It's illegal in the same way that going faster than 8mph was illegal in cars a hundred years ago. Once the technology is proven, it won't be illegal anymore.
The Hitler/Atheism claim confuses me as well. Hitler told his Christian nation to kill the Jews for Christian reasons. And they did it. If he'd have told them to do it "because there is no god", they'd have probably scratched their heads in confusion.
I don't have any issue with this guys rantings getting out. I think we should read them and think about them, and if they're insane, discard them. But we shouldn't hide them.
How will we know if they're good ideas or not if we don't see them in their entirety? If we don't inspect and analyze them in detail? If we don't find the places that are morally unjustifiable and rip them to shreds?
As long as it remains a "1500 page manifesto" that no one has read, all kinds of people might believe that they agree with it. As a thoroughly refuted diatribe of insanity, everyone can reject it and move on.
I mean, isn't this why censorship is wrong? Forewarned is forearmed.
It's the "killed humanely" that you're going to have trouble with. Please watch "Food, Inc." for some rather disturbing images of how your food is killed.
As Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene (which is a fantastic read) and The God Delusion, genetic-driven behaviors are only "rules-of-thumb". It makes sense for us to be altruistic to close family, then extended family, almost not at all to strangers. However, until recently, most people never met complete strangers, so there was no genetic advantage to curtailing altruistic behavior. Most of the time it just wasn't relevant. Therefore, any altruism you feel towards strangers is a happy accident, a sloppy implementation that spills over its original purpose.
I think this misses the point. It's not about making friends, its about using the tool of how we eat lunch to improve relationships between people and thus make them better contributors. You'll work better with people who are your friends.
Also, you're a lucky man indeed if your manager pushes you to have friends to improve your performance rather than, say, berating you in front of your coworkers.
That would have been completely pointless in any place that I've worked. Standard IT answer is "no" because no is cheaper and less work for them than "yes".
There's a lot of hate on for the poster of this story, but I feel for him. It's easy to say he should have gone to IT first, but that's the same as saying it will never happen. It's frustrating being hampered at work, knowing there's technology out there that would fix your issues in a pinch, but you're never going to see that solution because by the time it's gone through all of IT's procedures, you've left the job for greener pastures.
At my old job our IT department usually just seemed like they worked for a different company. Maybe one of our competitors. They sure as hell didn't work for us.
I type using the Colemak keyboard layout, and requested that the driver be installed on my computer so that I could type. No way in hell were they going to let that happen.
Yet at least 15 other computers had third-party screensavers installed on them (the dog licking the pane of glass one). Well done, IT's finest! Keep me from doing my job with your security policies but let people install screensavers, one of the largest attack vectors of malware in the world.
My mistake? Telling IT about the driver in the first place.
Maybe because at the end of the day your opinion about an arbitrary number doesn't really mean anything? I'm not trying to be rude, but what the hell does it matter what they call it? Will they offend the International Software Versioning Board? No. Is the planet going to spiral into the sun? No. You think numbers should go up in smaller increments. They think they should go up faster. Who gives a crap?
And +5 Interesting to one man's opinion about an arbitrary number? Come on!
It's amazing how many scientists and mathematicians conveniently ignore Einsteins's speech on this matter. It's almost as if they sweep it under the rug because it's too uncomfortable to face the fact that all math and science are based on axiomatic "a priori" knowledge, basically it's faith. I have no evidence that my brain is not floating in some vat somewhere with electrodes sticking out of it, but I take it on faith that it's not. My knowledge starts from faith that the world exists as I see it. I can't confirm that independently of my own experience.
This is simply solipsism and therefore bullshit. Either solipsism is the answer to everything and we can stop thinking, or it is the answer to nothing.
I have decided that it is the answer to nothing and can therefore be discarded.
I'm sorry you had such a rough time. Unfortunately, scientific research is beginning to show that there is little difference between heroine addiction, cell phone addiction and eating too much. Your experience may make you feel entitled to your opinion, but it has little to do with reality.
Slashdot Mirror
It's illegal in the same way that going faster than 8mph was illegal in cars a hundred years ago. Once the technology is proven, it won't be illegal anymore.
The Hitler/Atheism claim confuses me as well. Hitler told his Christian nation to kill the Jews for Christian reasons. And they did it. If he'd have told them to do it "because there is no god", they'd have probably scratched their heads in confusion.
I don't have any issue with this guys rantings getting out. I think we should read them and think about them, and if they're insane, discard them. But we shouldn't hide them.
How will we know if they're good ideas or not if we don't see them in their entirety? If we don't inspect and analyze them in detail? If we don't find the places that are morally unjustifiable and rip them to shreds?
