibilities are [completely uncensored] versus [completely silenced] ? Me thinks that if you were truly honest I wouldn't be reading your false choice.
Censorship isn't a simple "ON/OFF" binary issue; it involves a continuum of degrees. I would argue that there are blatant, overt forms of censorship (government outlawing of texts, military crackdowns on public protests) as well as insidious, covert forms (unpublicized exclusion of certain figures and opinions from the media, no-fly lists and veiled threats from law enforcement).
So which is more dangerous -- the oppression that you can see in the distance, or the oppression that you don't notice all around you?
> Perhaps. Or perhaps photos of American draped coffins are not shown because of some of the very powerful images of coffins circa the Vietnam war.
MOD PARENT UP! My Army vet buddy served in both Korea and Nam, and he despises the Bush administration's move to ban all images of military coffins and funerals from the media, on the grounds that "it would be disrespectful to the families of the fallen." More like, "it would be detrimental to the poll numbers of the administration."
Finagle's Law - "Anything that can go wrong, will."
Murphy's Law - "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it." (Named after Edwin A Murphy, who oversaw the US rocket sled experiments leading up to the NASA space race.)
> from the Movie Akira (the English version) "If humans think something is possible, eventually they find a way to do it, like it's instinctual."
Sorry, but that line's actually from the first "Ghost in The Shell" movie, which (if I remember correctly) goes like this: "As soon as mankind realizes a technology is possible, he achieves it. It's damn near instinctive."
Both movies are awesome, but Ghost in The Shell made far more sense (to me) as a true sci-fi story.
> since God knew that he had set up Adam and Eve for failure, he gave them a reproductive system? He knew that they would fall? What a fucking evil bastard.
Hell, just crack open a Bible to the Old Testament and read the Book of Job -- and I mean *really* read it. God bumps into Satan as both survey the earth. God boasts to Satan about how devoted a worshipper the man Job is. Satan points out that Job wouldn't be quite as enthusiastic to worship God if great misfortune befell the man. So God bets Satan that Job won't curse God to His face, even if Satan destroys Job's possessions, lays waste to his home, and slaughters his family.
Think about it: God allowed Satan to completely ruin a pious man's life -- including the killing of innocent family members -- *so that God could win a bet*.
No wonder they never covered this biblical story in Sunday School.
>> I think some media has woken up. Not enough... the really mainstream media is still the same, "The new Vista is here, and Bill Gates says it's awesome." Main newspapers and TV stories I've seen (at least in australia) are not doing journalism, they're just rephrasing MS marketing material as a news item. It shits me. > > The scary part of it all is that the mainstream media is all that most people read/watch/listen to.
Yes, it's tragically ridiculous how many (read: most) people take whatever Micro$oft and the mainstream media feeds them -- at face value. The infamous Time magazine issue with the cover photo of a smug (and considerably younger) Bill Gates balancing a 5.25" floppy on one finger comes to mind. Oh, the humanity!
That said, the Internet has changed the game a bit, and will continue to shift things around as far as publicly accessible information is concerned. Users can just as easily type in "Microsoft sucks bad" as they can "Microsoft cool stuff" at any lookup/search engine, and those so-funny-because-they're-true recordings of Gates & Co. demonstrating crapware that crashes and burns on them... they will basically live forever in all their inglorious splendor on the video clip websites.
It's almost a hilarious corporate parallel of the self-satisfied, reality-impaired political machine currently in the White House. As one critic of the administration put it [paraphrasing] "People are seeing through their lies. The facade is starting to crack."
>> Those meatarians out there should give life a long good look as decide how do I want to enjoy life: quick and painfull (and ignorant), or slow and healthy. > > Perhaps it is you who are "ignorant" of the fact that the human body is built around an omnivorous diet.
*Sigh* Where to begin?
Humans are omnivorous largely by choice (just because we like the taste of meat) or necessity (because there aren't always enough veggies around to keep us from starving). Nature, however, gives us clues as to what our optimal diet should be.
