Proud free speech absolutist here. Sticks and stones can break my bones but if words can hurt me then I SHOULD be hurt. What is left will be better for it.
I wonder if there is a way to have a disease that looks like certain 'types' of people. Then you get it and become allergic to yourself if you are one of those types right? I wonder who the first to create ( as the gp? said 'malicious wetware' ) will be.
HIV sucks if you want carnage. Making it more fatal would only create a subtype that would die out or lose the mutation that makes it fatal Why not something that spreads better so it can kill a huge swath of ppl before it peters out? If the effect is insufficient, you can always modify whatever strain of cold is going around that week for another mass cull. If you can do it to HIV, wouldn't the common cold be a better choice? ( sorry I don't know if what you said above could be applied to the common cold ).
If you want a White Plague kind of killer, activated by mensturation ( why - because women make babies and killing them is more effective for population control than killing men - it may be one reason for some of the nasty stuff done to women (and especially children) by many cultures ( c.f. lectures by UC Davis's Gregory Clark on YouTube ) your HIV would only spread for on average half a month in carriers. Though men being immune seems attractive at first so they can be carriers, women would become far less promiscuous negating the disease-spreading advantage - this sort of enforced behavior modification of women seems like something a woman hating religious nut would pull.
But I can't think of a population control advantage of being sex selective for an std. Better to just killemall. Maybe if men could be made permanent carriers for an airborne germ, ( something TB-ish and incurable - does that exist other than TB itself? ) Then you could insert a gene that kills on mensturation, and another that constantly produces bath salts. Then you'd have rampaging bands of horny male zombies to break into and infect/eat-brains-of any remaining cloisters of women.
I was just re-reading Catch that Rabbit to my daughter. I noticed that in 'The future' they spied on the malfunctioning multibot by watching it on the 'Visiplate' a flat screen TV/monitor.
Google can choose not to do business in France. But then France could ( or at least should ) nullify any patents Google owns in France. Anyone who wants to screw Google over IP-wise can just do it in France. The French would soon have their own Google. ( Baidu anyone? ) The legal infrastructure to do this may not exist in France, but countries can easily develop the legal infrastructure to do war on corporations that make war on them as it becomes necessary.
Some years ago, I had three cats and a dog, and they all had tapeworms. You can tell because of the tapeworm segments in their turds. I didn't know what kind of worms they were at first, so I got 'dewormer' from the grocery store and gave them all doses. I tried this a couple of times with no effect.
Then I went on the internet, and found out they were tapeworms. The dewormer said not effective against tapeworms. Turns out none of the dewomers I could find were effective against tapeworms. I was looking at a vet bill for 4 animals to get tape worm medicine. I couldn't believe no place sold tapeworm medicine. ( Maybe somewhere like Tractor Supply would have it, but in those days there was no such thing around where I live. Tractor Supply seems to have the good drugs often, so I'd look there first now. )
Anyway I had to order tapeworm medicine from Austrailia, and it cured all four animals. Is Tapeworm Medicine illegal in the US without a prescription? Are people out there getting high sniffing dewormer?
Anyway, maybe having tapeworm medicine available would decrease the amount of them going around.
Literally the other day, I decided to install Tor and browse around for the first time. Previously, I had also played with I2P. I am seriously confused given the availability and ease of use of these anonymous networks, and bitcoin for payment, especially with the availability of unsecured wireless networks, how the hell anyone gets caught for information/hacking related crimes.
Now if I were going to do something not involving physical stuff, staying sterile wrt the law would involve the following easy steps:
Purchase cheap azz used laptop w/cash from a pawn shop or yard sale. Remove hard drive. We don't need no stinking hard drive.
Purchase a cheap azz keyfob for any saved data. Better yet don't have any saved data.
Either install linux on the keyfob w/tor, or keep it blank and I believe there is a liveCD distro w/tor. I2P can be installed on the keyfob too if you prefer.
Warjamming into an unsecured network: ( This may mean driving around a neighborhood to find one, but it may be as simple as parking outside a starbucks, ( I'm not sure if starbucks / mcdonalds or one of the zillions of other places that advertise free wifi require some sort of face to face ID check to connect I've never personally tried it, but there are definately unsecured wifi connections to be found in neighborhoods. ) you do your nefarious business over tor.
