Someday you may grow to learn that women are more than just a vessel for your seed.
Women are much more than that indeed.
The enjoyment of sex, however — and it was that, rather than women's role in anything, that I was talking about — is predicated on the joy of (potential) reproduction implicit in the act with a beloved.
And until you've experienced that joy, you haven't grown up...
Look at Edison Labs, the Xerox PARC, Bell Labs...Do you actually believe that wall st today would support these kinds of long-term research projects, or shitcan them so fast it'd give a snowball in hell whiplash after they refused to promise "new deliverables that increase synergy and shareholder value" in time for the quarterly report?
Would they? They do! Examine the screen of your smartphone — is it not drastically better, than what was available 15 years ago? How much is Intel spending on further reducing the element sizes of their chips? Companies are doing the research — including long-term research — that they think, they need. That some people disagree with their opinion on what ought to be researched, that's a different story.
There are two other problems, that might be contributing to the problem you are talking about — not that we have any way of measuring anything. First is with the public's attitude — so often demonstrated on this very web-site — towards intellectual property in general and patents in particular. A lot of people believe, intellectual property — be it blueprints for some gizmo, or a dress-design, or a song, or a video-compression algorithm — is an "evil" concept, that, quite paradoxically, only cripples innovation.
People claiming: "Wait a minute! That was my idea!!" are immediately dismissed as "patent trolls" until proven otherwise — and those, who purchased an idea from the original inventor are almost never able to do the proving (not in the court of public opinion anyway) — an unfortunate state of affairs, that puts a heavy discount on active methodical research (though spontaneous innovations can still occur, of course). This removes the incentive from spending on research — you spend real tangible dollars, but the result is something, that can be stolen by others, who will not even risk being labeled (much less prosecuted) as thieves.
And the second problem is the research done by tax-funded universities. The corporations — as well as you and me — are taxed (and rather heavily) and then not us, and not the corporations, but "wise" men decide, how to spend that money. And on the occasion such public grants do result in a useful invention, the hitherto publicly-funded scientists open up their own company to exploit it...
We get the worst of both worlds: unlike a Socialist country, we don't get to force these public servants to share their invention with the rest of us, but, unlike a Capitalist country, we were forced to pay them and are still forced to pay others like them. And, to put us back on topic, none of that research counts as "corporate" leading the short-sighted public to accuse the (invariably "evil") corporations of being myopic themselves.
“One of the most important features of this invention,’ said Mr. Tesla, “‘will be the transmission of intelligence. It will convert the entire earth into a huge brain, capable of responding in every one of its parts. By the employment of a number of plants, each of which can transmit signals to all parts of the world, the news of the globe will be flashed to all points. A cheap and simple receiving device, which might be carried in one’s pocket, can be set up anywhere on sea or land, and it will record the world’s news as it occurs, or take such special messages as are intended for it. If you are in the heart of the Sahara, your wife can telegraph to you from Washington, and if the instrument is properly made you alone will get the message. A single plant of a few horsepower could operate hundreds of such instruments, so that the invention has an infinite working capacity, and will cheapen the transmission of all kinds of intelligence.”
If there aren't sex robots involved, I'm not interested.
Not until that machine can also give birth. Fucking someone(thing), that can not — even in theory — get pregnant is no better, than doing it with a pillow or, at best, a prostitute...
Please, don't hate.
Not being a Heinlein guru -- any 'predictions' he made that failed?
Yes, and he wrote about them himself — explaining the topic of such predictions in general and his own failures (and successes) in particular. I can not find those works online now (they are copyrighted, no doubt, you have to buy the book), but here is a critique of him — and a critique of the critique.
You could do (a lot) worse, than reading all of the Heinlein you can get — both Fiction and otherwise...
Myself, I'd add the following prediction for posterity — 50 years later, you can say, you read it on
And the other way around: whatever is not possible even in theory today (like faster-than-light movement or time-travel), will remain impossible in practice for the upcoming decades.
Not having to appease a multitude of diverse investors does give management more freedom — provided, the company has enough capital without being publicly traded.
Sort of like a tyranny or monarchy — depending on the tyrant/monarch's personal qualities, it can be spectacularly more successful than anything having to answer to the crowd (such as republic or democracy). It can fail spectacularly too, though...
That said, I don't think, Mr. Dell is wrong on this one. There are plenty of people (myself included), who prefer Audi over Volkswagen. They may also prefer a higher-class computer...
But none of us here have any skin in his game, so we can just from aside, while he is busy working.
Shareholders are shortsighted.
Citation?
Everything is quarter to quarter these days.
Yeah... Things aren't what they used to be — and they never were.
can't be raided by people like Carl Icahn
Google can't be raided by Carl Icahn, because even Mr. Icahn can not amass the amount of money needed for such a takeover. It does not matter, who owns the stock.
In a paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two authors ascribe the majority of northeast pacific coastal warming to natural atmospheric circulation and not to anthropogenic forcing.
People questioning Global Warming — and the humans' responsibility for it — are traitors and war-criminals, contemptible human beings, who ought to be punished.
Science is settled! People demand show trials NOW!!
So you inspected every line of source code of your browser, operating system, and java runtime, and visually verified that they are all secure?
No, I simply know enough about exploits. The software on my system may — indeed, is likely to — contain the common vulnerabilities. In theory it is just as exploitable as anything else.
However, to be able to exploit my machine in practice, you need to know exactly how my stuff is compiled. How exactly should your JPG file be crafted, for example, to insert executable code to where it will be executed? People running pre-compiled binaries can all be infected by the same image.
