Those examples are from 40 and 25 years ago, and I'd argue that spending this much on security theatre hardly makes anyone that much safer. There's still plenty of unprotected infrastructure and crowded public places out there waiting to be 'terrorized'. Maybe the spending could be considered justified since it'll likely ensure that important world leaders survive, but the reality of terrorism is that you don't have to deal the assassination-blow to the highest value targets to be effective.
Imagine how bad it would look if, despite spending this much, the leaders, safe in their well-secured citadel, looked out to see a bomb go off on the other side of the city. Tragic deaths aside, it'd be a public relations (and likely diplomatic) disaster for the hosts. The very nature of terrorism allows the terrorist to get attention and grief their enemies regardless of the level of security measures applied. It's not possible to lock down the entire universe. If one place is well defended, attack somewhere else. Guerilla warfare 101.
What? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that was just a mistake because it seems that you understand it otherwise. There is no 90% GDP deficit going on anywhere I can think of. For the US, the public debt stands at 88.9% of GDP
d) Don't answer the door in the first place. I'm not saying you can tell beforehand if it's a salesperson or not, but it's still an option. Unfortunately, the equivalent action on the Internet would be to... not be on the Internet.
I'm replying so late that it probably won't be read, but check your facts on Norway. As far as I can tell it was occupied continually until the end of the war, without being liberated until Germany surrendered.
I read those comments too and am very disappointed at my compatriots for some of them. You're right about the witchhunt. In my other comment here I felt the need to include a token anti-child-porn remark precisely to redirect the witchhunt elsewhere. I shouldn't have had to. I wasn't playing devil's advocate for child porn, but by defending anything that's even remotely juxtaposed with that topic is a dangerous game because far too many people jump to conclusions. "Why do you want molesters and paedophiles to roam free? Are you one of them? You're either with us or against us!" A false dichotomy.
I am astonished and outraged at the story you linked about words on a page. I had heard about the drawing one before on/.. I am extremely disappointed with people who can't see that these cases are tantamount to convictions for thoughtcrime. There weren't any real victims. Granted, I don't condone the behaviour of these guys, but that does not give us the right to punish them for an idea. You cannot equate an idea that is not acted upon to a crime. It does not matter what the idea is. I am ashamed that this happened in my country.
From the linked article: "He must also provide a DNA sample for inclusion in a national criminal database and register as a sex offender for 20 years." For reading a book. Or technically just for possessing the book. I realize that this guy had a previous charge for possessing real (presumably) child porn, but that is irrelevant in assessing the criminality of the more recent conviction for possessing the stories. If a writer creates a story in which someone commits murder, is the writer (and their readership) just as good as a murderer? Of course not, and for some reason we have no problem accepting this kind of literature. In fact, it's commonplace. As soon as the topic of the fiction shifts to something uncomfortable and verging on taboo to even mention, it's as if our brains turn off and we can no longer see the situation for what it is.
That takes care of comparing fiction to fiction with different topics. To further illustrate the point, let's now consider fiction to nonfiction with a similar topic. If the author this time describes a historical event that involved the rape of children, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book) (a best seller nonetheless), are they just as good as child rapists? Once again the answer is obviously no. The works of fiction may have different intents than the factual account, but it is irrelevant. What matters is that they are all words on a page and that should not constitute a crime.
I'm a civil engineer you insensitive clod! I have no idea why you singled out that profession as an example, but I laughed. Fortunately, I too see myself as a renaissance man, with a wide variety of interests and a passion for learning in general. Unfortunately, this can be a hindrance because it delays my progress in developing technical skills in this field. While I "waste" countless hours delving into philosophy and history, for example, I watch as my peers advance their careers and net worth, leaving me "behind". I like to envision a future in which my hard work at becoming a generalist pays off. As others have pointed out in this thread, it can be downright difficult to get a job when employers place such emphasis on your academic credentials and years of experience doing x, where x is the specific task they want you, a specialist, for. I sacrifice the opportunity to specialize and thus make myself more attractive to these employers by being a generalist.
With only a resume/CV or even an interview it's difficult to convey that you're really worth it with your broader knowledge base. For a lot of jobs I'm probably not worth it for the employer if all they want is a specialist-drone who won't rock the status quo with any radical ideas. Right now I'm hoping some cronyism works out for me to get started and gain some relevant experience, because all that philosophy and history sure isn't helping me get a job right now.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the indeterminate skill set of the renaissance man, or the more politically correct renaissance person, makes them suited for work as administrators, managers, politicians, and military commanders. Maybe if I rack up 40 years of experience I can be an admiral, but it sure feels difficult starting as a graduate with nearly zero. Culture of entitlement taught me that Cadet Kirk gets to be Captain after saving Earth in Star Trek XI; I can't help but be a little disappointed! Sarcasm aside, I agree that being a specialist is boring for an entire career.