Go to a mirror and study your teeth. Notice how most of your teeth have flat edges or large crushing surfaces? Those are the teeth of a herbivore: the teeth up front and center are suited for biting off plant matter, while the teeth in back are excellent for grinding the stuff down. The few pointed teeth we have are woefully inadequate for killing and devouring prey -- if you don't believe me, go out into the wilderness and try to take down and eat an animal with nothing but your teeth.
Next, get a reference book on human anatomy and look at the diagrams of the digestive system. Notice the extremely long and twisty intestines? That's the mark of a herbivore -- true meat-eaters have short digestive tracts in order to process food as quickly as possible. They also produce a specific acid to rapidly break down meat once it is ingested, yet humans lack that digestive acid.
Now look up 'dietary fiber' and its value for the digestive system. Nutritionists are in agreement that dietary fiber is not only beneficial, it is essential for good health. That means a diet that is rich in fruits, vegetables, breads and cereals -- all of which contain dietary fiber. By contrast, meat has absolutely *no* fiber.
"But you can't get adequate/complete protein nutrition on a vegetarian diet!" Not so: the average adult human requires only 40 to 50 grams of protein per day, and can get complete protein nutrition by eating certain foods such as
- peanuts and wheat (i.e.: peanut butter sandwich on wheat bread) - beans and rice (the staple of Mexican food) - chickpeas and sesame seeds (hummus, anyone?) - soybeans
Sure, humans can sustain themselves on an omnivorous diet. However, just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to -- or that we ought to. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish my bowl of vegetarian chili. Mmmm... meatless chili, mmmm...:-D
>> The brown one looks like a turd. > Hm. I think many fashion people would brown Zune just for sake of its color - brown. Many leather and fur goods are of that color. And nobody did the color before [...]
Actually, I remember seeing ads in print and on the web -- for at least several months now -- promoting a line of brown-colored MP3 players (including mobile phone / music player hybrid units):
The marketing tie-in is that the product line goes under the name "Chocolate". Hey, the candy color Angry Fruit Salad selection for iMacs worked, right?;-)
> I agree with your GUI. Turning off the crappy neon XP theme makes the interface perform better, too.
Ugh...just the thought of that default XP desktop makes my skin crawl. Talk about form over function -- it's as if no one at Micro$oft had heard of the dreaded "Angry Fruit Salad".
Come to think of it, Windows 3.x actually included an Angry Fruit Salad color scheme. I think it was called "Florecent" but it's been so long that I'm not sure.
> The chances of nanotech being designed to be deadly are actually very very high. Think of it as a very advanced targetted virus. This probably won't possible in the near decade or two but designing a nanobot which kills and replicates based on certain characteristics is far from impossible. Say... you don't like that certain terrorist or president. Well, we take this nanobot here, key in the DNA and off it goes to do its job. Its use as a wepon is very attractive and humans have a history of getting a weapon out of nearly everything. To think that nanotech is not going to be weaponized is naive.
Dude, your post literally sent a chill up my spine. Ever play the game "Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom"? There's a point where your game character ("Christopher Blair" as portrayed by Mark Hamill) responds to a distress call from a remote planet, only when he arrives with his space marine escort it's too late. Nearly 90% of the space colony's population is killed by a nanotech weapon called "GenSelect" which analyzes the DNA of any person who comes in contact with the nanobots, and if the test results are deemed "undesirable" the nanobots proceed to attack the person's body at the cellular level. If I remember correctly, "GenSelect" kills within hours.
> Censoring science for political reasons is nothing short of censorship. I'd love to see a constitutional amendment that explicitly dictates that all science with data can not be censored by any act of government. It apparently isn't covered in the first amendment, since it's not universally considered expression. Why not? Would anyone in sound mind vote for a politician who disagrees with an amendment protecting truth? >... > I respect any scientist who continues to fight for science, research and truth. IMHO those are core values of America. We wouldn't be the country we were if it wasn't for science, research and truth. From Ben Franklyn, Thomas Edison, and Ely Whitney among many, our country was shaped by science. If it wasn't for these guys, we would have never hit the information age, or even the industrial age.
