Yes, there *are* many people who went to university who know nothing; and yes, there *are* many people with no formal education who know something. Neither of those facts prove anything.
The real question is: If *I* had not gone to university, would *I* have been better or worse off?
(In my opinion, based on personal experience, the answer is that I would've been worse off without university.)
Great post. I have no mod points, so please, somebody, mod this post +1 Insightful on my behalf?
People seem to misunderstand the fact that yes, piracy may not be black and white in YOUR case, but unfortunately there can't be a special law for each individual's circumstances. There must be ONE law. One without 100 exception clauses.
Pirates seem to expect that the law should read something like this:
Unauthorised copying of this work is prohibited, unless: 1) The infringing party pinky-swears that he wouldn't have bought the copyrighted work had it not been available illegaly 2) The infringing party pinky-swears that he was only going to use the unauthorised copy of the work for the purposes of deciding whether or not to purchase the work 3) The infringing party is a teenager with stingy parents and therefore was unable to purchase the work 4) The work in question has already sold millions of copies and therefore the author is already stinking rich and doesn't need any more money 5) The work in question is the music of a performing artist, in which case he or she will make enough money from live performances without the help of the infringing party 6) etc. etc. etc.
That said, even I occasionally download illegal music, movies, etc. But I know it's wrong, and I also have my own ways of justifying it to myself, but I am not ridiculous enough to expect the law to tailor itself to my personal value system.
It's wrong, and if I get caught I will get punished, and I will not be surprised or indignant.
I saw this kind-of work in Vietnam. At many of their large intersections everybody "just goes". They slow down and kind of weave through. It works well most of the time, but I did see 5 scooter accidents (none too serious, though) in the couple of weeks I was there. Their roads are *very* busy though, so those numbers would be a lot lower in a less-populated country.
What I mean is that man cannot create the complex ecosystems that exists in a forest. And we are more dependent on these ecosystems than most people realise. Reference: "The Revenge Of Gaia" by James Lovelock. It's a really good book.
Actually, the version of Animal Liberation I read was the Second Edition, had been revised, and included references to facts as recent as the late 1990s. He actually says that things have improved since the first edition, but not by enough.
The way you describe your field and the certainty you have that most of your colleagues are as conscientious and compassionate as you gives me hope. However, the skeptic in me finds it extremely difficult to believe that all your colleagues are like you. Ordinary people generally treat animals very badly. I've seen it with my own eyes, read about it in the news, and I know, from talking to them, how little thought people give to the wellbeing of animals. Why should I expect scientists to be any different?
I always say to people that it's pointless for laymen to argue about things like these. At the end of the day, all I'm doing is using arguments made by an expert (which I consider Singer to be). But for every expert there is another expert which could make a counter-argument which is very convincing to laymen. But only another expert can tell who's right. You're an expert (or, at least, you sound like one, and are a professional in the field), so I can't argue with you. You have first-hand experience, I do not. I've read a book. I really hope you're right, and that things HAVE improved by leaps and bounds in recent years, and I hope they keep improving. I want to believe what you say. It would make me feel so much better about the world.
Finally, I never wanted to get into an argument about this, especially not with an expert. I just felt that you made it sound as if Singer was saying animal experimentation is all OK. I know that's not what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify.
"Much of the modern Animal Rights movement is based on a book by Peter Singer. IIRC, there is a line in there in which he indicates that the use of animals for agricultural or research purposes is acceptable as long as their use for that purpose ends up being a net positive for the individuals involved. However, that point seems to be ignored by many who claim to desire animal rights, but have not bothered to do the reading necessary to truly understand the movement, it origins, and it's ultimate goals."
Yes, but then Singer goes on to explain, in this book you speak of, 'Animal Liberation', in great detail, how ineffective most research is. He explains that in many cases, the results from experiments performed on animals are not applicable to humans. And many experiments are completely unnecessary. They're repeated over and over, and often make no sense. People either don't look for published papers, or they simply do it for the grants, so that they can continue being researchers. The book goes into way more detail, and I read it a few years ago, so can't remember it all. But basically, what you've done is selective quoting. That book has only one message, and it's that humans put animals through unfathomable pain and suffering, and that they don't deserve it, and that it's completely immoral and unnecessary in most cases.
And no matter how rigid the regulations on animal experiments are, at the end of the day the things that get done to them are more horrible than you can imagine. (See Singer's book, 'Animal Liberation'). Or watch Earthlings.
"Running NT4 also made sure USB sticks weren't an issue, though I believe they managed to upgrade to XP a few years ago, but testing was extensive."
The security dudes at my previous place of employment managed to devise a more portable solution to the USB stick problem: they simply glued shut the USB ports on all computers. No kidding.
Maybe it's not about the ratio, per se, but more about wide hips. Tribal women are generally not as slim as the stereotypical Western Barbie doll (personal observation, feel free to shoot me down with real data), so wide-hipped tribal women may have a higher waist/hip ratio, but still be more desirable.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there *are* many people who went to university who know nothing; and yes, there *are* many people with no formal education who know something. Neither of those facts prove anything.