There are definately operating illegal sites on tor. They haven't been taken down therefore tor is secure enough to deter this. These are up all the time presenting a fixed target for authorities to attack. They would if they could. You will be an intermittant presence warjamming over tor on an untraceable machine. Even if the gubmint somehow 'p0wnz' the tor network, you aren't going to be the first to know.
I've looked into bitcoin, but I must confess I haven't investigated the supposed anonymity of it yet, but I suspect it's alright when used in combination with other measures. I get the impression that with care there is absolutely no reason to leave a paper trail with them that can lead back to you.
I realise the zillions of contract-killer ads 'will ice whoever for $20000 in bitcoin us half up front half on completion send name address and photo of victim' are scams ( send me the ten grand up front, and since you don't know me, and I don't know you and you're a crazy tard who wants to hire someone killed the world will better off with you less $10000, and me $10000 richer. ) or just jokes. The bitcoin 'money laundering services' may be scams too - you give them bitcoins and they give you other ones. I don't know how the supposed anonymity of bitcoins works - these may be scams of the sort where bitcoins require no laundering, but some paranoid suckers are willing to pay 10% for an unnecessary service - I'd certainly learn more about bitcoins before actually using them, however these don't suffer from the need to trust someone you can't know with a large sum of money. You could wash one coin at a time or just cents at a time I suppose. If they started to scam you you could move somewhere else.
I personally wouldn't dare run a hidden site with illegal content without some physical layer in addition to relying on the anonymous network. Like set up a solar powered laptop in a waterproof box strapped to a tree outside a starbucks which I administer once in a while from another sterile laptop from time to time parked outside a random apartment block. You could get fancy and put a mercury switch in there to send a message if anyone tampered with it. Not that there should be any reason to care . The box shouldn't be trusted with any traffic that isn't encrypted to armor it against tampering anyway.
It would seem that one would have to be some kind of idiot or plain lazy to get caught doing computer crime nowadays.
Relying on someone's code to protect you from the law seems unwise, but the law isn't going to ignore all the low hanging fruit so they can target you unl
Now that they can see us better we get to find out all the new ways we look suspicious for doing the things we;ve always done. We'll be profiled. The more they can see, the less easy it will become not to look suspicious. For instance, you are allowed to have a jacknife ( or even a gun, but let's just keep it to jacknife for now ). If you keep it in your pocket then nobody knows you've got it. But would you ( an adult, maybe a parent who always carries a jacknife in their pocket so they don't have to break their teeth prying into stuff and opening blister packs, going in for a parent teacher's converence ) would you like to be scanned with a pocket x-ray to enter? What if everywhere was like getting on a plane? Wouldn't you stop carrying a jacknife? Who wants the hassle right? The more they can see the more ways you look suspicious and the more ways you will have to adjust your life in order to not draw unwanted attention. Other people suck, and dealing with them sucks. Good fences ( and good privacy ) makes good neighbors.
Gonna have to read it again. It didn't depress me when I read it. I think I identified with the horned aliens more than the humans, maybe that's why. I'm wondering when they're going to make a movie of Childhood's End. It's about time.
The other night I saw a video of a cat being shown a video. Electrodes in the cat's brain, were wired to a screen showing a slightly garbled version of that same video. So light from a video went in the cat's eyes, then electrodes in the cat's brain took the image and fed it to another video screen and the image was recognizable. I for one am impressed.
No. You see they were not designed to keep guns safe. They were designed to extract money from people desiring such a device, at a low cost. They performed the task they were designed for admirably.
Padlock? On youtube I saw how to get into one with a soda can and a pair of scissors. You use the scissors to cut shims to open the lock with. I also needed pliers to grab the shims with when I did it. I always thought padlocks were secure. They are a joke.
You might say 'screw em' but they're saying 'screw you'. And THEY are bigger than you.
I think I might just open up a Facebook account with my real name and no friends. I'm thinking just Name/Rank/Serial Number using a 3d Avatar. I'd never log in again, so any friend requests from people I know would be ignored automatically. 3d Avatars Fool Facebook's face only filter. I did this as an experiment once, but did not use my real name. The other option might be a celebrity photo, or a morphed face.
The thing is, a morphed face would either not look like me, or possibly look too much like me. It would be a lie, and I don't want 'liar' stuck to my real name. A sufficiently famous celebrity, like Elvis Presley might be better, because nobody could seriously think I was Elvis Presley. Facebook may have filters against this though. A 3d avatar seems to be the best bet because it's non-human looking enough not to be duplicitous.