Or do these American scientists appear to be insane whackjobs to you?
> US SCIENTISTS REJECT INTERFERENCE > By Jonathan Amos > Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco > > There have been claims of political interference on climate issues Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process. > > The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy. > > According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons. >... > Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.
BTW, toddhisattva, a conspiracy theory ceases to be just a theory once the conspiracy is exposed and documented -- and the Dubya Bush administration has been the most secretive, conspiratorial presidency in US history:
> The Bush administration's secrecy mania is about to run into Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). He's the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee. On January 20th, he will become chairman. And he will then have subpoena power over the Executive Branch. > > This is the congressman who published "Bush Administration's 237 Misleading Statements on Iraq". He is totally fed up with the lying and secrecy. Expect to see many officials of the Bush administration being questioned by Waxman's commiteee on TV. Under penalty of perjury. > > Remember when all the cigarette company CEOs had to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it about addiction and hazards? That was Waxman.
They say that Dubya's problem is that he's literally living in his own little world. Apparently so are you.
>> We are talking about ONE HUNDRED MILLION cars blowing CO2, polluting gasses, and particulates into the air every day. How is that amount of chemicals going to disappear ? > > Err... chemical reactions and photosynthesis? I hear trees really like CO2.
Too bad we keep killing trees and clear cutting forests. (South American slash-and-burn, anyone?)
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Increased storm activity and flooding would only affect coastal areas.
Uh....you are aware of inland tornadoes, right? How about massive drought and desertification triggered by increasing temperatures?
> People who complain that they can't afford to move are just complaining.
Try telling that to the inhabitants of island nations which are *at most* a few feet above sea level.
> Nowhere is it written that people have the right to an easy life with no effort.
Of course! And nowhere is it written that people have the right to a peaceful death with no suffering, so the Katrina disaster of New Orleans is just peachy!
> Maybe I'm an ass, but that's life.
Maybe, maybe not, but you're definitely sounding like an apologist. If you're going to use the phrase "that's life" as a crutch to justify failure to promote the improvement of civilization and the progress of society, then you might as well tell every researcher, every inventor, every doctor who aims to change the world for the better to "just give up -- why bother? -- people are always going to suffer and die anyway, that's life!"
> It's not like the world is saying "screw this, let's juts keep making things worse."
No, it's just the oil companies and conservative wing-nuts, who have a vested interest in keeping everybody on the petroleum bandwagon and attacking the progressive movement at every opportunity.
> [...] on the whole, humanity will be okay.
Sure...unless it won't. The fossil record is full of examples of entire species that existed for anywhere from thousands to millions of years...only to vanish forever from the face of the earth. Why should homo sapiens be exempt from this possibility? (Because we're "God's creatures"? But weren't the dinosaurs "God's creatures" too?)
> Come on, I think cops are a pain in the ass as much as the next guy, but they don't just beat you for no reason. > What did the guy do to get himself into that position ? > I'm willing to bet it wasn't jaywalking.
Of course! The police *never* arrest anyone who doesn't deserve it! And the police would *never* lie to us if it weren't so! Right?
> With a horrified suspect watching, Huntington Beach police planted evidence --- a loaded revolver --- in the man's car during a DUI accident investigation in January, the Weekly has learned. > > The controversial revelation is not now in dispute although cops, prosecutors and city bureaucrats attempted to keep the incident a secret by sealing records and stalling discovery of related documents. > > Despite those efforts, the gun incident became an issue during an obscure misdemeanor trial last week at Orange County's West Court in Westminster. Police officers were forced to admit under oath that a snub-nosed handgun had been tossed like a Frisbee about four feet into the trunk of a Hyundai belonging to Tom Cox, the suspect. The loaded gun bounced twice and slammed up against the driver's side of the car's trunk. No bullets were discharged.
