When it's time for me to go, I'm going out kicking and screaming with every bionic body part science has to offer.
That's not going to help you much when you have dementia at 90, or 120 if you're lucky. Good luck enjoying life in an incoherent mental swamp until your neurons give out.
Yes, we're running out of room, but there's always room in the rest of the solar system. The meek shall inherit the earth, the brave shall inherit the stars. Have fun dieing.
Ha! Love the optimism, but get real. By the time we manage transporting people en masse to another planet, even the Moon, and constructing some kind of place to live that not only scientists could put up with for a few months, our civilisation will have collapsed from resource depletion.
We're running out of everything as it is. Do you think we have the resources to start a human colony on another planet? How does it get built? How do we get materials there? Without atmosphere, how are we protected from solar radiation? Meteorite impacts? In low gravity, how does our body cope in the long term? Give everyone a personal gym? What about the psychological and health effects of being indoors, never seeing sky, being in the sun or walking outside? Do we all get $multi-million pressure suits or 3D artificial environments to play in?
Nobody knows what being born on another planet would do to a growing body, let alone the foetus itself. It simply may not work. And what about other animals? Imagine living without seeing birds, dogs or cats ever again.
Oh, and one other little thing - where does the water come from?
I laugh when people talk about colonising the Moon or Mars, let alone other planets. Never read a single realistic appraisal of it. It's always spoken of in vague terms, because nobody knows how it would really work.
And in the end, it just sounds like people like you use this vague dream as an excuse to do whatever you want to this planet, which is the only one we have. It's not brave to avoid your responsibilities, it's cowardly. Trash the place and run away. That behaviour is as meek as it comes, baby.
Has the Internet Mob Mentality become the modern day witch hunt?
Yes and no... the problem is that a witch hunt, or a lynch mob, is, traditionally, a single mob. The internet is made up of a whole rash of mobs and individuals who will jump in as it pleases them.
Some think amusing commentary is great, some think threats are appropriate, some want to trash a FB page. Responses are very fragmented. At least in the good old days you could spot the mob and get run out of town. Now there's nowhere to hide.
Still, the upside is internet mobs have a short memory. He will be back in a years' time and hardly anyone will be concerned anymore. "Hey, wasn't he that guy... SQUIRREL!" I don't think his life is over. People will have better other things to think about.
anyone with half a brain will realise that the religion they once believed in is full of inconsistencies
Really? There are many who were once atheist and later adopted a religion. Faith isn't about what makes sense in the real world. It's about what makes sense to the individual, emotionally.
We all have faith in things that make no sense, in one way or another. We have faith that out lives - with or without religion - have "meaning". That being human means something over being a ferret. Why? Because it's comforting to believe so. Disprovable or makes objective sense? Not in the slightest.
So let people have their faith, as you have yours. There are many things about yourself you cannot explain, despite having critical thinking skills, no?
Established business will support something that gives them that kind of edge.
Good point. And because the law says shareholders come first, they would practically be required to support it (the same way you're forced to defend patents or lose them), even if the CEO didn't like it.
Try convincing shareholders that you don't want to do something which protects their investment merely because it's unethical. Your choice is do it, or lose the confidence of the board and possibly lose your company.
This is the root problem with *everything*, and I mean everything, that goes wrong in business - from pollution to safety to employment - it affects every part of our lives. The law which says shareholders come first.
Nothing will change if that law isn't changed. I feel this is what the Occupy movement should have concentrated on. You can't ask corporations to "play fair" when the law itself says otherwise.
Another solution would be that laws are not anymore voted by representative, but open for the whole folk to vote for/against electronically.
True democracy - ie. everyone voting for everything - would lead to complete chaos. The same lack of direction and long-term thinking we have now, it would just be for different reasons.
The trouble with Democracy is that: a) people are naturally selfish and short-sighted in most situations, b) people are generally ill-informed, biased, and don't care to be otherwise, c) constitutional protections would eventually give way to rule by majority.
That may sound little different to the current situation, but at least what we have now is a body of "rulers" who are the constant focus of ire and disrespect. It is a point of focus for the population, a place we direct our dissatisfaction - instead of a cloudy, nebulous type of rule which can't be coordinated to held to account.
