Paraphrased, "We only kill the moose because we care" is an often heard argument. Why can't they shoot tranquilizers and neuter them instead if the welfare of the moose is their motive?
The left party's (Vänsterpartiet) line on copyright and integrity is no further from the PP:s than the greenses. Your comment would probably hold true regarding the social democrats, though.
No, I tell them that I believe that eating their oatmeal would be beneficial for their wellbeing and I support my claims by asserting that there will most probably, according to empirical data, be a stretch of time until lunch at kindergarten where no meals are offered, which could lead to an adverse feeling of hunger.
Perhaps, when being told what to do, we should also teach them to signal that they've received the order by extending their right hand at an angle of about 30-45 degrees, open palm facing down, shouting "Sieg heil!"?;)
Funny how there are two distinct ways of handling un-democratic countries. Either you trade with them to make them more democratic or you boycott them for not being democratic. You (A government + business) can't be wrong, either way. Very clever.
All I was saying was that exploiting peoples labor in order to enrich one self ("Kiss ass, won't you bitch, so you can get rich, but your boss gets richer off you", as Dead Kennedys puts it) is fucked up and exploiting them sexually is generally more fucked up.
Sure it's a moral hangup if Karl Marx is the personification of one big moral hangup.
I know prostitution can be much more lucrative and easier than flipping burgers. The world is fucked up in a way that makes people want money so badly that they'd sell their intimacy to fugly rich guys. Some emerge more, some less scathed. Some maybe unscathed. In general, I think this is fucked up, like the whole damn system is generally fucked up.
If you see capitalism as non-exploitative, as an agreement between equals, then it will be easier to envision the happy prostitute, of course.
Another, unrelated thing is that whores are often looked down upon, as if they're doing something wrong. That's fucked up as well. There sure is lots fuckeduppedness to go around.
You're kind of right. Being able to hire people who need the money to do a shitty job is exploitation. But there's a big difference in being fucked by the exploiter figuratively and literally. Sex is intimate and can screw with you worse than the boredom and aching feet (or whatever) that flipping burgers entails. There are similarites between prostitution and other kinds of "wage slavery", but the two are generally in different leagues of fuckeduppedness.
>Since when is the point of comedy to accomplish something?
I don't know since when, but IMO, comedy that doesn't have a message of some kind isn't as much fun. Bill Hicks is (was) a veritable preacher and one of the best comedians I've come across.
How is this "Groundhog day" reference relevant? I'm not saying it isn't, but could you explain, I'm feeling a bit under the weather and the brain doesn't perhaps make the connections it should.
>On what planet? Here on earth journalism has always been about what will sell papers or garner eyeballs.
On planet earth, some places still have publicly funded, non-commercial journalism without political ties. The BBC comes to mind as well as the public broadcasters in all the Nordic countries (at least). I'm pretty sure these public broadcasters are the biggest and the best in their respective countries. Socialism FTW!
(Then, of course, one might have to complement them with a niche paper from an eco-vegan-feminist-queer-punk perspective, or whatever, to get more non mainstream news, but as regular broadcasters go, they're pretty good, I think.)
Unless I misunderstand (which sure is possible), us freewheeling schmoes using this shit will not have much chance suddenly makinhg a business out of our hobby of some sort of streaming video shit. Gotta keep the have-nots out of the haveses pockets!?
But extreme language is not a question of legality, it's a question of manners. We would like kids to have manners mostly (we wouldn't like them to bow down to the next Hitler, though, but to tell him to go fuck himself). Point remaining: I don't think etreme language is that much of a problem. There might of course be an underlying problem of some anti social nature, but getting ones longjohns in a twist over the symptoms of foul language wouldn't be the correct approach any way, I think.
In more civilized nations, we have no problem with children using extreme language in extreme situations.
the problem arises when the children think it's fun/cool to use that language everywhere. This is where parents should do something, not when government should.
What is the problem with that? Sure it can be an annoyance, but I'm not sure it would qualify as a real "problem". If kids want to fit in under some circumstances, they won't use extreme language, if that is improper. If they don't care about fitting in, that's their business, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Just run the thing a few times and you'll get almost all of it, duh!
>They won't send you more free copies now.
Unless maybe if they think they have a genuinely good book and believe that this reviewer has a reputation of having integrity.
Paraphrased, "We only kill the moose because we care" is an often heard argument. Why can't they shoot tranquilizers and neuter them instead if the welfare of the moose is their motive?
I should have posted this link (in Swedish) with my previous comment to you: http://vansterteknik.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/pps-behov-av-att-sta-ensamma/
The author was number 30 on Vänsterpartriet's ballot to the parliament.