Slashdot Mirror
> While the roads are clear, there are still a number of skateboarders who will go easily 5 miles across town. You know they do, when you get stuck in commute traffic and twenty minutes later arrive to see the same skateboarder you saw a long ways back.
....while I whizzed by everyone in the bike lane.
I can attest to the validity of that scenario, only I've been in the opposite position: I commuted everywhere (school, work, shopping, home) on bicycle, and the rush hour traffic got so bad that all the cars were either crawling down the road or standing still
The really excruciating irony is that I've done the same thing while cranking away on an uphill stretch of road.
I read about plans for a stackable "modular car system" uncannily similar to this MIT City Car proposal -- back in the 1970's!
:-/
Damn, I feel old....
> I was born in the early 80's, so I don't even remember Iran-Contra ...
>
> I'm lazy and want breakfast--otherwise I'd look 'em up.
Well, I was born in the early 70's, so I *do* remember Iran-Contra. What's more, how fucking lazy do you have to be if you can't type in "Iran Contra" on Wiki?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra
> The Iran-Contra Affair was a political scandal occurring in 1987 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the profits to continue funding anti-Communist rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua. Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials. The affair is still shrouded in secrecy. After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. A week later, however, on November 13, Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.
One of the most ignoble moments in American history was Ronnie "Raygun" appearing before the Tower Commission: time after time he responded to questions with "I don't recall.... I don't recall.... I don't remember any meetings." Which meant he was either deliberately evading the truth or mentally incapable of being the chief executive.
MR. BURNS!!!
...sir.
...pizziola concern?
Homer: J. Montgomery Burns, I know you're guilty! JE'ACCUSE!!!
Burns: Fine, I admit it -- I had Amelia Earhart's plane shot down. That hussy was getting too big for her jumpers.
Homer: No!! You've been spying all over town with your black vans and video cameras!
Burns: Black vans? Hmm. Aren't they involved in some
Homer: WHAAA?!? They were only pizza vans?? Oh, I'm a class 5 idiot!
Burns: Smithers! Release the hounds! And if this man is an employee of the power plant, fire him at once!
Sorry, but I couldn't resist that "Simpsons: Hit And Run" reference.
> Perhaps, it is because HAD Apple gained the marketshare that Microsoft did, not only would we have closed software, we would also have closed hardware.
Ironically, Apple Computer did have an enormous share of the market in its early, Apple II years -- then Steve Jobs went and commandeered the low-cost Apple II development project, codenamed "Macintosh", whereupon he royally screwed with it by turning it into the overhyped, overpriced closed-design system we've all come to know and [love/hate].
Since it didn't make sense for Apple to support two mutually incompatible product lines (Apple II vs. Macintosh), the entire Apple II series was scrapped in favor of the Mac -- thereby pissing off one of the largest user bases in existence, including Yours Truly. As a result, a lot of disgruntled Apple II users went and got IBM PCs or clones instead; the only alternative was to submit to the lock-in of the Mac's architecture. So, yes, an Apple-dominated computer market would have likely resulted in a straitjacketed platform that would have rivaled (if not overshadowed) what Micro$oft accomplished.
Btw: Hey, Steve Jobs! YOU *STILL* OWE WOZNIAK MONEY, YOU BACKSTABBING LIAR!!
>> "It's been especially nice for them because none of that crap gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows..."
>
> You mean software?
Obviously the GP meant "crapware" -- which should have been evident from the post, but hey, "better safe than sorry," right? So here's a revised version for your benefit:
"It's been especially nice for them because none of that [ad / bundle / crap / mal / spy / stealth]ware gets installed on Linux that was constantly getting installed on Windows..."
Always happy to help!
> After 10 years, your operating system (I assume you're a linux zealot by your demeanor) still has a lower market share than Windows 98. Vista has been out for nine months and already has a larger market share then Windows 2000, OS X and Linux combined.
...or you don't" and "If you think the only way to defeat your enemies is to destroy them, then you have already lost."