I don't know if there's a report-fake-photo button that would get the account deleted if some dipshit pressed it, but then if I have no friends, then nobody is likely to see the picture so why would it be reported? A boring unused account with a 3D Avatar photo might live a long time unreported.
The day will come when people can take a photo of you with their cellphone, and search for matching faces within X miles ( say 100 ), and get a short list of matching people including you if you've put your name and photo in the same place anywhere, or if someone has a photo of you and has labeled it. Keeping your name off things like Facebook might guard against this - people who know you might not have the option to label a pic of you if you aren't there at all.
Sheesh, maybe I won't even give Facebook my name rank and serial number.
That way, I will better positioned to get away with mass murder.
Yeah, me too. There's nothing I would be able to put on a Facebook account that I wouldn't want a prospective boss reading which makes Facebook BORING, and USELESS for anything but what Linked In already does. If I want to be myself, I won't put my real name on it or my real photo.
Another post on the site asked rhetorically: Who elected them? Why do they get to influence government policy? The post was complaining about the Gates Foundation's effort to support school vouchers ( which I too support, as a step toward making education voluntary ), but I would also tend to agree that Bill Gates' or my voice should not be able to drown out Joe Shmoe's.
If corporate donations influence the policies of politicians, then they can influence the policies of charitable foundations. Not only that, but one may imagine a world where humans patronize their employers as workers and other businesses as customers, while those entities in turn patronise politicians and also charitable organizations.
The vast majority of the value the average person has as a patron ends is reified as who they work for and what they buy rather than what they believe would be best for them politically. Vast swathes of idiocy make considered voting largely irrelevant.
People ( me included ) don't know what is best for them anyway, and must rely on the sources of information and opinion around them to make a best guess. Often people look for an attractive style or group and trust the consensus to have been well arrived at. Turn up the heat slowly and people will happily boil like a lobster in a pot.
In the Red States, they elect Cokelicans, in the Blue States, it's the Pepsicrats. There's no need to vote with anything but your wallet. It's a matter of taste preference. Elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho ( Brought to you by Carl's Jr )
Privatized X is no more efficient than public X unless there is perfect competition. Monopoly, oligopoly, and imperfect competition is inefficient wrt consumers, which is WHY government is inefficient as it monopolizes force ( hopefully ).
Charities trying to direct the use of taxpayer dollars by contributing is an attempt to purchase the force ( power to collect taxes ) that the governent monopolizes.
Charities ultimately benefit the donors. When the donors are human, mostly the charities provide the service of making the donors feel good. Often the act of Charity is ill considered. Beneficiarys don't control Charities as a rule, when something is free, you take it, even if you don't like the idea of it being given away for free, such as printed ( or borrowed ) money from the government. If you depend on it, you won't want to see it go ( like any other dole ).
Considered Charity of any kind is inherently a rebellious act. It's voluntary unlike paying taxes. The effects can be good or bad for a bystander, or for the one committing the willful act of Charity.
The problem is that now there's a field full of toxic grass. What if the mutation is the new norm for the species of grass? If it outcompetes normal Bermuda grass, then Bermuda grass is now a toxic weed instead of a useful feed.
You're never going to destroy every bit of this grass. It will escape into the wild unless the wild is inhospitible to it. ( in areas that are naturally forested this sort of grass might not get out of hand, but in areas where grass grows without help from people ( such as in clearing trees ) this could take over. )
It would kill anything that can't digest the cyanide.
Bye bye species that eat grass.
Maybe in a field of Bermuda grass the toxic variant outcompetes the nontoxic sort but in a natural setting where species are more intermixed, the toxins wouldn't have the potency to be worth making. If only 1/3 of the greenery were Bermuda grass, then the plant would have to make 3 times the cyanide to be effective at killing browsers as it would in a monoculture of Bermuda grass.
Hopefully, there was something about this situation that keeps it contained.
This reminds me of the Organic Gardeners that selected for Zuccinni that withstood pests. Every year they planted the seeds of the Zuccinni that came through the least blemished and least bug-eaten. Then one year they got sick from eating the Zuccinni they'd inadvertantly bred for toxicity.
This reminds me of junior high school where kids needed hall passes to go to the bathroom. Do most junior high school students need to be monitored that way at home? No. But somehow at school 'the few bad apples' ruin it for the rest. Are we going to let this happen at large?
Don't take the fork off the cork.
Cocaine ought to be legal to sell as a degreaser. If it doesn't work as a degreaser, then nobody will buy it for that purpose. The FDA should have nothing to do with degreasers.