At least up to now, that's been the case in a fairly healthy way, but these days corruption - in terms of commercial influence - has gone way too far.
The main problem now is dismay and disenfranchisement in a system which is increasingly seen to be corrupt, corrosive and unhelpful, perhaps even ultimately counter-productive.
That makes me worry. A civilisation getting to that point has only a couple of ways to go. Reformation or collapse. The political culture isn't looking very healthy, unfortunately.
Another reason for "empathy" I can think of, is simply to become aware of danger and run. If one of your herd sees a predator and runs in fear, you will too.
The question is, is this merely a visual cue, or is it actual "empathy", that is imagining yourself as the other?
We have a tradition of assuming animals are incredibly simple and lot like us at all. I think that's been shown often now to be a flawed assumption.
I'd love to see that happen. Strangely, it used to be the case in the past, or at least that's the impression I have from watching docos about Einstein etc. Weren't inventors and scientists more in the news way back then?
Same with poets and philosophers, there was a time when they were also semi-famous. Nowadays though, the best a scientist can hope for is making a name by annoying lots of people, like Dawkins.
Still, I'm unwilling to believe that it is impossible for a corporation to be profitable and provide a social benefit, despite all the current evidence to the contrary
It's not just evidence, like climate change is based on evidence. It's pretty much a solid fact, based on repetitive observation. More like how we assume the sun will come up.
There are two simple reasons for it, one is the law - the first responsibility of a corporation is to shareholders. Not to customers, not to society, not to employees, and not to the future except as concerns the company's share price.
That can't be disputed, it is law. While grizzled campaigners occupy this and that street, nobody is pointing a finger where it should be pointed.
Second reason is share trading. Whoever kicked off the idea of share trading should be shot. Companies used to raise capital from shareholders perfectly well before share trading, and pay dividends on those shares.
Now, your share price can dive based on *the perception* that you're doing something bad for the company, or - and this is the kicker - simply not doing things which *constantly increase* share price over time.
Those things should be changed. If they aren't *nothing else will change*. I'm sure many CEOs would LOVE to do something nice once in a while, but are hamstrung by the issue of share price.
That is why corporations will *never* be a significant contributor to society, except in terms of employment - as long as employing people is good for share price.
We sincerely appreciate and respect EFF's work on his behalf, and share their commitment to protecting free speech in a rapidly changing technological world.'
Keeping in mind that "free speech" means something different to them than it does to us.
Second problem is we have absolutely no idea what climate changes the earth can sustain and which ones the earth cannot sustain.
Yes we do.:) The Earth can sustain any climate at all, proven by the fact it's still here. It's just that the fine film of mildly irritating organic residue covering the Earth, which we lovingly call "our climate", exists - as indeed does the Earth - for itself, not for the sake of any one species.
Whether religious or not, most people tend to think human beings have a "special place" here, and that nothing we do can be that "wrong". Which is true in a sense - in the scheme of things, nothing is "wrong" per se, but there are certain behaviours which are not beneficial to our species.
This is true of all species. There is no such thing as the "balance of nature". It's a myth. Species live and die so that others can live and die. I don't see "balance" there, I just see change. Nobody can say the universe is "balanced" in the sense it will always has and always will be here, so neither is the Earth in "balance".
We just live very, very short, self-centred lives (as a species if not personally) and have rather myopic vision. Which, of course, is only natural. In the end, we humans are just behaving like humans do. Then we come to the question of choice and "free will", but that's debatable.
The whole thing is very interesting, in the context of each person living a very short life, yet still being so concerned about continuation of family into a future we will never see. Whether we share the same personal concern for "species" as we do for "family" is also debatable. I don't really see it. Some psychology studies seem to indicate the larger the community we live in, the less concerned we are for others around us. Simple social overload.
So perhaps, in the end, we humans simply aren't wired to be able to conceptually care about our entire species. We just can't get our minds around it. We identify with a group, with sameness... but do we actually identify with "species"? I don't think we're wired for that.
The only thing that gives me hope are alien invasion movies. Seriously. It seems to indicate we can conceptualise ourselves as "a species". Still, they're usually centred largely around the U.S,., so maybe it comes back down to concept of "territory" rather than species per se.
Actually, Apple and other manufacturers are NOT responsible for their SUPPLIERS' mishaps.