>
> Who's failing again?
Hmmm.... Do I smell astroturf?
Seriously, you might want to take a lesson or two from Dr. Hatsumi, who was featured in a story right here on Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/28/153201
Two of the many pieces of wisdom Dr. Hatsumi teaches to his students are "Either you leave the fight happy, healthy, and able to walk home
To put this in context, the numerous but small Ninja clans faced an extremely powerful enemy -- the Samurai warriors, who were given orders by Japan's daimyo lords and the Shogun warlord to oppress and kill the Ninja and their families. To fight such an enemy in conventional toe-to-toe warfare would have been suicidal, so the Ninja adopted the survivalist hide-hit-and-run strategy that made them notorious and even revered throughout the land. The Ninja's goal wasn't to wipe out the Samurai and topple the Japanese government, but to always thwart their enemies' efforts at exterminating them.
In the end, the Samurai lived long enough to see their warrior class abolished by their own government -- while the Ninja continued to survive and endure to modern times. Even now, Dr. Hatsumi is greatly sought by military forces and security agencies as a valuable instructor in the fighting arts.
By comparison, the great Gates Mega Software corporation (empire) is on the record for having declared Linux and its various distros (clans) as The Enemy:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
So, Micro$oft wants to wipe out Linux, while Linux wants to survive. Therefore, if Micro$oft hasn't wiped out Linux, they haven't won. If Linux is surviving, it hasn't lost.
"But Linux will *never* be as big and powerful as Micro$oft, so haha!" Yes, and the Ninja were *never* as big and powerful as the Samurai. Thing is, the Samurai are no more. The Ninja are still here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhhkgMu7adk&mode=related&search=
Victory by default, last man standing wins.... call it what you will.
>> Oppose the censorship that is inflicted upon us NOW so we will not have to face a situation similar to their's TOMORROW.
>
> Me thinks that if you were truely censored I wouldn't be reading your post.
So you propose that the only possibilities are [completely uncensored] versus [completely silenced] ? Me thinks that if you were truly honest I wouldn't be reading your false choice.
Censorship isn't a simple "ON/OFF" binary issue; it involves a continuum of degrees. I would argue that there are blatant, overt forms of censorship (government outlawing of texts, military crackdowns on public protests) as well as insidious, covert forms (unpublicized exclusion of certain figures and opinions from the media, no-fly lists and veiled threats from law enforcement).
So which is more dangerous -- the oppression that you can see in the distance, or the oppression that you don't notice all around you?
> Perhaps. Or perhaps photos of American draped coffins are not shown because of some of the very powerful images of coffins circa the Vietnam war.
MOD PARENT UP! My Army vet buddy served in both Korea and Nam, and he despises the Bush administration's move to ban all images of military coffins and funerals from the media, on the grounds that "it would be disrespectful to the families of the fallen." More like, "it would be detrimental to the poll numbers of the administration."
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHH!!!"
Hear that? It's the sound of X number of spammers crying out in agony/frustration/pain/rage.
Finagle's Law - "Anything that can go wrong, will."
Murphy's Law - "If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it." (Named after Edwin A Murphy, who oversaw the US rocket sled experiments leading up to the NASA space race.)
> from the Movie Akira (the English version) "If humans think something is possible, eventually they find a way to do it, like it's instinctual."
Sorry, but that line's actually from the first "Ghost in The Shell" movie, which (if I remember correctly) goes like this: "As soon as mankind realizes a technology is possible, he achieves it. It's damn near instinctive."
Both movies are awesome, but Ghost in The Shell made far more sense (to me) as a true sci-fi story.
> since God knew that he had set up Adam and Eve for failure, he gave them a reproductive system? He knew that they would fall? What a fucking evil bastard.