As long as it remains a "1500 page manifesto" that no one has read, all kinds of people might believe that they agree with it. As a thoroughly refuted diatribe of insanity, everyone can reject it and move on.
I mean, isn't this why censorship is wrong? Forewarned is forearmed.
Can I just do this to completely abdicate responsibility for my own grammar?
[sic]The following words are grammatically and syntactically flawless[/sic]
This is the interesting portion. Would a woman wearing a burka be required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation? Why or why not? Discuss.
What! Why is this -1? Genius, my anonymous friend, genius!
Wait, so you're telling me he just re-invented the wheel?
I think in the end, the final solution to the Stasi was to overthrow the government...
It sounds awesome. Now, by holding a cell phone next to your ear it will make you healthy instead of giving you cancer!
I'd TAP that.
badum-clack
Thank you folks, I'll be here all night.
It's the "killed humanely" that you're going to have trouble with. Please watch "Food, Inc." for some rather disturbing images of how your food is killed.
Hint: It ain't humanely
I didn't catch some of those references and, quite frankly, I'm terrified to google them.
First they came for the assholes...
Wait. Where was I going with this?
At least you'd know where your keys were, then.
As Dawkins points out in The Selfish Gene (which is a fantastic read) and The God Delusion, genetic-driven behaviors are only "rules-of-thumb". It makes sense for us to be altruistic to close family, then extended family, almost not at all to strangers. However, until recently, most people never met complete strangers, so there was no genetic advantage to curtailing altruistic behavior. Most of the time it just wasn't relevant. Therefore, any altruism you feel towards strangers is a happy accident, a sloppy implementation that spills over its original purpose.
I think this misses the point. It's not about making friends, its about using the tool of how we eat lunch to improve relationships between people and thus make them better contributors. You'll work better with people who are your friends.
Also, you're a lucky man indeed if your manager pushes you to have friends to improve your performance rather than, say, berating you in front of your coworkers.
That would have been completely pointless in any place that I've worked. Standard IT answer is "no" because no is cheaper and less work for them than "yes".
There's a lot of hate on for the poster of this story, but I feel for him. It's easy to say he should have gone to IT first, but that's the same as saying it will never happen. It's frustrating being hampered at work, knowing there's technology out there that would fix your issues in a pinch, but you're never going to see that solution because by the time it's gone through all of IT's procedures, you've left the job for greener pastures.
Ha ha ha! Well put.
At my old job our IT department usually just seemed like they worked for a different company. Maybe one of our competitors. They sure as hell didn't work for us.
I type using the Colemak keyboard layout, and requested that the driver be installed on my computer so that I could type. No way in hell were they going to let that happen.
Yet at least 15 other computers had third-party screensavers installed on them (the dog licking the pane of glass one). Well done, IT's finest! Keep me from doing my job with your security policies but let people install screensavers, one of the largest attack vectors of malware in the world.
My mistake? Telling IT about the driver in the first place.
Exactly. How am I supposed to Rick-Roll or Goatse people in this new Xanadu? That's why it hasn't taken off.
What if the parents aren't doing it very well?
Hah! I already thought of that. Your bill is in the mail.
Maybe because at the end of the day your opinion about an arbitrary number doesn't really mean anything? I'm not trying to be rude, but what the hell does it matter what they call it? Will they offend the International Software Versioning Board? No. Is the planet going to spiral into the sun? No. You think numbers should go up in smaller increments. They think they should go up faster. Who gives a crap?
And +5 Interesting to one man's opinion about an arbitrary number? Come on!
It's amazing how many scientists and mathematicians conveniently ignore Einsteins's speech on this matter. It's almost as if they sweep it under the rug because it's too uncomfortable to face the fact that all math and science are based on axiomatic "a priori" knowledge, basically it's faith. I have no evidence that my brain is not floating in some vat somewhere with electrodes sticking out of it, but I take it on faith that it's not. My knowledge starts from faith that the world exists as I see it. I can't confirm that independently of my own experience.
This is simply solipsism and therefore bullshit. Either solipsism is the answer to everything and we can stop thinking, or it is the answer to nothing.
I have decided that it is the answer to nothing and can therefore be discarded.
they do apparently have some sort of proprietary Commodore OS
Actually, they have a "propriety" Commodore OS. What that is I have no idea. But it sounds snobbish.
I'm sorry you had such a rough time. Unfortunately, scientific research is beginning to show that there is little difference between heroine addiction, cell phone addiction and eating too much. Your experience may make you feel entitled to your opinion, but it has little to do with reality.