You should be a politician.
a) A "mishap" is something not done intentionally or consistently. That is not the case here.
b) If you really believe there's no downstream responsibility, then you also believe consumers bear no responsibility for buying sweat-shop-labour products, limiting use of plastic bags, etc.
Perhaps you also think - to take it to its logical conclusion - that you, as a "consumer" (not citizen, not person - consumer) have an inalienable right to be provided with whatever you want to buy, devoid of responsibility of your actions, so you can go through life prioritising money over everything, with no thought to how your spending, burning and disposing affects anyone or anything else.
Releases should be irrelevant for a stable product
iOS anyone? Even when it comes to ubiquitous personal devices like phones, there are always reasons to know what version you're running. Sometimes it's just marketing, sometimes you need to know your old iPhone won't run the latest iOS, so it's time to upgrade. Or not.. sometimes it's about choice. Information is good.
It's only Firefox that's running around screaming about their version numbers.
What rock are you hiding under? IE 9, Photoshop CS6, Office 2010 (that's a version number, not the same thing as Office 2007), iPhone 4S, iOS 5, HTML 5, Windows 7, Android Cheese on Toast (or whatever) etc. ad infinitum.
What have you got against version numbers, so people know what technology they're using? It's quite relevant these days, what with computers and all.
According to TFA, the asteroid is mostly black and "aircraft carrier sized". The first thing that flashed into my mind was that it would be very interesting if radar images during the flyby revealed it was in fact a very, Very VERY old spacecraft.
My first thought was it might have weird black controls, labelled in black on a black background, each with a small black light which lights up black to let you know you've done something.
It's a big step for a group like Anonymous to go from releasing information that makes the populace more informed about what is really going on to releasing information that will almost certainly result in people dying.
Yet not so big for Wikileaks? Not saying there's proof Wikileaks even put anyone in danger, just saying they were seemingly unafraid to do so, and the potential victims were on the "good side" not the "bad side".
So why would Anon be worried about it, particularly if they're careful outing those for whom there is clear proof of collaboration?
So I don't quite see why they'd back down because of that. It may be that they thought about it and realised they have no idea if some "collaborators" are actually undercover police and so on. That would be a good reason.
Not to mention the inherent hypocrisy of Conservatives, whereby their battle cry of "Let The Market Decide!" turns into "They're Just After The Cash!" whenever something comes up they don't like.
Not labelling you as such, I'm just saying. But we see it in this argument about scientists chasing research grants, as if that's not how Capitalism works so why complain about it when it doesn't suit you?
We also see it in how VISA etc. were pressured to block funds to Wikileaks. On one hand it's "Free Market Rules!" and on the other it's complete control what the citizen can and can't spend their money on.
Common sense says using common sense all the time is flawed, but common sense in this case says of course pot is more addictive for some people, less so for others. As you say, it comes down to the overall effects.
As you say, we do that with alcohol - balance the gains and losses. The problem is, however, it's a political process and the political cons (pardon the pun) of legalising pot outweigh the pros. It was never really a medica/social argument. It's only ever been a political one.
Same goes for gay marriage. The conversation was always political, not about whether it's "bad for society" or not, except when saying so gained political points.
Basically, Democracy itself has its flaws, but even with that we weight the pros and cons - the latter being that we hardly every have any decent, rational discussions about anything important.
High time someone same up with a better system if you ask me.
other people, who claimed years ago to have this entirely figured out, numbers and causality and degree be damned, and who want to leverage the situation to get the cash and power
It's funny how many people argue that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy based on greed for research funds or, in Gore's case, contributions.
Sure, all research scientists are looking for grants. This isn't constrained to climate research, and it certainly isn't constrained to proving climate change is real.
Where do you think those studies come from that seem to disprove it? They got their money too, just from other vested interests. So you cannot argue it has anything to do with grant money, one way or the other.
On top of that, who do you think has more money to invest in creating a climate (pardon the pun) of doubt? In pushing spurious studies that gain attention on Fox, but when they're disproved nobody hears about it?
This study is a case in point. Fox went on endlessly about "ClimateGate" - but did they broadcast this study backing up the existing evidence for CC? Nope.