Hell, just crack open a Bible to the Old Testament and read the Book of Job -- and I mean *really* read it. God bumps into Satan as both survey the earth. God boasts to Satan about how devoted a worshipper the man Job is. Satan points out that Job wouldn't be quite as enthusiastic to worship God if great misfortune befell the man. So God bets Satan that Job won't curse God to His face, even if Satan destroys Job's possessions, lays waste to his home, and slaughters his family.
Think about it: God allowed Satan to completely ruin a pious man's life -- including the killing of innocent family members -- *so that God could win a bet*.
No wonder they never covered this biblical story in Sunday School.
> Almost all SD TV's make horrible monitors.
:-(
I remember getting my first video card equipped with an NTSC RF output (an ATI 3D Rage Expression) and excitedly plugging it into my 20" TV set.
A few minutes later my eyes were hurting so much I unplugged the TV and hooked up my normal 17" SVGA standby. Damn, what a letdown....
>> I think some media has woken up. Not enough... the really mainstream media is still the same, "The new Vista is here, and Bill Gates says it's awesome." Main newspapers and TV stories I've seen (at least in australia) are not doing journalism, they're just rephrasing MS marketing material as a news item. It shits me.
>
> The scary part of it all is that the mainstream media is all that most people read/watch/listen to.
Yes, it's tragically ridiculous how many (read: most) people take whatever Micro$oft and the mainstream media feeds them -- at face value. The infamous Time magazine issue with the cover photo of a smug (and considerably younger) Bill Gates balancing a 5.25" floppy on one finger comes to mind. Oh, the humanity!
That said, the Internet has changed the game a bit, and will continue to shift things around as far as publicly accessible information is concerned. Users can just as easily type in "Microsoft sucks bad" as they can "Microsoft cool stuff" at any lookup/search engine, and those so-funny-because-they're-true recordings of Gates & Co. demonstrating crapware that crashes and burns on them... they will basically live forever in all their inglorious splendor on the video clip websites.
It's almost a hilarious corporate parallel of the self-satisfied, reality-impaired political machine currently in the White House. As one critic of the administration put it [paraphrasing] "People are seeing through their lies. The facade is starting to crack."
> If I was him, and selling, I would keep everything as is and actually go for the Trekkie buyer. He might even fetch more for it.
If he put a listing on eBay, complete with photos of his basement Star Trek home theater, it could really happen!
Assuming, of course, that he actually *wanted* to sell. Myself, I've put together more than one PC system that I didn't want to see go....
>> Those meatarians out there should give life a long good look as decide how do I want to enjoy life: quick and painfull (and ignorant), or slow and healthy.
:-D
>
> Perhaps it is you who are "ignorant" of the fact that the human body is built around an omnivorous diet.
*Sigh* Where to begin?
Humans are omnivorous largely by choice (just because we like the taste of meat) or necessity (because there aren't always enough veggies around to keep us from starving). Nature, however, gives us clues as to what our optimal diet should be.
Go to a mirror and study your teeth. Notice how most of your teeth have flat edges or large crushing surfaces? Those are the teeth of a herbivore: the teeth up front and center are suited for biting off plant matter, while the teeth in back are excellent for grinding the stuff down. The few pointed teeth we have are woefully inadequate for killing and devouring prey -- if you don't believe me, go out into the wilderness and try to take down and eat an animal with nothing but your teeth.
Next, get a reference book on human anatomy and look at the diagrams of the digestive system. Notice the extremely long and twisty intestines? That's the mark of a herbivore -- true meat-eaters have short digestive tracts in order to process food as quickly as possible. They also produce a specific acid to rapidly break down meat once it is ingested, yet humans lack that digestive acid.
Now look up 'dietary fiber' and its value for the digestive system. Nutritionists are in agreement that dietary fiber is not only beneficial, it is essential for good health. That means a diet that is rich in fruits, vegetables, breads and cereals -- all of which contain dietary fiber. By contrast, meat has absolutely *no* fiber.
