The only reason for simulating earth and all of its inhabitants and interactions, is to see what would happen if factor X + Y and introduced into the mix and factor Z removed. Or any combination of those.

I bet they will have hundreds of top sociologists and anthropologists on hand to lend their "expertise" to figure what they can or cannot get away with by manipulating the outcomes of this simulation until they get what they want.

What happens when all money is gone?
What happens when all food is removed?
What happens when there is world war 3?
What happens when people revold?
...now what can we do so we're immune to all of this and any blowback?

Sure, they'll release some research paper on how genocides spread, or how animals migrate from one place to another, etc... but having a "toy" like this would prove to be a loss if you really didn't use it to its full use.

If you don't agree with what I say, just keep in mind this is already happening. You don't think governments and people in power have social engineers that crunch numbers and process data to determine all the possible outcomes of something like going to war in Iraq? You think they didn't have 500-page reports on the possible riots that would take place all around the world, the money lost, gained, lives saved, lost, etc.. etc..

Now imagine all those resources pooled into this one tool, do you REALLY think it's going to be used to determine when the next eclipse is going to be or the gas price of hot dogs in 5 years? I think not.

By "some" he mean "all, in due time."

That's exactly what I was going to say. From TFA:

The Met said among the 2,512 suspects caught this year, four were suspected murderers, 23 rapists and sex attackers and five wanted gunmen.

Doesn't this basically say "we caught some people who may or may not have committed a crime"?!

And what's with the misleading article title about six crimes "solved" and all they mention in the article were people who were caught that were suspected of a crime? This whole article doesn't add up.

I don't think it really matters that they have improperly spent all this money. So what?.. Is someone going to get in trouble for it over at TSA? Obviously not, they couldn't care less. The machines aren't about making you safer, it's about training you how to be a slave in this new globalized terrorist-filled society. If they cared about people's safety, they wouldn't let their workers walk right past security because they too, could be a terrorist.

Or they wouldn't be raiding the pilot's house that blew the whistle on this blatant hypocritical mission that the TSA is apparently on. http://www.news10.net/news/article.aspx?storyid=113529&provider=top&catid=188

These scanners are obviously making their way to shopping malls, schools, gov buildings, and just about anywhere else - so don't let them fool you and tell you it's for the brown men in turbans, feeling up your 14yr old daughter and your 75yr old grandmother has nothing to do with brown men in turbans plotting evil things in caves.

I don't know why the link didn't display properly, anyway - here it is: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2002rank.html?countryCode=&rankAnchorRow=#

Reduce population growth by limiting the availability of basic living necessities such as electricity and power plants?

I suppose you're part of the Malthusian crowd that is suggesting we should rid of the less advantaged for some pseudo-altruistic belief that we'd be much better off if we could just have less of ourselves. I don't know what it is about people these days really having some hatred towards our own species that we would openly and willingly suggest to people that they do NOT reproduce and live out their lives how they see fit, and restrain their human nature to engage in family building.

The fact that most of the industrialized nations across the globe have a birth-rate below that what is necessary sustain a society seems to trouble no one, and is given very little discussion time. Instead, we are fed the factually wrong idea that there's an over population problem.

Anybody who has spent some time researching this problem (or non-problem) with an biased view would concur alarmists have been yelling about overpopulation for hundreds of years, and if anyone would have taken them seriously - we should have run out of food and resources countless of times by now, but somehow this hasn't happened. However, we use these false assumptions as a pretext to take away from poor people living in places like Africa and deny them the basic foundations needed to grow and sustain life in the name of saving them... it's absolutely absurd.

Everybody knows (...or should know) that you need a steady birth rate of 2.5 just to SUSTAIN society, you need more than that to GROW a society. Here's some hard facts for those who care to know:

2.15 - Africa (population falling)
0.97 - U.S.(drastically falling)
0.8 - Canada
0.56 - UK
0.53 - France
-0.06 - Germany

If you look at those numbers, it is quite clear the overall population of the planet is spiraling downwards and this will cause a possibilty of a huge crysis if this isn't brought up as a real point to discuss.

Source CIA: CIA World Facts

So don't let anyone tell you we're in trouble if we don't curb people fucking... quite the contrary, we're in serious trouble if don't have a rapid rise in population all around the globe.

"...but when the rubber hits the anus it's pretty much a wash."

I was like whaa....? But then I looked at your name and all was set right in the universe.

Sorry guys I don't really get the "he didn't click the link" part.. you mean the article that he pasted from?

I clicked the link but didn't read the whole thing.. Although I don't see how it would change anything, I said I agree with what he pasted, I don't know what the rest of the article talks about, nor should I care really - I don't think the source of information should detract from its message.

Unless I missed something?

As for the Apple patent article from EFF, yes I did read it as well.

Let me quote the actual article so you don't think I'm being paranoid (even though I am about stuff like this):

In some embodiments of Apple's "invention," this information "can be gathered every time the electronic device is turned on, unlocked, or used." When an "unauthorized use" is detected, Apple can contact a "responsible party." A "responsible party" may be the device's owner, it may also be "proper authorities or the police."

You speak like a conspiracy theorist, therefore you must be a terrorist! The news said so!

(p.s.: I'm being sarcastic, and totally agree with your post.)

What happens when the government starts analyzing these signs to determine you might be up to no good? Regardless if a crime has taken place or not? If your heart rate is elevated or you're palms are sweating, and you're close to an airport/school/gov office building/whatever, you might be planning an attack, why not just be on the safe side and have you come down with the nice men in black down to the local station for questioning?

I'm sorry, what exactly are these "personality rights" that you speak of? This is the first time I've heard of these, unless you meant to say privacy rights? I'm not sure, perhaps you can clarify. And these rights "imply" that I have the right to control my "usage" by the media?.. Can you define "usage" in this context? Man, am I the only one who's totally confused by the wording in this post?

And then you go on to say that these apparently existent personality laws "translate" only to celebrities? First of all, I have no idea what laws you speak of, secondly, there is no law in a free society that "translates" to any one group of people. And I'm guessing by translate you mean "apply to".

You go on to say that only a celebrities personality is mostly a commodity, who then - appoints a person as a celebrity? This sounds to me like some ad-hoc law with no way to enforce it. Do you see the loopholes and amount of absurdity in that statement? Basically, you're saying we as a society determine who is a celebrity (since there is no actual metric to measure this) and then we apply certain laws to these people that we cannot break?

If I'm an actor, you're saying someone can't make a painting of me and sell it on eBay?! My face is now somehow copyrighted because of a perceived celebrity status? None of this makes sense, unless of course - I've totally misunderstood your point, at which time I'd like you to maybe rephrase it because it does seem a little back asswards to me.

You mention in your post that Mr. Jobs is used as a marketing brand, can you show any evidence of this? Or is it just someone's opinion? I doubt Apple bought the right to Mr. Jobs face or "likeness" and has the right to sue over copyright infringement or some stupid "likeness" laws in that state.

And since the seller is a Canadian, they should just go and stuff it somewhere else. What's next.. they'll request that the U.S. government extradite him?

Who wants to bet the DHS will is already at his house taking him into custody as a potential terrorrist suspect of at least some made up charge of "engaging in terrorist-like activies that may help promote terrorism" or some other shit like that?

This isn't Britain vs. USA - it's ALL THE SAME. This is what happens when people allow "globalisation". Anything you see in Britain will come to the USA and Canada, and everywhere else in due time. If we have any hope of resisting this, it will be in the beginning stages, therefore we should all stand behind the British and help them abolish this creeping police state if we wish to never see it inside our borders (although those will be gone soon too I predict.)

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?