So before you start accusing others of drinking the smokestack-hurricane kool-aid, look first to what you've been swallowing - the same old mindless "they're just doing it for the money" argument which holds no water whatsoever.
Yes, discoverer. Lisp is programming. And programming is math. Math is all around us... in the tree, the rock.
So it follows then that Jobs "discovered" the iPhone, because the materials it's made up from are all around us, including the software because it's based on math. I guess he wasn't so visionary then.
Heard about this on the news, and can't believe the main story is "how this is affecting Wikileaks" as opposed to "how democracy is rigged".
I mean conservatives and other free-market enthusiasts will scream "Let the Market Decide!" from the rooftops, then as soon as people freely fund something undesirable, they say "no, we didn't mean *that* kind of free market" and clock transactions.
The free market is like a god to many people, yet this.. this is allowed to happen without so much as a peep of public discussion. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but it's times like this I really wonder if there is some global consensus on how to run things.
The "Occupy" movement should have concentrated on one specific huge issue - *money in politics* - as it's at the root of so many other issues.
Welcome to a world dominated by idiots and fame based on monkey sociology.
Reminds me of the Edison / Tesla thing. Though to my knowledge Ritchie didn't fall in love with a pigeon.
If you want to see how desperate some commentators are to excuse Jobs for not being more philanthropic, read this. Now that's an apologist in need of an apologist.
That's interesting, thanks. So then what do Occupy Wall St people mean when they say they want money out of politics? If what you say is basically the whole picture, I don't see a problem.
Still, there's the issue of parties, and don't candidates have to tow the party line on many issues regardless of their previously stated positions? Colbert & Daily Show is popular here, and Stewart recently pointed out how one of the current Rep. candidates had a position on something (pro choice I think) before and now the party has apparently made him completely change position on it.
Where does that influence come from? Or is it simply that the majority of candidates hold that position, so he had to align himself if he's going to represent the party?
Slashdot Mirror
When it's time for me to go, I'm going out kicking and screaming with every bionic body part science has to offer.
That's not going to help you much when you have dementia at 90, or 120 if you're lucky. Good luck enjoying life in an incoherent mental swamp until your neurons give out.
Yes, we're running out of room, but there's always room in the rest of the solar system. The meek shall inherit the earth, the brave shall inherit the stars. Have fun dieing.
Ha! Love the optimism, but get real. By the time we manage transporting people en masse to another planet, even the Moon, and constructing some kind of place to live that not only scientists could put up with for a few months, our civilisation will have collapsed from resource depletion.
We're running out of everything as it is. Do you think we have the resources to start a human colony on another planet? How does it get built? How do we get materials there? Without atmosphere, how are we protected from solar radiation? Meteorite impacts? In low gravity, how does our body cope in the long term? Give everyone a personal gym? What about the psychological and health effects of being indoors, never seeing sky, being in the sun or walking outside? Do we all get $multi-million pressure suits or 3D artificial environments to play in?
Nobody knows what being born on another planet would do to a growing body, let alone the foetus itself. It simply may not work. And what about other animals? Imagine living without seeing birds, dogs or cats ever again.
Oh, and one other little thing - where does the water come from?
I laugh when people talk about colonising the Moon or Mars, let alone other planets. Never read a single realistic appraisal of it. It's always spoken of in vague terms, because nobody knows how it would really work.
And in the end, it just sounds like people like you use this vague dream as an excuse to do whatever you want to this planet, which is the only one we have. It's not brave to avoid your responsibilities, it's cowardly. Trash the place and run away. That behaviour is as meek as it comes, baby.
Has the Internet Mob Mentality become the modern day witch hunt?
Yes and no... the problem is that a witch hunt, or a lynch mob, is, traditionally, a single mob. The internet is made up of a whole rash of mobs and individuals who will jump in as it pleases them.
Some think amusing commentary is great, some think threats are appropriate, some want to trash a FB page. Responses are very fragmented. At least in the good old days you could spot the mob and get run out of town. Now there's nowhere to hide.
Still, the upside is internet mobs have a short memory. He will be back in a years' time and hardly anyone will be concerned anymore. "Hey, wasn't he that guy... SQUIRREL!" I don't think his life is over. People will have better other things to think about.
anyone with half a brain will realise that the religion they once believed in is full of inconsistencies
Really? There are many who were once atheist and later adopted a religion. Faith isn't about what makes sense in the real world. It's about what makes sense to the individual, emotionally.