If someone snorts degreaser then they are too stupid to live.
Of course, why not open a restaurant called : Not for human consumption. Cheap food. Tasty food. NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. Who wants to be a human anyway?
Absolutely right. Unless the beliefs conflict with something you need to do regularly, then it really costs nothing to be a creationist ( or not ). I can't fault someone for having whatever belief is easiest when the belief isn't obviously relevant to anything that matters to them.
People are very willing to assume you think similarly to the way they do when they agree with something you say. It's usually pointless to disillusion them. There are advantages in being nominally in agreement with everyone, or at least not appearing to be too deeply intrenched one way or another. When it comes up, appearing shallow is almost always preferrable to appearing anathema. There are a lot more ways to be wrong than to be right, so being right whatever that is, will put you in the anathema category more often than not.
Also, having the *ability* to defend ones point of view is evidence that the need has arisen to do so. You've prepared an argument beforehand. On a psychological level, this is actually evidence against the veracity of your claim. If you were confident in the claim then you wouldn't be able to defend it, because the need would not have arisen.
Defending a belief appears - defensive. So it's better to appear shallow and not too committed. That's 'cool.' Clinging to a belief or lack of one and expending the effort of using logic to badger others to accept the belief or lack thereof or even using logic to badger others into tolerating the belief ( or lack of belief ) is very suspicious. Others think: What are you getting out of the belief or lack thereof that you cling to it so tightly that you are able to argue about it? What are you trying to put over on us?
Treating beliefs at least outwardly, as clothes can be very effective. However it takes practice if you don't also do so inwardly. Getting away with this lie really does put one over on the rest. You get to be the only one in the room with a framework of beliefs while remaining nonthreatening enough to be likable. But this sort of thing is a high skill. You will be outmatched by the character actors whose vapid insides match their outsides unless you have honed this skill though practice.
And it takes effort. So much effort that spending it might not leave you much time for developing any defensible framework of belief. Spend too much effort on keeping up a facade, and there will be no need to - you will be the facade. Making sense - what a crime. If that were possible, you'd have really put one over on the rest of humanity. You'd have such advantages - it's not allowed. It's time to make an honest liar out of you.
First of all technicians will work for the going rate. Technicians aren't running society, they just work for the man like everyone else. Why are they the target of these morons? Are they copying Ted Kaczynski? He's a loon.
Secondly, 'the man' is everyone.
Thirdly, acts of terrorism are nothing but a gift to the forces of authoritarianism. These jokers probably realise this, but don't mind because they see giving rise to such forces as a way to more rapidly 'bring it all down man'.
Of course anarchists don't realise that they are living in anarchy right now. Government is the result of anarchy.
Baselessly predicting that the world will 'inevitably' move in a certain distopian way and using that as an excuse to commit exciting acts of resistance for one's own entertainment is just sad nutjobbery. They commit acts of terrorism and live the 007 lifestyle, with the selfish purpose of megalomanically magnifying their own sense of importance in the world so as to compensate for being complete losers in real life.
Finally, attempting to 'bring down' a system that seems intent on it's own destruction can only serve to perpetuate it longer.
If these folks would honestly ask themselves what they get out of 'trying to save the world' they would end up with the answer: Ego Masturbation.
Slashdot Mirror
Proud free speech absolutist here. Sticks and stones can break my bones but if words can hurt me then I SHOULD be hurt. What is left will be better for it.
See here: http://www.crazymonkeygames.com/Pandemic-2.html a game where you can create your own disease and see how it spreads.
I wonder if there is a way to have a disease that looks like certain 'types' of people. Then you get it and become allergic to yourself if you are one of those types right? I wonder who the first to create ( as the gp? said 'malicious wetware' ) will be.
HIV sucks if you want carnage. Making it more fatal would only create a subtype that would die out or lose the mutation that makes it fatal Why not something that spreads better so it can kill a huge swath of ppl before it peters out? If the effect is insufficient, you can always modify whatever strain of cold is going around that week for another mass cull. If you can do it to HIV, wouldn't the common cold be a better choice? ( sorry I don't know if what you said above could be applied to the common cold ).
If you want a White Plague kind of killer, activated by mensturation ( why - because women make babies and killing them is more effective for population control than killing men - it may be one reason for some of the nasty stuff done to women (and especially children) by many cultures ( c.f. lectures by UC Davis's Gregory Clark on YouTube ) your HIV would only spread for on average half a month in carriers. Though men being immune seems attractive at first so they can be carriers, women would become far less promiscuous negating the disease-spreading advantage - this sort of enforced behavior modification of women seems like something a woman hating religious nut would pull.
