Animals and plants have been going extinct ever since life existed on Earth. I'm sure the fact that things tend to go extinct wherever humans go has nothing to do with our involvement.
McCarthy knowingly ruined people's lives for political gain- I should hope we can maintain laws on the books that can be used to stop something like that from happening again. I don't see how you can write laws about what mindset the general public is allowed to have. Knowingly spreading false information with the intent to harm has absolutely no positive outcome for society, other than the lesson to try to prevent it from recurring. Holocaust deniers can defend themselves as believing they are telling the truth, and anyone prodding a powerful person should at least have that much defense. If someone saying something a powerful person doesn't like gets wrongly persecuted, then our system has failed them.
Abolish libel laws and powerful people can say whatever they want about someone without repercussion. That sounds worse to me than the current system where they can fight legitimate criticism only if the justice system fails us. If someone can twist the justice system to their will I don't expect the general public to be any better. I get it that libel laws don't fit with the ideal of free speech, but to me they are a realistic necessity.
You point out greed is looked down upon. If you view a song as belonging to an artist, then downloading a song against the copyright is greedily taking the song for yourself. Which viewpoint is "right" is a whole debate in its own right, but the moral situation here isn't black and white.
Many women who want an abortion change their mind when they see a beating heart on the ultrasound- some pro-choice activists fight tooth and nail to keep these ultrasounds out of the mother's sight. In other words, many people are only okay with destroying embryos because they don't know all of the facts or don't want to seriously consider the question of whether the embryo is human. If you don't have a definition for when an embryo is human, you are just dodging resposibility. Some people don't want to have a kid so as long as they conveniently don't consider the embryo to be a human, they don't have to think twice about getting rid of it.
If you have an unambiguous definition for when an embryo is human and when it is not (or when it has a right to life and when it does not), and you can handle any ifs ands or buts, you don't fall into the "dodging responsiblity" category. By that point the debate becomes a matter of morals, and rational arguments have to be mixed with opinion to stay relevent. In the interest of avoiding long and circular debate by that point I would be content to agree to disagree.
If you are confident in whatever your definition is that makes some embryos 'things' and at what point you have a human, you should be able to reasonably deal with: if someone aborts an embryo against the mother's will, can the mother rightfully accuse murder? What crime was committed? A common argument for an embryo not being human is that for much of the term the embryo cannot survive outside of the womb. If you rely on such an argument, how do you reconsile this with people who are medically dependent upon technology or machinery later in life? Would you be morally opposed to schools removing access to math and science material to keep students from becoming scientists and engineers? If so, how is that morally different from keeping an embryo from becoming a human? Hint: picking out technicalities of how a scenario or an analogy doesn't work is dodging responsibility. The point is to thoroughly test yourself, as you better be damn well certain you aren't throwing away life. Igorance is bliss but ignorance of the law is not a defence (cliche but you know what I mean). If you don't like a technicality then fix the question so it is more uncomfortable for you to answer. If you truly can't find a question you aren't comforable with I suppose we will never agree, and I'll just have to deal with that.
Tragedy of the commons example: A village is supplied by one well. All the villagers like to use lots of water, and the well slowly gets depleted. No one worries because what's the harm in using just one more gallon of water? Over time, instead of conservation preserving the well water, the well runs dry and the village becomes deserted.
Modern copyright is like letting one man own the well, and he becomes exceedingly rich because of it. He makes sure the well doesn't dry up since he wants to keep the money coming in, but he benefits nobody. Many people who pirate are like the villagers from the above story, and create an unstable system*. The ideal system is one where everyone regulates themselves and only uses as much water as he needs. We know, by human nature, that ideal will never happen.
What we need to do is depose the rich well owner without letting the well run dry. Maybe it can be done in a world free of copyright, but in searching for the optimal balance, it is easier to slowly make things more free than less free. I would like to see zero copyright, but I also would like to play it paranoid and reduce copyright as slow as needed to be certain we aren't breaking the system.
*I realize making a copy of software doesn't deplete the supply the way taking water depletes a well- I couldn't come up with a perfect analogy so bear with me. Also, I say many pirates, as I am assuming most people downloading media do nothing to help preserve the industries and will complain when said industries stop producing content. Many/. pirates understand basic economics so I'm not trying to insult you.
1. People don't respect creationists much around here, so you might want to be careful.
2. Creation was supposedly some thousands of years ago, so 40 years from creation still doesn't help much.
I would like to see the negative mod points restricted to one of every 5. Even if there are troll/offtopic posts, there is no need to hunt them all down instead of modding up the good stuff.
Another solution would be to hide the troll moderation until a second person mods the same post as troll. Only the first moderator's point would be used, but it would force mod points to only be spent on modding people down if they are truely deserving.