"But you can't get adequate/complete protein nutrition on a vegetarian diet!" Not so: the average adult human requires only 40 to 50 grams of protein per day, and can get complete protein nutrition by eating certain foods such as
- peanuts and wheat (i.e.: peanut butter sandwich on wheat bread)
- beans and rice (the staple of Mexican food)
- chickpeas and sesame seeds (hummus, anyone?)
- soybeans
Sure, humans can sustain themselves on an omnivorous diet. However, just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to -- or that we ought to. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish my bowl of vegetarian chili. Mmmm... meatless chili, mmmm...
John Cleese [as the bereaved son]: Um -- er, uh, excuse me but, um, are you suggesting ...*eating my mother*?
...Yeah! Not raw, cooked!
Graham Chapman [the undertaker]:
Cleese: What?!
Chapman: Er, uh, roasted, few french fries, broccoli... Horseradish sauce?
Cleese: Um, uh, well... Well, I do feel a little peckish.
>> The brown one looks like a turd.
;-)
> Hm. I think many fashion people would brown Zune just for sake of its color - brown. Many leather and fur goods are of that color. And nobody did the color before [...]
Actually, I remember seeing ads in print and on the web -- for at least several months now -- promoting a line of brown-colored MP3 players (including mobile phone / music player hybrid units):
http://www.i4u.com/article7383.html
The marketing tie-in is that the product line goes under the name "Chocolate". Hey, the candy color Angry Fruit Salad selection for iMacs worked, right?
> I agree with your GUI. Turning off the crappy neon XP theme makes the interface perform better, too.
...just the thought of that default XP desktop makes my skin crawl. Talk about form over function -- it's as if no one at Micro$oft had heard of the dreaded "Angry Fruit Salad".
Ugh
Come to think of it, Windows 3.x actually included an Angry Fruit Salad color scheme. I think it was called "Florecent" but it's been so long that I'm not sure.
> The chances of nanotech being designed to be deadly are actually very very high. Think of it as a very advanced targetted virus. This probably won't possible in the near decade or two but designing a nanobot which kills and replicates based on certain characteristics is far from impossible. Say... you don't like that certain terrorist or president. Well, we take this nanobot here, key in the DNA and off it goes to do its job. Its use as a wepon is very attractive and humans have a history of getting a weapon out of nearly everything. To think that nanotech is not going to be weaponized is naive.
Dude, your post literally sent a chill up my spine. Ever play the game "Wing Commander IV: The Price of Freedom"? There's a point where your game character ("Christopher Blair" as portrayed by Mark Hamill) responds to a distress call from a remote planet, only when he arrives with his space marine escort it's too late. Nearly 90% of the space colony's population is killed by a nanotech weapon called "GenSelect" which analyzes the DNA of any person who comes in contact with the nanobots, and if the test results are deemed "undesirable" the nanobots proceed to attack the person's body at the cellular level. If I remember correctly, "GenSelect" kills within hours.
Dude, c'mon -- you're making this too easy. Does this guy's post sound paranoid to you?
d =17270890
...
. stm
...
d =17271132
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=212172&ci
> Censoring science for political reasons is nothing short of censorship. I'd love to see a constitutional amendment that explicitly dictates that all science with data can not be censored by any act of government. It apparently isn't covered in the first amendment, since it's not universally considered expression. Why not? Would anyone in sound mind vote for a politician who disagrees with an amendment protecting truth?
>
> I respect any scientist who continues to fight for science, research and truth. IMHO those are core values of America. We wouldn't be the country we were if it wasn't for science, research and truth. From Ben Franklyn, Thomas Edison, and Ely Whitney among many, our country was shaped by science. If it wasn't for these guys, we would have never hit the information age, or even the industrial age.
Or do these American scientists appear to be insane whackjobs to you?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6178213
> US SCIENTISTS REJECT INTERFERENCE
> By Jonathan Amos
> Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
>
> There have been claims of political interference on climate issues
Some 10,000 US researchers have signed a statement protesting about political interference in the scientific process.
>
> The statement, which includes the backing of 52 Nobel Laureates, demands a restoration of scientific integrity in government policy.