But I can't think of a population control advantage of being sex selective for an std. Better to just killemall. Maybe if men could be made permanent carriers for an airborne germ, ( something TB-ish and incurable - does that exist other than TB itself? ) Then you could insert a gene that kills on mensturation, and another that constantly produces bath salts. Then you'd have rampaging bands of horny male zombies to break into and infect/eat-brains-of any remaining cloisters of women.
I was just re-reading Catch that Rabbit to my daughter. I noticed that in 'The future' they spied on the malfunctioning multibot by watching it on the 'Visiplate' a flat screen TV/monitor.
Google can choose not to do business in France. But then France could ( or at least should ) nullify any patents Google owns in France. Anyone who wants to screw Google over IP-wise can just do it in France. The French would soon have their own Google. ( Baidu anyone? ) The legal infrastructure to do this may not exist in France, but countries can easily develop the legal infrastructure to do war on corporations that make war on them as it becomes necessary.
YES!
Some years ago, I had three cats and a dog, and they all had tapeworms. You can tell because of the tapeworm segments in their turds. I didn't know what kind of worms they were at first, so I got 'dewormer' from the grocery store and gave them all doses. I tried this a couple of times with no effect.
Then I went on the internet, and found out they were tapeworms. The dewormer said not effective against tapeworms. Turns out none of the dewomers I could find were effective against tapeworms. I was looking at a vet bill for 4 animals to get tape worm medicine. I couldn't believe no place sold tapeworm medicine. ( Maybe somewhere like Tractor Supply would have it, but in those days there was no such thing around where I live. Tractor Supply seems to have the good drugs often, so I'd look there first now. )
Anyway I had to order tapeworm medicine from Austrailia, and it cured all four animals. Is Tapeworm Medicine illegal in the US without a prescription? Are people out there getting high sniffing dewormer?
Anyway, maybe having tapeworm medicine available would decrease the amount of them going around.
Just my 2 cents.
Literally the other day, I decided to install Tor and browse around for the first time. Previously, I had also played with I2P. I am seriously confused given the availability and ease of use of these anonymous networks, and bitcoin for payment, especially with the availability of unsecured wireless networks, how the hell anyone gets caught for information/hacking related crimes.
Now if I were going to do something not involving physical stuff, staying sterile wrt the law would involve the following easy steps:
Relying on someone's code to protect you from the law seems unwise, but the law isn't going to ignore all the low hanging fruit so they can target you unl
Now that they can see us better we get to find out all the new ways we look suspicious for doing the things we;ve always done. We'll be profiled. The more they can see, the less easy it will become not to look suspicious. For instance, you are allowed to have a jacknife ( or even a gun, but let's just keep it to jacknife for now ). If you keep it in your pocket then nobody knows you've got it. But would you ( an adult, maybe a parent who always carries a jacknife in their pocket so they don't have to break their teeth prying into stuff and opening blister packs, going in for a parent teacher's converence ) would you like to be scanned with a pocket x-ray to enter? What if everywhere was like getting on a plane? Wouldn't you stop carrying a jacknife? Who wants the hassle right? The more they can see the more ways you look suspicious and the more ways you will have to adjust your life in order to not draw unwanted attention. Other people suck, and dealing with them sucks. Good fences ( and good privacy ) makes good neighbors.
Arggh! They found a Black Hole on Mars!
Gonna have to read it again. It didn't depress me when I read it. I think I identified with the horned aliens more than the humans, maybe that's why. I'm wondering when they're going to make a movie of Childhood's End. It's about time.
The other night I saw a video of a cat being shown a video. Electrodes in the cat's brain, were wired to a screen showing a slightly garbled version of that same video. So light from a video went in the cat's eyes, then electrodes in the cat's brain took the image and fed it to another video screen and the image was recognizable. I for one am impressed.
No. You see they were not designed to keep guns safe. They were designed to extract money from people desiring such a device, at a low cost. They performed the task they were designed for admirably.
Padlock? On youtube I saw how to get into one with a soda can and a pair of scissors. You use the scissors to cut shims to open the lock with. I also needed pliers to grab the shims with when I did it. I always thought padlocks were secure. They are a joke.