We all have faith in things that make no sense, in one way or another. We have faith that out lives - with or without religion - have "meaning". That being human means something over being a ferret. Why? Because it's comforting to believe so. Disprovable or makes objective sense? Not in the slightest.
So let people have their faith, as you have yours. There are many things about yourself you cannot explain, despite having critical thinking skills, no?
Oh, not this crap again.
Link to crap on Wikipedia. See also section below, "Criticism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_value#Maximizing_shareholder_value
Established business will support something that gives them that kind of edge.
Good point. And because the law says shareholders come first, they would practically be required to support it (the same way you're forced to defend patents or lose them), even if the CEO didn't like it.
Try convincing shareholders that you don't want to do something which protects their investment merely because it's unethical. Your choice is do it, or lose the confidence of the board and possibly lose your company.
This is the root problem with *everything*, and I mean everything, that goes wrong in business - from pollution to safety to employment - it affects every part of our lives. The law which says shareholders come first.
Nothing will change if that law isn't changed. I feel this is what the Occupy movement should have concentrated on. You can't ask corporations to "play fair" when the law itself says otherwise.
It's now around $300 million a year.
Ah, that explains how they can release new versions so much more quickly now. :)
Another solution would be that laws are not anymore voted by representative, but open for the whole folk to vote for/against electronically.
True democracy - ie. everyone voting for everything - would lead to complete chaos. The same lack of direction and long-term thinking we have now, it would just be for different reasons.
The trouble with Democracy is that:
a) people are naturally selfish and short-sighted in most situations,
b) people are generally ill-informed, biased, and don't care to be otherwise,
c) constitutional protections would eventually give way to rule by majority.
That may sound little different to the current situation, but at least what we have now is a body of "rulers" who are the constant focus of ire and disrespect. It is a point of focus for the population, a place we direct our dissatisfaction - instead of a cloudy, nebulous type of rule which can't be coordinated to held to account.
At least up to now, that's been the case in a fairly healthy way, but these days corruption - in terms of commercial influence - has gone way too far.
The main problem now is dismay and disenfranchisement in a system which is increasingly seen to be corrupt, corrosive and unhelpful, perhaps even ultimately counter-productive.
That makes me worry. A civilisation getting to that point has only a couple of ways to go. Reformation or collapse. The political culture isn't looking very healthy, unfortunately.
Another reason for "empathy" I can think of, is simply to become aware of danger and run. If one of your herd sees a predator and runs in fear, you will too.
The question is, is this merely a visual cue, or is it actual "empathy", that is imagining yourself as the other?
We have a tradition of assuming animals are incredibly simple and lot like us at all. I think that's been shown often now to be a flawed assumption.
I'd love to see that happen. Strangely, it used to be the case in the past, or at least that's the impression I have from watching docos about Einstein etc. Weren't inventors and scientists more in the news way back then?
Same with poets and philosophers, there was a time when they were also semi-famous. Nowadays though, the best a scientist can hope for is making a name by annoying lots of people, like Dawkins.
This cycle is what is driving the society down under.
Ah, so that's where all these boat people are coming from!
Still, I'm unwilling to believe that it is impossible for a corporation to be profitable and provide a social benefit, despite all the current evidence to the contrary
It's not just evidence, like climate change is based on evidence. It's pretty much a solid fact, based on repetitive observation. More like how we assume the sun will come up.
There are two simple reasons for it, one is the law - the first responsibility of a corporation is to shareholders. Not to customers, not to society, not to employees, and not to the future except as concerns the company's share price.
That can't be disputed, it is law. While grizzled campaigners occupy this and that street, nobody is pointing a finger where it should be pointed.
Second reason is share trading. Whoever kicked off the idea of share trading should be shot. Companies used to raise capital from shareholders perfectly well before share trading, and pay dividends on those shares.
Now, your share price can dive based on *the perception* that you're doing something bad for the company, or - and this is the kicker - simply not doing things which *constantly increase* share price over time.
Those things should be changed. If they aren't *nothing else will change*. I'm sure many CEOs would LOVE to do something nice once in a while, but are hamstrung by the issue of share price.