People like myself, using non-default compilers with non-default optimization flags, require customization. And there is no profit in such individual customizations for any regular hacker — one has to target me specifically spending considerable effort. People, who'd do that to get me, can already issue subpoenas and obtain search-warrants...
Like a person hugging the ground when a mortar falls, I'm not invincible. But I'm far safer, than the fools standing-up are...
(BTW, it really is a bad style to down-mod and then post anonymously in the same thread...)
I'm quite comfortable, that the browser I compiled myself — with customized optimization flags — running on a similarly custom-compiled operating system is secure. And, yes, the Java I use is also custom-compiled.
Not saying, everyone else "deserve", what they are getting, but the Internet would be a finer place, if they all dropped-off for a while.
This was not an "ad hominem". This was an insult. Don't you know the difference?
There distinction you are trying to make, idiot, is without difference. When you switch an argument from the topic being argued to the person doing the arguing — whether it is name-calling or discussing his hygiene — it is an argumentum ad hominem — a fallacy.
Chickenhawk is perfectly fine carnivorous bird, by the way — can't really insult anyone with such a comparison, unless you are trying to use the term policitcally:
a political term used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age.
You don't know anything about me to be able claim, I took active steps to avoid military service in any war the US fought, nor do you know my age.
Your having committed an ad hominem first, and an idiocy of misusing a term that your fellow idiots have misused too, thus established, let's get back to the other topics.
assuming that Obama would be somehow mine
If you are from Europe, then Obama is "yours" even more — whereas his popularity in the US in 2008 barely exceeded the 50% necessary for being elected, he was and remains more popular in the corrupt continent (80+%). For all I care, you can have him any day of the week — the sooner the better. Just be sure to take Joe Biden with him.
The current mess in Iraq has been caused by toppling Saddam Hussein.
Yeah, nothing like a strong leader for those unwashed sand-niggers, is there? Some peoples may have a democratic government, but certain untermensch just need a strong hand, right?
And then by arming the crazies who were rebelling against Assad.
Right. Because only a crazy could rebel against the kind and benevolent king (masquerading as elected President) such as Assad. Sure. But even if that's the problem, in your opinion, it was Obama's doing — and he was never called "chickenhawk" in his life.
You are seriously calling the Southern regime back then "kindler gentler"?
No, you dimwit. If you can't read English, stay out of English arguments. I challenged you to explain, how the things would've been better in the North Korea, if the South Korea's regime was kinder and gentler.
Without American intervention a way less radical government for an united Korea would be quite possible
Sure. And Palestine would've been a united and calm, if America had not given Israel any support. And China would've unified into a calm Confucian existence long ago, had the US not defended Taiwan. And Germany too would've united much earlier — under Eric Honecker (or even Ulbricht), of course. Wouldn't such have been a better world? If only the US war-mongers didn't resist Communism, huh?..
Sorry, but I'm rather glad there are enough of my countrymen still supporting that earlier chickenhawk's doctrine:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
Had your country been able to say it (and walk the walk), you too could be proud of it. But you can't. Rising and sleeping under the blanket of the very freedom we provide, you are questioning the manner in which we provide it... Chicken.
USSR's mistake — the one undercutting everything else they were doing — was trying to maintain 1st World military with the 3rd World economy (that is, Socialist economy sucks).
Though one could argue, the US — with its growing taxes and regulations — is sliding down towards Socialism too, I doubt, that is, what you had in mind. Could you explain yourself better?
GP is a chickenhawk.
Bzzz... Ad-hominem detected. Attaching labels to your opponents does not win an argument.
People like him are the reason for the current mess in Iraq.
The current mess in Iraq (and Libya) is the doing of your Nobel Peace Prize boy-wonder. Had we pulled troops from Western Germany in 1950ies, there would've been a new wave of violence there too — gleefully supported by the Communists occupying the Eastern part...
Sure, it was Bush, who prepared the plan for our withdrawal, but only someone trying to appease the "anti-war" crowd would execute the final part of it, given the ISIS' growing power.
Obama's weakness — and the catastrophic results of that weakness — were predictable. And unavoidable, given the sort of lunatic, that is the fount of "foreign policy expertise" of the Administration.
Besides, the mess in Korea was American's fault in first place - they have supported a bloody dictator for the sole reason of being an anticommunist. It was so bad that up to the 1970ies North Korea had higher standard of living. Without that meddling things could have been way better.
I can well see, how a kinder gentler Southern regime would get overrun by Communist North — turning the entire Korean peninsula into a hellhole. But I fail to understand, what would have made things better for today's North Koreans, had the South Korea become democratic earlier. Could you elaborate?
Way to conjure up a guess then beat him over the head with it
You know practically nothing about his requirements or the requirements of his boss/company, but still felt fine assuming you did... Weird.
Every sane and rational person should watch it every 5 or 10 years to remind themselves of the horrific nature of nuclear war.
Except movies rarely (if ever) appeal to rationality.
In this particular case, a sane and rational person might ask himself, how do they know, it will be so bad? There has never been an experiment attempted... Not even close...
The film hopefully cools the excitement about nukes.
I'm unaware of any excitement about nukes, that needs cooling. I am aware of the largely irrational fear of nukes — even of nuclear power plants. And I would rather we used nuclear weapons, than give up and surrender should our conventional forces fail.
Our hesitation to use them in Korea — to kill off hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops supporting the Northern Communists — for example, has condemned millions to the still ongoing decades of dire poverty and tyranny...
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