The real question is: If *I* had not gone to university, would *I* have been better or worse off?
(In my opinion, based on personal experience, the answer is that I would've been worse off without university.)
Great post. I have no mod points, so please, somebody, mod this post +1 Insightful on my behalf?
People seem to misunderstand the fact that yes, piracy may not be black and white in YOUR case, but unfortunately there can't be a special law for each individual's circumstances. There must be ONE law. One without 100 exception clauses.
Pirates seem to expect that the law should read something like this:
Unauthorised copying of this work is prohibited, unless:
1) The infringing party pinky-swears that he wouldn't have bought the copyrighted work had it not been available illegaly
2) The infringing party pinky-swears that he was only going to use the unauthorised copy of the work for the purposes of deciding whether or not to purchase the work
3) The infringing party is a teenager with stingy parents and therefore was unable to purchase the work
4) The work in question has already sold millions of copies and therefore the author is already stinking rich and doesn't need any more money
5) The work in question is the music of a performing artist, in which case he or she will make enough money from live performances without the help of the infringing party
6) etc. etc. etc.
That said, even I occasionally download illegal music, movies, etc. But I know it's wrong, and I also have my own ways of justifying it to myself, but I am not ridiculous enough to expect the law to tailor itself to my personal value system.
It's wrong, and if I get caught I will get punished, and I will not be surprised or indignant.
"Such times might lead to opportunities for rouge apps to degrade the user experience."
Chinese?
I saw this kind-of work in Vietnam. At many of their large intersections everybody "just goes". They slow down and kind of weave through. It works well most of the time, but I did see 5 scooter accidents (none too serious, though) in the couple of weeks I was there. Their roads are *very* busy though, so those numbers would be a lot lower in a less-populated country.
It says somewhere in the article that many (most?) civilian killings are not reported, so 195 is not the total number.
As a former South African coffee addict, I can also confirm that people in countries other than the U.S. suffer from caffeine withdrawal symptoms.
I quit about 9 months ago, and had headaches for two weeks. I used to drink 2-3 cups of fairly strong french press coffee per day.
Sure, WOOD is renewable, but FORESTS are not.
What I mean is that man cannot create the complex ecosystems that exists in a forest. And we are more dependent on these ecosystems than most people realise. Reference: "The Revenge Of Gaia" by James Lovelock. It's a really good book.
Actually, the version of Animal Liberation I read was the Second Edition, had been revised, and included references to facts as recent as the late 1990s. He actually says that things have improved since the first edition, but not by enough.
The way you describe your field and the certainty you have that most of your colleagues are as conscientious and compassionate as you gives me hope. However, the skeptic in me finds it extremely difficult to believe that all your colleagues are like you. Ordinary people generally treat animals very badly. I've seen it with my own eyes, read about it in the news, and I know, from talking to them, how little thought people give to the wellbeing of animals. Why should I expect scientists to be any different?
I always say to people that it's pointless for laymen to argue about things like these. At the end of the day, all I'm doing is using arguments made by an expert (which I consider Singer to be). But for every expert there is another expert which could make a counter-argument which is very convincing to laymen. But only another expert can tell who's right. You're an expert (or, at least, you sound like one, and are a professional in the field), so I can't argue with you. You have first-hand experience, I do not. I've read a book. I really hope you're right, and that things HAVE improved by leaps and bounds in recent years, and I hope they keep improving. I want to believe what you say. It would make me feel so much better about the world.
Finally, I never wanted to get into an argument about this, especially not with an expert. I just felt that you made it sound as if Singer was saying animal experimentation is all OK. I know that's not what you meant, but I just wanted to clarify.
Yes, but then Singer goes on to explain, in this book you speak of, 'Animal Liberation', in great detail, how ineffective most research is. He explains that in many cases, the results from experiments performed on animals are not applicable to humans. And many experiments are completely unnecessary. They're repeated over and over, and often make no sense. People either don't look for published papers, or they simply do it for the grants, so that they can continue being researchers. The book goes into way more detail, and I read it a few years ago, so can't remember it all. But basically, what you've done is selective quoting. That book has only one message, and it's that humans put animals through unfathomable pain and suffering, and that they don't deserve it, and that it's completely immoral and unnecessary in most cases.
And no matter how rigid the regulations on animal experiments are, at the end of the day the things that get done to them are more horrible than you can imagine. (See Singer's book, 'Animal Liberation'). Or watch Earthlings.
"Running NT4 also made sure USB sticks weren't an issue, though I believe they managed to upgrade to XP a few years ago, but testing was extensive."
The security dudes at my previous place of employment managed to devise a more portable solution to the USB stick problem: they simply glued shut the USB ports on all computers. No kidding.
Maybe it's not about the ratio, per se, but more about wide hips. Tribal women are generally not as slim as the stereotypical Western Barbie doll (personal observation, feel free to shoot me down with real data), so wide-hipped tribal women may have a higher waist/hip ratio, but still be more desirable.
Just a thought.
This is NOT a BBC documentary, it was aired on Channel Four. Believe me, that makes a huge difference.