By right to know I mean they put the information out in public. I agree warning stickers for everything is stupid- only things that have a severe risk or a non-obvious risk should be directly labeled. Lots of things can be cancerous to some degree, but all of those things should have unsuppressed accurate information available, even if most have such a small risk they do not merit warning labels. As much as I think that hotdog suit is silly, I would stop being on Kraft's side if they tried to suppress any and all information about the harmful effects of their food. I certainly understand that just putting a "may cause cancer" sticker on things is extremely misleading as it is safe to eat a hotdog, but I would like to be able to find at what point I am putting myself at undue risk without going to court to do so.
Material properties aside, it would be interesting to build a ring around the Earth. The net gravitational force on it would be zero (small variations may have to be accounted for), so it could float above the Earth with zero supports. You could build a series of them, allowing for shorter distances to be travelled at once, which gives you a lot more leeway on power, cable design and weight (mass I guess). Counterbalance the elevator and you won't pull the rings out of the sky.
In the end it stays in the realm of science fiction, but I've always thought it would be cool to see this giant ring above your head that seems to defy gravity. With a space elevator involved it may actually have a use.
Isn't "full disclosure" really just meant to say "Hey, FYI I might be biased"? Not, "Hey, I might be biased, now let me promote myself!".
He was just demonstrating his bias for full disclosure.
To be serious though, he is providing relevent and interesting information. We wouldn't have much news if you can't tell anyone what you are doing for fear of seeming self-absorbed.
Posts like this make me wish the troll mod took two votes to stick (although it only uses up the first mod point). I've had jokes modded troll due to people missing the sarcasm, but seeing insightful comments buried by someone with their own agenda is just wrong. I spend too many mod points undoing bad troll mods. At least/. could limit mods to one -1 for every 5 points they give out.
Yeah, this is offtopic, but if any mod sees this please mod up the "troll" first.
I think we should consider first building the space elevator at the moon, mars, etc. Smaller forces to work with, less drag, and far less politics. An earth-based one would be the second- or third-generation. Not to mention we can work out the kinks without the risk of everything literally crashing down to Earth and hurting people.
The cost of building it in lunar orbit rather than Earth orbit will very likely override the benefits, but if we have a lunar base first it might be worth consideration.
Slashdot Mirror
But what if you think it's a dragon? Or worse, what if you think it's a windmill?
Animals and plants have been going extinct ever since life existed on Earth. I'm sure the fact that things tend to go extinct wherever humans go has nothing to do with our involvement.
McCarthy knowingly ruined people's lives for political gain- I should hope we can maintain laws on the books that can be used to stop something like that from happening again. I don't see how you can write laws about what mindset the general public is allowed to have. Knowingly spreading false information with the intent to harm has absolutely no positive outcome for society, other than the lesson to try to prevent it from recurring. Holocaust deniers can defend themselves as believing they are telling the truth, and anyone prodding a powerful person should at least have that much defense. If someone saying something a powerful person doesn't like gets wrongly persecuted, then our system has failed them.
Abolish libel laws and powerful people can say whatever they want about someone without repercussion. That sounds worse to me than the current system where they can fight legitimate criticism only if the justice system fails us. If someone can twist the justice system to their will I don't expect the general public to be any better. I get it that libel laws don't fit with the ideal of free speech, but to me they are a realistic necessity.
I don't think McCarthy's victims would agree with you.
All politicians suck.
As epitomized by Hoover?
You point out greed is looked down upon. If you view a song as belonging to an artist, then downloading a song against the copyright is greedily taking the song for yourself. Which viewpoint is "right" is a whole debate in its own right, but the moral situation here isn't black and white.
Negative mods must be restricted to one out of every 5 mod points given. Please fix this as mod trolling is getting absurdly out of hand.
Many women who want an abortion change their mind when they see a beating heart on the ultrasound- some pro-choice activists fight tooth and nail to keep these ultrasounds out of the mother's sight. In other words, many people are only okay with destroying embryos because they don't know all of the facts or don't want to seriously consider the question of whether the embryo is human. If you don't have a definition for when an embryo is human, you are just dodging resposibility. Some people don't want to have a kid so as long as they conveniently don't consider the embryo to be a human, they don't have to think twice about getting rid of it.
If you have an unambiguous definition for when an embryo is human and when it is not (or when it has a right to life and when it does not), and you can handle any ifs ands or buts, you don't fall into the "dodging responsiblity" category. By that point the debate becomes a matter of morals, and rational arguments have to be mixed with opinion to stay relevent. In the interest of avoiding long and circular debate by that point I would be content to agree to disagree.
If you are confident in whatever your definition is that makes some embryos 'things' and at what point you have a human, you should be able to reasonably deal with: if someone aborts an embryo against the mother's will, can the mother rightfully accuse murder? What crime was committed? A common argument for an embryo not being human is that for much of the term the embryo cannot survive outside of the womb. If you rely on such an argument, how do you reconsile this with people who are medically dependent upon technology or machinery later in life? Would you be morally opposed to schools removing access to math and science material to keep students from becoming scientists and engineers? If so, how is that morally different from keeping an embryo from becoming a human? Hint: picking out technicalities of how a scenario or an analogy doesn't work is dodging responsibility. The point is to thoroughly test yourself, as you better be damn well certain you aren't throwing away life. Igorance is bliss but ignorance of the law is not a defence (cliche but you know what I mean). If you don't like a technicality then fix the question so it is more uncomfortable for you to answer. If you truly can't find a question you aren't comforable with I suppose we will never agree, and I'll just have to deal with that.