I wasn't thinking of this when I posted earlier, but I can relate to that. I had to prove ancestry to get Metis status. It turns out I'm the last generation eligible for status (unless I had kids with someone who has more recent native ancestry); I am detached from my full-blood native ancestors by six generations.
In practice I hardly identify with this group at all, except in principle to defend the native position whenever I catch someone making unfair and disparaging comments about them. It's interesting that a slight against a group I am only technically a part of evokes such a response, even though the group would probably view me as an outsider. I suppose there really is an intrinsic drive for humans to protect and propagate their own kin. It may be multigenerational racism, but it's natural, so we can hardly allow ourselves to get caught up on that fact.
After further thought on the matter, I will concede a counterexample. If an adopted child's genetics cause them to be sufficiently physically different to be deemed a visible minority in the culture they are raised in, then there will be separation between the child and the ethnicity. The two won't fully identify with each other. It may not seem like a noble trait of humanity, but we associate more closely with things that are as much alike us as possible, even when the differences are superficial. It's sort of an innate racism.
I think the point of "does your culture have a genetic component?" was that any kid can be raised in any cultural setting independent of their genes (Unless we're talking about some genetic predisposition to a disability that prevents one from engaging in some cultural activities, but we're not. That'd be quibbling.). How exactly do your two ethnic groups have a genetic component? An ethnicity is simply a group of people who identify with one another for whatever reason. To an adopted child, the culture they are raised in is just as real and something to identify with as if they were naturally born to the parents who raised them.
It's too old a civ. With entrenched culture like that (the Kong Miao, the forbidden city, the wall, etc.) the artist will hardly make a dent. Besides, I'm pretty sure that the "revolution mod" option is turned on for this game. Think of the revolts! For now, demand the resources as tribute an risk the "-1 you made an arrogant demand".
I don't think we are going to impress any alien civs with a Dyson sphere built around our planet. I think they tend to be more effective when encompassing the star.
Empirical evidence seems to indicate that marijuana improves my creative problem solving capabilities substantially. Then again, it can hinder the normal solution methods at times too. For example, I once struggled for about 10 minutes to compute 3 * 0.25 (definitely an exception, it usually does not impair numeracy so severely), but I approached the problem in ways I had never imagined before. A supposed 4-point temporary drop seems well worth the longterm effects of remodeling my perspective on, well, everything. I think I owe a lot of my intellectual development to that wonderful plant.
If society is open to allowing psychoactives with demonstrably negative long and short-term effects (i.e. ethanol), then why not allow psychoactives that make me creative, philosophical, non-belligerent, and in general the happiest man alive? One of my favourite inside jokes when high is to think that "Feeling this good should be a crime. Oh wait, it is" It's quite a depressing thought that it is in fact illegal to ingest (who inhales anyway? there are far more effective ways to go about it!) something to make oneself happy while not infringing on the rights of others. Unfortunately, by disobeying the law in this matter I am risking all credibility in my profession due to the strong social stigma against it. It's too bad that people fear that which they do not understand, that which they have only been told bad things about growing up and are thus nearly unable to form their own informed opinions on. However, as a greater portion of the population practices such peaceful civil disobedience, it drives the eventual rescindment of marijuana's illegality (at least one can hope).
I have been surprised to learn how prevalent this form of civil disobedience is. Perhaps a lot of people conceal their use out of fear (it's illegal, and socially frowned upon) as I do. Perhaps there are more benevolent marijuana missionaries out there spreading the word of peace and happiness.
These papers studying cannabis as a risk factor for steatosis and hepatitis C (a finding which is contradicted by another study that I can't find at the moment) indicate that 24-30% of patients use it daily (in France at least, but I've seen similar numbers for other locales).
Slashdot Mirror
It would've been more impressive if this was pulled off with a lightsaber. Another robber hit convenience stores with a bat'leth, after all:
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/04/1456240
Some technique to store the power... you mean, like a battery?
Wainwright isn't south of Calgary.
Those examples are from 40 and 25 years ago, and I'd argue that spending this much on security theatre hardly makes anyone that much safer. There's still plenty of unprotected infrastructure and crowded public places out there waiting to be 'terrorized'. Maybe the spending could be considered justified since it'll likely ensure that important world leaders survive, but the reality of terrorism is that you don't have to deal the assassination-blow to the highest value targets to be effective.