>
> According to the American Union of Concerned Scientists, data is being misrepresented for political reasons.
>
> Campaigners say that in recent years the White House has been able to censor the work of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration because a Republican congress has been loath to stand up for scientific integrity.
BTW, toddhisattva, a conspiracy theory ceases to be just a theory once the conspiracy is exposed and documented -- and the Dubya Bush administration has been the most secretive, conspiratorial presidency in US history:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=212172&ci
> The Bush administration's secrecy mania is about to run into Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). He's the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee. On January 20th, he will become chairman. And he will then have subpoena power over the Executive Branch.
>
> This is the congressman who published "Bush Administration's 237 Misleading Statements on Iraq". He is totally fed up with the lying and secrecy. Expect to see many officials of the Bush administration being questioned by Waxman's commiteee on TV. Under penalty of perjury.
>
> Remember when all the cigarette company CEOs had to testify under oath about what they knew and when they knew it about addiction and hazards? That was Waxman.
They say that Dubya's problem is that he's literally living in his own little world. Apparently so are you.
>> We are talking about ONE HUNDRED MILLION cars blowing CO2, polluting gasses, and particulates into the air every day. How is that amount of chemicals going to disappear ?
>
> Err... chemical reactions and photosynthesis? I hear trees really like CO2.
Too bad we keep killing trees and clear cutting forests. (South American slash-and-burn, anyone?)
> Increased storm activity and flooding would only affect coastal areas.
....you are aware of inland tornadoes, right? How about massive drought and desertification triggered by increasing temperatures?
...unless it won't. The fossil record is full of examples of entire species that existed for anywhere from thousands to millions of years ...only to vanish forever from the face of the earth. Why should homo sapiens be exempt from this possibility? (Because we're "God's creatures"? But weren't the dinosaurs "God's creatures" too?)
Uh
> People who complain that they can't afford to move are just complaining.
Try telling that to the inhabitants of island nations which are *at most* a few feet above sea level.
> Nowhere is it written that people have the right to an easy life with no effort.
Of course! And nowhere is it written that people have the right to a peaceful death with no suffering, so the Katrina disaster of New Orleans is just peachy!
> Maybe I'm an ass, but that's life.
Maybe, maybe not, but you're definitely sounding like an apologist. If you're going to use the phrase "that's life" as a crutch to justify failure to promote the improvement of civilization and the progress of society, then you might as well tell every researcher, every inventor, every doctor who aims to change the world for the better to "just give up -- why bother? -- people are always going to suffer and die anyway, that's life!"
> It's not like the world is saying "screw this, let's juts keep making things worse."
No, it's just the oil companies and conservative wing-nuts, who have a vested interest in keeping everybody on the petroleum bandwagon and attacking the progressive movement at every opportunity.
> [...] on the whole, humanity will be okay.
Sure
> Come on, I think cops are a pain in the ass as much as the next guy, but they don't just beat you for no reason.
...wait.
1 66/
> What did the guy do to get himself into that position ?
> I'm willing to bet it wasn't jaywalking.
Of course! The police *never* arrest anyone who doesn't deserve it! And the police would *never* lie to us if it weren't so! Right?
Oh
http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/training-day/26
> With a horrified suspect watching, Huntington Beach police planted evidence --- a loaded revolver --- in the man's car during a DUI accident investigation in January, the Weekly has learned.
>
> The controversial revelation is not now in dispute although cops, prosecutors and city bureaucrats attempted to keep the incident a secret by sealing records and stalling discovery of related documents.
>
> Despite those efforts, the gun incident became an issue during an obscure misdemeanor trial last week at Orange County's West Court in Westminster. Police officers were forced to admit under oath that a snub-nosed handgun had been tossed like a Frisbee about four feet into the trunk of a Hyundai belonging to Tom Cox, the suspect. The loaded gun bounced twice and slammed up against the driver's side of the car's trunk. No bullets were discharged.
Seriously, Joebert, get a clue.