Tragedy of the commons example: A village is supplied by one well. All the villagers like to use lots of water, and the well slowly gets depleted. No one worries because what's the harm in using just one more gallon of water? Over time, instead of conservation preserving the well water, the well runs dry and the village becomes deserted.
/. pirates understand basic economics so I'm not trying to insult you.
Modern copyright is like letting one man own the well, and he becomes exceedingly rich because of it. He makes sure the well doesn't dry up since he wants to keep the money coming in, but he benefits nobody. Many people who pirate are like the villagers from the above story, and create an unstable system*. The ideal system is one where everyone regulates themselves and only uses as much water as he needs. We know, by human nature, that ideal will never happen.
What we need to do is depose the rich well owner without letting the well run dry. Maybe it can be done in a world free of copyright, but in searching for the optimal balance, it is easier to slowly make things more free than less free. I would like to see zero copyright, but I also would like to play it paranoid and reduce copyright as slow as needed to be certain we aren't breaking the system.
*I realize making a copy of software doesn't deplete the supply the way taking water depletes a well- I couldn't come up with a perfect analogy so bear with me. Also, I say many pirates, as I am assuming most people downloading media do nothing to help preserve the industries and will complain when said industries stop producing content. Many
1. People don't respect creationists much around here, so you might want to be careful.
2. Creation was supposedly some thousands of years ago, so 40 years from creation still doesn't help much.
It isn't a water problem, it's a stupid people problem.
But people are mostly made of water, so now you have a stupid water problem...
Palm better watch out- Apple will be looking to get revenge by making the iPhone compatible with Palm's music store.
To provide your diagnosis*, please fill out this quick and easy survey:
Do you have Malaria? (Y/N)
*Accurate diagnosis 100% guaranteed when survey is answered completely and truthfully.
Add five more 10's in there and it should be perfect.
Maybe a good balance then is to develop solar-powered fish?
Should I be retaining a lawyer about now?
All other parts of the UK are served by BT
I hope BitTorrent becomes an ISP in my area too!
I would like to see the negative mod points restricted to one of every 5. Even if there are troll/offtopic posts, there is no need to hunt them all down instead of modding up the good stuff.
Another solution would be to hide the troll moderation until a second person mods the same post as troll. Only the first moderator's point would be used, but it would force mod points to only be spent on modding people down if they are truely deserving.
By right to know I mean they put the information out in public. I agree warning stickers for everything is stupid- only things that have a severe risk or a non-obvious risk should be directly labeled. Lots of things can be cancerous to some degree, but all of those things should have unsuppressed accurate information available, even if most have such a small risk they do not merit warning labels. As much as I think that hotdog suit is silly, I would stop being on Kraft's side if they tried to suppress any and all information about the harmful effects of their food. I certainly understand that just putting a "may cause cancer" sticker on things is extremely misleading as it is safe to eat a hotdog, but I would like to be able to find at what point I am putting myself at undue risk without going to court to do so.
Material properties aside, it would be interesting to build a ring around the Earth. The net gravitational force on it would be zero (small variations may have to be accounted for), so it could float above the Earth with zero supports. You could build a series of them, allowing for shorter distances to be travelled at once, which gives you a lot more leeway on power, cable design and weight (mass I guess). Counterbalance the elevator and you won't pull the rings out of the sky.
In the end it stays in the realm of science fiction, but I've always thought it would be cool to see this giant ring above your head that seems to defy gravity. With a space elevator involved it may actually have a use.
Isn't "full disclosure" really just meant to say "Hey, FYI I might be biased"? Not, "Hey, I might be biased, now let me promote myself!".
He was just demonstrating his bias for full disclosure.
To be serious though, he is providing relevent and interesting information. We wouldn't have much news if you can't tell anyone what you are doing for fear of seeming self-absorbed.
"Hi there, how are you? Oh, wait- Let me get out my spectrometer!"
Posts like this make me wish the troll mod took two votes to stick (although it only uses up the first mod point). I've had jokes modded troll due to people missing the sarcasm, but seeing insightful comments buried by someone with their own agenda is just wrong. I spend too many mod points undoing bad troll mods. At least /. could limit mods to one -1 for every 5 points they give out.
Yeah, this is offtopic, but if any mod sees this please mod up the "troll" first.
If TPB can figure out secure bittorrent over Twitter, the government will have the general public up in arms if they try to outlaw it.
I think we should consider first building the space elevator at the moon, mars, etc. Smaller forces to work with, less drag, and far less politics. An earth-based one would be the second- or third-generation. Not to mention we can work out the kinks without the risk of everything literally crashing down to Earth and hurting people.
The cost of building it in lunar orbit rather than Earth orbit will very likely override the benefits, but if we have a lunar base first it might be worth consideration.