Imagine how bad it would look if, despite spending this much, the leaders, safe in their well-secured citadel, looked out to see a bomb go off on the other side of the city. Tragic deaths aside, it'd be a public relations (and likely diplomatic) disaster for the hosts. The very nature of terrorism allows the terrorist to get attention and grief their enemies regardless of the level of security measures applied. It's not possible to lock down the entire universe. If one place is well defended, attack somewhere else. Guerilla warfare 101.
This story is nearly a laugh but it's really a cry.
What? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that was just a mistake because it seems that you understand it otherwise. There is no 90% GDP deficit going on anywhere I can think of. For the US, the public debt stands at 88.9% of GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt .
d) Don't answer the door in the first place. I'm not saying you can tell beforehand if it's a salesperson or not, but it's still an option. Unfortunately, the equivalent action on the Internet would be to... not be on the Internet.
I'm replying so late that it probably won't be read, but check your facts on Norway. As far as I can tell it was occupied continually until the end of the war, without being liberated until Germany surrendered.
I read those comments too and am very disappointed at my compatriots for some of them. You're right about the witchhunt. In my other comment here I felt the need to include a token anti-child-porn remark precisely to redirect the witchhunt elsewhere. I shouldn't have had to. I wasn't playing devil's advocate for child porn, but by defending anything that's even remotely juxtaposed with that topic is a dangerous game because far too many people jump to conclusions. "Why do you want molesters and paedophiles to roam free? Are you one of them? You're either with us or against us!" A false dichotomy.
I am astonished and outraged at the story you linked about words on a page. I had heard about the drawing one before on /.. I am extremely disappointed with people who can't see that these cases are tantamount to convictions for thoughtcrime. There weren't any real victims. Granted, I don't condone the behaviour of these guys, but that does not give us the right to punish them for an idea. You cannot equate an idea that is not acted upon to a crime. It does not matter what the idea is. I am ashamed that this happened in my country.
From the linked article: "He must also provide a DNA sample for inclusion in a national criminal database and register as a sex offender for 20 years." For reading a book. Or technically just for possessing the book. I realize that this guy had a previous charge for possessing real (presumably) child porn, but that is irrelevant in assessing the criminality of the more recent conviction for possessing the stories. If a writer creates a story in which someone commits murder, is the writer (and their readership) just as good as a murderer? Of course not, and for some reason we have no problem accepting this kind of literature. In fact, it's commonplace. As soon as the topic of the fiction shifts to something uncomfortable and verging on taboo to even mention, it's as if our brains turn off and we can no longer see the situation for what it is.
That takes care of comparing fiction to fiction with different topics. To further illustrate the point, let's now consider fiction to nonfiction with a similar topic. If the author this time describes a historical event that involved the rape of children, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book) (a best seller nonetheless), are they just as good as child rapists? Once again the answer is obviously no. The works of fiction may have different intents than the factual account, but it is irrelevant. What matters is that they are all words on a page and that should not constitute a crime.
It's Saturday night; I've got no date, a two liter bottle of Shasta, and my all-Rush mix tape... let's rock
I'm a civil engineer you insensitive clod! I have no idea why you singled out that profession as an example, but I laughed. Fortunately, I too see myself as a renaissance man, with a wide variety of interests and a passion for learning in general. Unfortunately, this can be a hindrance because it delays my progress in developing technical skills in this field. While I "waste" countless hours delving into philosophy and history, for example, I watch as my peers advance their careers and net worth, leaving me "behind". I like to envision a future in which my hard work at becoming a generalist pays off. As others have pointed out in this thread, it can be downright difficult to get a job when employers place such emphasis on your academic credentials and years of experience doing x, where x is the specific task they want you, a specialist, for. I sacrifice the opportunity to specialize and thus make myself more attractive to these employers by being a generalist.
With only a resume/CV or even an interview it's difficult to convey that you're really worth it with your broader knowledge base. For a lot of jobs I'm probably not worth it for the employer if all they want is a specialist-drone who won't rock the status quo with any radical ideas. Right now I'm hoping some cronyism works out for me to get started and gain some relevant experience, because all that philosophy and history sure isn't helping me get a job right now.
The more I think about it, the more I realize that the indeterminate skill set of the renaissance man, or the more politically correct renaissance person, makes them suited for work as administrators, managers, politicians, and military commanders. Maybe if I rack up 40 years of experience I can be an admiral, but it sure feels difficult starting as a graduate with nearly zero. Culture of entitlement taught me that Cadet Kirk gets to be Captain after saving Earth in Star Trek XI; I can't help but be a little disappointed! Sarcasm aside, I agree that being a specialist is boring for an entire career.