That is why corporations will *never* be a significant contributor to society, except in terms of employment - as long as employing people is good for share price.
We sincerely appreciate and respect EFF's work on his behalf, and share their commitment to protecting free speech in a rapidly changing technological world.'
Keeping in mind that "free speech" means something different to them than it does to us.
Second problem is we have absolutely no idea what climate changes the earth can sustain and which ones the earth cannot sustain.
Yes we do. :) The Earth can sustain any climate at all, proven by the fact it's still here. It's just that the fine film of mildly irritating organic residue covering the Earth, which we lovingly call "our climate", exists - as indeed does the Earth - for itself, not for the sake of any one species.
Whether religious or not, most people tend to think human beings have a "special place" here, and that nothing we do can be that "wrong". Which is true in a sense - in the scheme of things, nothing is "wrong" per se, but there are certain behaviours which are not beneficial to our species.
This is true of all species. There is no such thing as the "balance of nature". It's a myth. Species live and die so that others can live and die. I don't see "balance" there, I just see change. Nobody can say the universe is "balanced" in the sense it will always has and always will be here, so neither is the Earth in "balance".
We just live very, very short, self-centred lives (as a species if not personally) and have rather myopic vision. Which, of course, is only natural. In the end, we humans are just behaving like humans do. Then we come to the question of choice and "free will", but that's debatable.
The whole thing is very interesting, in the context of each person living a very short life, yet still being so concerned about continuation of family into a future we will never see. Whether we share the same personal concern for "species" as we do for "family" is also debatable. I don't really see it. Some psychology studies seem to indicate the larger the community we live in, the less concerned we are for others around us. Simple social overload.
So perhaps, in the end, we humans simply aren't wired to be able to conceptually care about our entire species. We just can't get our minds around it. We identify with a group, with sameness... but do we actually identify with "species"? I don't think we're wired for that.
The only thing that gives me hope are alien invasion movies. Seriously. It seems to indicate we can conceptualise ourselves as "a species". Still, they're usually centred largely around the U.S,., so maybe it comes back down to concept of "territory" rather than species per se.
Oh well. We'll find out soon enough. :)
Even China ... They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same.
I get your point, but China hardly "keeps to itself", and nobody would expect a major power to do so. You don't have to be open about manipulation.
Trade deals between countries have always been about getting what you want from that country in return for investment. Or indeed military exercises.
Actually, Apple and other manufacturers are NOT responsible for their SUPPLIERS' mishaps.
You should be a politician.
a) A "mishap" is something not done intentionally or consistently. That is not the case here.
b) If you really believe there's no downstream responsibility, then you also believe consumers bear no responsibility for buying sweat-shop-labour products, limiting use of plastic bags, etc.
Perhaps you also think - to take it to its logical conclusion - that you, as a "consumer" (not citizen, not person - consumer) have an inalienable right to be provided with whatever you want to buy, devoid of responsibility of your actions, so you can go through life prioritising money over everything, with no thought to how your spending, burning and disposing affects anyone or anything else.
Releases should be irrelevant for a stable product
iOS anyone? Even when it comes to ubiquitous personal devices like phones, there are always reasons to know what version you're running. Sometimes it's just marketing, sometimes you need to know your old iPhone won't run the latest iOS, so it's time to upgrade. Or not.. sometimes it's about choice. Information is good.
It's only Firefox that's running around screaming about their version numbers.
What rock are you hiding under? IE 9, Photoshop CS6, Office 2010 (that's a version number, not the same thing as Office 2007), iPhone 4S, iOS 5, HTML 5, Windows 7, Android Cheese on Toast (or whatever) etc. ad infinitum.
What have you got against version numbers, so people know what technology they're using? It's quite relevant these days, what with computers and all.
According to TFA, the asteroid is mostly black and "aircraft carrier sized". The first thing that flashed into my mind was that it would be very interesting if radar images during the flyby revealed it was in fact a very, Very VERY old spacecraft.
My first thought was it might have weird black controls, labelled in black on a black background, each with a small black light which lights up black to let you know you've done something.
It's a big step for a group like Anonymous to go from releasing information that makes the populace more informed about what is really going on to releasing information that will almost certainly result in people dying.