There goes the Internet, I'm moving to I2P.
You might say 'screw em' but they're saying 'screw you'. And THEY are bigger than you.
I think I might just open up a Facebook account with my real name and no friends. I'm thinking just Name/Rank/Serial Number using a 3d Avatar. I'd never log in again, so any friend requests from people I know would be ignored automatically. 3d Avatars Fool Facebook's face only filter. I did this as an experiment once, but did not use my real name. The other option might be a celebrity photo, or a morphed face.
The thing is, a morphed face would either not look like me, or possibly look too much like me. It would be a lie, and I don't want 'liar' stuck to my real name. A sufficiently famous celebrity, like Elvis Presley might be better, because nobody could seriously think I was Elvis Presley. Facebook may have filters against this though. A 3d avatar seems to be the best bet because it's non-human looking enough not to be duplicitous.
I don't know if there's a report-fake-photo button that would get the account deleted if some dipshit pressed it, but then if I have no friends, then nobody is likely to see the picture so why would it be reported? A boring unused account with a 3D Avatar photo might live a long time unreported.
The day will come when people can take a photo of you with their cellphone, and search for matching faces within X miles ( say 100 ), and get a short list of matching people including you if you've put your name and photo in the same place anywhere, or if someone has a photo of you and has labeled it. Keeping your name off things like Facebook might guard against this - people who know you might not have the option to label a pic of you if you aren't there at all.
Sheesh, maybe I won't even give Facebook my name rank and serial number.
That way, I will better positioned to get away with mass murder.
Yeah, me too. There's nothing I would be able to put on a Facebook account that I wouldn't want a prospective boss reading which makes Facebook BORING, and USELESS for anything but what Linked In already does. If I want to be myself, I won't put my real name on it or my real photo.
Though I'm pro same-sex marriage and also pro-abortion, I have to agree that Google poking it's nose into such issues is creepy.
Another post on the site asked rhetorically: Who elected them? Why do they get to influence government policy? The post was complaining about the Gates Foundation's effort to support school vouchers ( which I too support, as a step toward making education voluntary ), but I would also tend to agree that Bill Gates' or my voice should not be able to drown out Joe Shmoe's.
If corporate donations influence the policies of politicians, then they can influence the policies of charitable foundations. Not only that, but one may imagine a world where humans patronize their employers as workers and other businesses as customers, while those entities in turn patronise politicians and also charitable organizations.
The vast majority of the value the average person has as a patron ends is reified as who they work for and what they buy rather than what they believe would be best for them politically. Vast swathes of idiocy make considered voting largely irrelevant.
People ( me included ) don't know what is best for them anyway, and must rely on the sources of information and opinion around them to make a best guess. Often people look for an attractive style or group and trust the consensus to have been well arrived at. Turn up the heat slowly and people will happily boil like a lobster in a pot.
In the Red States, they elect Cokelicans, in the Blue States, it's the Pepsicrats. There's no need to vote with anything but your wallet. It's a matter of taste preference. Elect Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho ( Brought to you by Carl's Jr )
Privatized X is no more efficient than public X unless there is perfect competition. Monopoly, oligopoly, and imperfect competition is inefficient wrt consumers, which is WHY government is inefficient as it monopolizes force ( hopefully ).
Charities trying to direct the use of taxpayer dollars by contributing is an attempt to purchase the force ( power to collect taxes ) that the governent monopolizes.
Charities ultimately benefit the donors. When the donors are human, mostly the charities provide the service of making the donors feel good. Often the act of Charity is ill considered. Beneficiarys don't control Charities as a rule, when something is free, you take it, even if you don't like the idea of it being given away for free, such as printed ( or borrowed ) money from the government. If you depend on it, you won't want to see it go ( like any other dole ).
Considered Charity of any kind is inherently a rebellious act. It's voluntary unlike paying taxes. The effects can be good or bad for a bystander, or for the one committing the willful act of Charity.
Consider Charity, and the Charity of others.
Browsers eat a little of everything given the choice and generally not a toxic quantity of anything.
y
The problem is that now there's a field full of toxic grass. What if the mutation is the new norm for the species of grass? If it outcompetes normal Bermuda grass, then Bermuda grass is now a toxic weed instead of a useful feed.
You're never going to destroy every bit of this grass. It will escape into the wild unless the wild is inhospitible to it. ( in areas that are naturally forested this sort of grass might not get out of hand, but in areas where grass grows without help from people ( such as in clearing trees ) this could take over. )
It would kill anything that can't digest the cyanide.