I wasn't thinking of this when I posted earlier, but I can relate to that. I had to prove ancestry to get Metis status. It turns out I'm the last generation eligible for status (unless I had kids with someone who has more recent native ancestry); I am detached from my full-blood native ancestors by six generations.
In practice I hardly identify with this group at all, except in principle to defend the native position whenever I catch someone making unfair and disparaging comments about them. It's interesting that a slight against a group I am only technically a part of evokes such a response, even though the group would probably view me as an outsider. I suppose there really is an intrinsic drive for humans to protect and propagate their own kin. It may be multigenerational racism, but it's natural, so we can hardly allow ourselves to get caught up on that fact.
After further thought on the matter, I will concede a counterexample. If an adopted child's genetics cause them to be sufficiently physically different to be deemed a visible minority in the culture they are raised in, then there will be separation between the child and the ethnicity. The two won't fully identify with each other. It may not seem like a noble trait of humanity, but we associate more closely with things that are as much alike us as possible, even when the differences are superficial. It's sort of an innate racism.
I think the point of "does your culture have a genetic component?" was that any kid can be raised in any cultural setting independent of their genes (Unless we're talking about some genetic predisposition to a disability that prevents one from engaging in some cultural activities, but we're not. That'd be quibbling.). How exactly do your two ethnic groups have a genetic component? An ethnicity is simply a group of people who identify with one another for whatever reason. To an adopted child, the culture they are raised in is just as real and something to identify with as if they were naturally born to the parents who raised them.
If it's so simple then why is yours wrong?
The same Captain who was promoted straight up from Cadet without even graduating from the academy? What a wonderful role model of entitlement.
A South Korean corvette was just sunk too. Maybe this IS the beginning of the end.
It's too old a civ. With entrenched culture like that (the Kong Miao, the forbidden city, the wall, etc.) the artist will hardly make a dent. Besides, I'm pretty sure that the "revolution mod" option is turned on for this game. Think of the revolts! For now, demand the resources as tribute an risk the "-1 you made an arrogant demand".
Death by snu snu.
Clever sig, but isn't it out of date now?
I don't think we are going to impress any alien civs with a Dyson sphere built around our planet. I think they tend to be more effective when encompassing the star.
Empirical evidence seems to indicate that marijuana improves my creative problem solving capabilities substantially. Then again, it can hinder the normal solution methods at times too. For example, I once struggled for about 10 minutes to compute 3 * 0.25 (definitely an exception, it usually does not impair numeracy so severely), but I approached the problem in ways I had never imagined before. A supposed 4-point temporary drop seems well worth the longterm effects of remodeling my perspective on, well, everything. I think I owe a lot of my intellectual development to that wonderful plant.
If society is open to allowing psychoactives with demonstrably negative long and short-term effects (i.e. ethanol), then why not allow psychoactives that make me creative, philosophical, non-belligerent, and in general the happiest man alive? One of my favourite inside jokes when high is to think that "Feeling this good should be a crime. Oh wait, it is" It's quite a depressing thought that it is in fact illegal to ingest (who inhales anyway? there are far more effective ways to go about it!) something to make oneself happy while not infringing on the rights of others. Unfortunately, by disobeying the law in this matter I am risking all credibility in my profession due to the strong social stigma against it. It's too bad that people fear that which they do not understand, that which they have only been told bad things about growing up and are thus nearly unable to form their own informed opinions on. However, as a greater portion of the population practices such peaceful civil disobedience, it drives the eventual rescindment of marijuana's illegality (at least one can hope).
I have been surprised to learn how prevalent this form of civil disobedience is. Perhaps a lot of people conceal their use out of fear (it's illegal, and socially frowned upon) as I do. Perhaps there are more benevolent marijuana missionaries out there spreading the word of peace and happiness.
These papers studying cannabis as a risk factor for steatosis and hepatitis C (a finding which is contradicted by another study that I can't find at the moment) indicate that 24-30% of patients use it daily (in France at least, but I've seen similar numbers for other locales).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFX-4R7J81G-5&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F29%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1212900528&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=fb8c342ecca065efc61e77e527067e0f
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110493927/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
If that proportion ever exceeds 50% or so, I see no alternative for governments but to concede to the will of the people and legislate accordingly.
Real women? No true Scotsman?
"What are you listening to?"
"The Dead."
"The who?"
"No, not the Who, the Dead!"