The left party's (Vänsterpartiet) line on copyright and integrity is no further from the PP:s than the greenses. Your comment would probably hold true regarding the social democrats, though.
Being able to vote from home would open up the possibility for unscrupulous types with access to violence to force you to vote their way.
How about "One in three wants children to have unsupervised access to ultra violence and sex!"
No, I tell them that I believe that eating their oatmeal would be beneficial for their wellbeing and I support my claims by asserting that there will most probably, according to empirical data, be a stretch of time until lunch at kindergarten where no meals are offered, which could lead to an adverse feeling of hunger.
Perhaps, when being told what to do, we should also teach them to signal that they've received the order by extending their right hand at an angle of about 30-45 degrees, open palm facing down, shouting "Sieg heil!"? ;)
"Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my vacation at Lake Titicaca. Try to make a joke out of that, Mr. Smart Guy."
...and, after pulling the plug, their last brainwaves scream "That was just a pop-cultural reference meant as a joke, you stup..."
>Except isn't North Korea self-isolationist?
Apparently not to the extent of not developing flash games for the international market, though.
Funny how there are two distinct ways of handling un-democratic countries. Either you trade with them to make them more democratic or you boycott them for not being democratic. You (A government + business) can't be wrong, either way. Very clever.
All I was saying was that exploiting peoples labor in order to enrich one self ("Kiss ass, won't you bitch, so you can get rich, but your boss gets richer off you", as Dead Kennedys puts it) is fucked up and exploiting them sexually is generally more fucked up.
Sure it's a moral hangup if Karl Marx is the personification of one big moral hangup.
I know prostitution can be much more lucrative and easier than flipping burgers. The world is fucked up in a way that makes people want money so badly that they'd sell their intimacy to fugly rich guys. Some emerge more, some less scathed. Some maybe unscathed. In general, I think this is fucked up, like the whole damn system is generally fucked up.
If you see capitalism as non-exploitative, as an agreement between equals, then it will be easier to envision the happy prostitute, of course.
Another, unrelated thing is that whores are often looked down upon, as if they're doing something wrong. That's fucked up as well. There sure is lots fuckeduppedness to go around.
You're kind of right. Being able to hire people who need the money to do a shitty job is exploitation. But there's a big difference in being fucked by the exploiter figuratively and literally. Sex is intimate and can screw with you worse than the boredom and aching feet (or whatever) that flipping burgers entails. There are similarites between prostitution and other kinds of "wage slavery", but the two are generally in different leagues of fuckeduppedness.
>Since when is the point of comedy to accomplish something?
I don't know since when, but IMO, comedy that doesn't have a message of some kind isn't as much fun. Bill Hicks is (was) a veritable preacher and one of the best comedians I've come across.
How is this "Groundhog day" reference relevant? I'm not saying it isn't, but could you explain, I'm feeling a bit under the weather and the brain doesn't perhaps make the connections it should.
>On what planet? Here on earth journalism has always been about what will sell papers or garner eyeballs.
On planet earth, some places still have publicly funded, non-commercial journalism without political ties. The BBC comes to mind as well as the public broadcasters in all the Nordic countries (at least). I'm pretty sure these public broadcasters are the biggest and the best in their respective countries. Socialism FTW!
(Then, of course, one might have to complement them with a niche paper from an eco-vegan-feminist-queer-punk perspective, or whatever, to get more non mainstream news, but as regular broadcasters go, they're pretty good, I think.)
Even if they pass on Linux and code a new kernel from scratch they won't have any bigger a pool of developers, though.
I'm pretty sure people who are moving about will not die. The trick is to never stop moving.
In other word, if Canonical would like to give all regular ubuntu users the codec it would cost a shitload of money?
Unless I misunderstand (which sure is possible), us freewheeling schmoes using this shit will not have much chance suddenly makinhg a business out of our hobby of some sort of streaming video shit. Gotta keep the have-nots out of the haveses pockets!?
But extreme language is not a question of legality, it's a question of manners. We would like kids to have manners mostly (we wouldn't like them to bow down to the next Hitler, though, but to tell him to go fuck himself). Point remaining: I don't think etreme language is that much of a problem. There might of course be an underlying problem of some anti social nature, but getting ones longjohns in a twist over the symptoms of foul language wouldn't be the correct approach any way, I think.
What is the problem with that? Sure it can be an annoyance, but I'm not sure it would qualify as a real "problem". If kids want to fit in under some circumstances, they won't use extreme language, if that is improper. If they don't care about fitting in, that's their business, isn't it?
...and in Finland, the verb would be "googlata". Many finns never learn to pronounce g, though, so they'd pronounce it with k-sounds instead.