Bye bye species that eat grass.
Maybe in a field of Bermuda grass the toxic variant outcompetes the nontoxic sort but in a natural setting where species are more intermixed, the toxins wouldn't have the potency to be worth making. If only 1/3 of the greenery were Bermuda grass, then the plant would have to make 3 times the cyanide to be effective at killing browsers as it would in a monoculture of Bermuda grass.
Hopefully, there was something about this situation that keeps it contained.
This reminds me of the Organic Gardeners that selected for Zuccinni that withstood pests. Every year they planted the seeds of the Zuccinni that came through the least blemished and least bug-eaten. Then one year they got sick from eating the Zuccinni they'd inadvertantly bred for toxicity.
This reminds me of junior high school where kids needed hall passes to go to the bathroom. Do most junior high school students need to be monitored that way at home? No. But somehow at school 'the few bad apples' ruin it for the rest. Are we going to let this happen at large?
Don't take the fork off the cork.
Cocaine ought to be legal to sell as a degreaser. If it doesn't work as a degreaser, then nobody will buy it for that purpose. The FDA should have nothing to do with degreasers.
If someone snorts degreaser then they are too stupid to live.
Of course, why not open a restaurant called : Not for human consumption. Cheap food. Tasty food. NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. Who wants to be a human anyway?
Absolutely right. Unless the beliefs conflict with something you need to do regularly, then it really costs nothing to be a creationist ( or not ). I can't fault someone for having whatever belief is easiest when the belief isn't obviously relevant to anything that matters to them.
People are very willing to assume you think similarly to the way they do when they agree with something you say. It's usually pointless to disillusion them. There are advantages in being nominally in agreement with everyone, or at least not appearing to be too deeply intrenched one way or another. When it comes up, appearing shallow is almost always preferrable to appearing anathema. There are a lot more ways to be wrong than to be right, so being right whatever that is, will put you in the anathema category more often than not.
Also, having the *ability* to defend ones point of view is evidence that the need has arisen to do so. You've prepared an argument beforehand. On a psychological level, this is actually evidence against the veracity of your claim. If you were confident in the claim then you wouldn't be able to defend it, because the need would not have arisen.
Defending a belief appears - defensive. So it's better to appear shallow and not too committed. That's 'cool.' Clinging to a belief or lack of one and expending the effort of using logic to badger others to accept the belief or lack thereof or even using logic to badger others into tolerating the belief ( or lack of belief ) is very suspicious. Others think: What are you getting out of the belief or lack thereof that you cling to it so tightly that you are able to argue about it? What are you trying to put over on us?
Treating beliefs at least outwardly, as clothes can be very effective. However it takes practice if you don't also do so inwardly. Getting away with this lie really does put one over on the rest. You get to be the only one in the room with a framework of beliefs while remaining nonthreatening enough to be likable. But this sort of thing is a high skill. You will be outmatched by the character actors whose vapid insides match their outsides unless you have honed this skill though practice.
And it takes effort. So much effort that spending it might not leave you much time for developing any defensible framework of belief. Spend too much effort on keeping up a facade, and there will be no need to - you will be the facade. Making sense - what a crime. If that were possible, you'd have really put one over on the rest of humanity. You'd have such advantages - it's not allowed. It's time to make an honest liar out of you.
Yep - they're assholes.
First of all technicians will work for the going rate. Technicians aren't running society, they just work for the man like everyone else. Why are they the target of these morons? Are they copying Ted Kaczynski? He's a loon.
Secondly, 'the man' is everyone.
Thirdly, acts of terrorism are nothing but a gift to the forces of authoritarianism. These jokers probably realise this, but don't mind because they see giving rise to such forces as a way to more rapidly 'bring it all down man'.
Of course anarchists don't realise that they are living in anarchy right now. Government is the result of anarchy.
Baselessly predicting that the world will 'inevitably' move in a certain distopian way and using that as an excuse to commit exciting acts of resistance for one's own entertainment is just sad nutjobbery. They commit acts of terrorism and live the 007 lifestyle, with the selfish purpose of megalomanically magnifying their own sense of importance in the world so as to compensate for being complete losers in real life.
Finally, attempting to 'bring down' a system that seems intent on it's own destruction can only serve to perpetuate it longer.
If these folks would honestly ask themselves what they get out of 'trying to save the world' they would end up with the answer: Ego Masturbation.