Yet not so big for Wikileaks? Not saying there's proof Wikileaks even put anyone in danger, just saying they were seemingly unafraid to do so, and the potential victims were on the "good side" not the "bad side".
So why would Anon be worried about it, particularly if they're careful outing those for whom there is clear proof of collaboration?
So I don't quite see why they'd back down because of that. It may be that they thought about it and realised they have no idea if some "collaborators" are actually undercover police and so on. That would be a good reason.
Not to mention the inherent hypocrisy of Conservatives, whereby their battle cry of "Let The Market Decide!" turns into "They're Just After The Cash!" whenever something comes up they don't like.
Not labelling you as such, I'm just saying. But we see it in this argument about scientists chasing research grants, as if that's not how Capitalism works so why complain about it when it doesn't suit you?
We also see it in how VISA etc. were pressured to block funds to Wikileaks. On one hand it's "Free Market Rules!" and on the other it's complete control what the citizen can and can't spend their money on.
Common sense says using common sense all the time is flawed, but common sense in this case says of course pot is more addictive for some people, less so for others. As you say, it comes down to the overall effects.
As you say, we do that with alcohol - balance the gains and losses. The problem is, however, it's a political process and the political cons (pardon the pun) of legalising pot outweigh the pros. It was never really a medica/social argument. It's only ever been a political one.
Same goes for gay marriage. The conversation was always political, not about whether it's "bad for society" or not, except when saying so gained political points.
Basically, Democracy itself has its flaws, but even with that we weight the pros and cons - the latter being that we hardly every have any decent, rational discussions about anything important.
High time someone same up with a better system if you ask me.
other people, who claimed years ago to have this entirely figured out, numbers and causality and degree be damned, and who want to leverage the situation to get the cash and power
It's funny how many people argue that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy based on greed for research funds or, in Gore's case, contributions.
Sure, all research scientists are looking for grants. This isn't constrained to climate research, and it certainly isn't constrained to proving climate change is real.
Where do you think those studies come from that seem to disprove it? They got their money too, just from other vested interests. So you cannot argue it has anything to do with grant money, one way or the other.
On top of that, who do you think has more money to invest in creating a climate (pardon the pun) of doubt? In pushing spurious studies that gain attention on Fox, but when they're disproved nobody hears about it?
This study is a case in point. Fox went on endlessly about "ClimateGate" - but did they broadcast this study backing up the existing evidence for CC? Nope.
So before you start accusing others of drinking the smokestack-hurricane kool-aid, look first to what you've been swallowing - the same old mindless "they're just doing it for the money" argument which holds no water whatsoever.
Yes, discoverer. Lisp is programming. And programming is math. Math is all around us... in the tree, the rock.
So it follows then that Jobs "discovered" the iPhone, because the materials it's made up from are all around us, including the software because it's based on math. I guess he wasn't so visionary then.
Heard about this on the news, and can't believe the main story is "how this is affecting Wikileaks" as opposed to "how democracy is rigged".
I mean conservatives and other free-market enthusiasts will scream "Let the Market Decide!" from the rooftops, then as soon as people freely fund something undesirable, they say "no, we didn't mean *that* kind of free market" and clock transactions.
The free market is like a god to many people, yet this.. this is allowed to happen without so much as a peep of public discussion. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but it's times like this I really wonder if there is some global consensus on how to run things.
The "Occupy" movement should have concentrated on one specific huge issue - *money in politics* - as it's at the root of so many other issues.
Welcome to a world dominated by idiots and fame based on monkey sociology.
Reminds me of the Edison / Tesla thing. Though to my knowledge Ritchie didn't fall in love with a pigeon.
If you want to see how desperate some commentators are to excuse Jobs for not being more philanthropic, read this. Now that's an apologist in need of an apologist.
That's interesting, thanks. So then what do Occupy Wall St people mean when they say they want money out of politics? If what you say is basically the whole picture, I don't see a problem.
Still, there's the issue of parties, and don't candidates have to tow the party line on many issues regardless of their previously stated positions? Colbert & Daily Show is popular here, and Stewart recently pointed out how one of the current Rep. candidates had a position on something (pro choice I think) before and now the party has apparently made him completely change position on it.
Where does that influence come from? Or is it simply that the majority of candidates hold that position, so he had to align himself if he's going to represent the party?