But if she can be artificially made happy by booze, friends and hot guys for a few hours, it's logical to assume she is happy 24/7 at home...
It only seems logical if you have no understanding of mental illness. With a little effort you find that ignorance masquerading as logic is a poor substitute for real knowledge.
I have a few friends who suffer, and if they were not receiving medication and therapy, they would never have the will to see daylight, let alone accomplish anything
I'm not biting the bullet by myself. Wellbutrin is the greatest thing ever invented and I've got no problem writing out the 2 cents per paycheck to the FEds or my insurance so that people that need psych meds can get them. Without meds, its just aweful.
If you really are on Wellbutrin as you claim then maybe you understand how complex and time-consuming it is to find the correct medicine and dosage for illnesses like depression. Based on your comments, I'm not inclined to believe that you are - and if you are, perhaps it isn't the correct medication for you. Lack of empathy doesn't really fall into the depression spectrum, it's more like borderline or even paranoid personality disorders.
If you had a deeper understanding of mental illness, you would probably have some compassion for people who struggle for years after seeking treatment to have some positive results, and many others that find testing med after med leads to disaster as often as improvement.
If you are satisfied with taking your pill and feel that is all that your illness requires, I strongly suggest you consider a more complete treatment program that includes weekly therapy sessions with someone that isn't a psychiatrist. Perhaps you will gain some coping mechanisms to deal with the issues that a pill will never solve.
Public bans in "Restaurants, Bars, Etc," hmm, who owns the restaurant or bar where you go? Does the government own it? Does the "public" own it? I suspect a person or corporate entity owns it. That would make it a private property, not a public one. Where do you get off telling me or anyone else who my clientele will be? If I want to cater to smokers that should my business choice. Let's have a debate about public smoking since it is an issue, but first, lets remember what "public" is. Grimjack
If you actually read my post you will note I specifically stated I was for private bans, not public bans as you suggest.
I read the article, and while it wasn't 100% clear, it looks like the computer is damaged by smoke (tar). What is confusing is that Apple is doing an OSHA violation stating we can't make anyone work on it because of contamination. What is it? Contamination or owner damage? If I have a warranty that includes fixing it including when I drop the computer, then they should fix it, but then they can say OSHA violation and NOT fix it.
If I had to guess, I'd say they want a way to avoid checking tar-laden computers on a case-by-case basis. If they find OSHA grounds, they can just say 'no' en masse without spending tech-man hours deciding whether to honor this or that computer.
I don't think it will hold up, but I can understand their reasons to give it a shot.
If we're going to start voiding warranties for computers that spent time in households that contributed to component failure, though, smokers aren't really the only place to look (or even necessarily the place to start). Pet-owning households are particularly bad, for example.
I think acute and chronic stupidity would both qualify, too. Odorless, tasteless, they are the silent killers of the electronics world.
I mean, apart from the yelling and crashing sounds as I fall down the stairs.
I find cigarette smoking to be pretty repulsive myself, though I do enjoy a good cigar from time to time. I think we've gone too war with the war on smoking though. There are actually municipalities now that are considering banning smoking outdoors. WTF is wrong with that picture?
More than thinking about it, I assure you. I fully support banning smoking in bars and restaurants, but sidewalk bans are going too far.
But the reefer madness and junk science used by the tobacco prohibitionists has convinced people of the lies that second hand smoke is worse than plutonium. And lawyers and juries and OSHA will enforce these lies that will have employees opening computers in biohazard suits while they will sit quietly on a bench while a diesel bus idles next to them.
Apple users don't take the bus, you insensitive clod.
Something like 20%-25% of the population are smokers, but despite there being 3 times as many obese people, there are only slightly more obesity related deaths than smoking related deaths.
I want to believe these numbers, they make me feel good, but I'd love to see a link to your source.
Smoking is a personal choice and should be left as that. You wanting to impose HARSH penalties on smokers is nothing more then you wanting to dictate the actions of another person. You even want to impose your will in my private home? What the hell man. What would give you, or anyone else, the right to tell me what I can do in my own home?
I choose to smoke cigars and pipes and I will continue to do so even if illegal. They can come and take them when they come for my guns.
As much of a leftie as I am (I'm assuming you're towards the right based on your remarks), I actually agree with you. I don't have a problem with private bans on smoking (restaurants, bars, etc) but public bans (sidewalks) are a terrible idea and I won't even dignify a ban in people's homes with a response. I'm curious about your position on gay marriage.
I think there's a real opportunity to overcome some of these divisive issues so we can get rid of some of the rats in Washington. That's just good for everyone.
Don't agree. After this whole thing blew up I watched the Verizon ads. They make clear they are discussing 3G coverage, not generalized coverage (which would be available almost everywhere).
Aside -
Have you ever been to a place without cellphone coverage (and I don't mean because the building's walls are blocking). My digital phone doesn't work in mountainous areas, but my old analog phone seemed to work everywhere. It makes me wish analog was still alive, if only for backup.
I agree, but I have to say I'm glad I don't have to buy and deploy all that cable every time I take a road trip anymore.
I'd probably watch it, and maybe even yell at the TV screen.;-)
Yeah, Sunday round-table programming is like low-impact aerobics for me; my respiration and heart rate go up dramatically from all that yelling, and my upper body get a nice workout from pounding my chair arms.
That sort of "pay back" would be just as bad as the thing that he did. Better if his employer simply reprimands him for violating the anonymity inherent in the poll he administrated.
Just because he could did not mean he was justified in doing so. The correct action would have been to delete the offensive content, then either (A) remove the anonymity, so that the anonymous user couldn't continue to post or (B) ban that IP for the rest of the poll (or permanently, it's your decision).
Since Kurt evidently violated the site's privacy policy by his actions, and that violation resulted in the wronged party losing his job, it seems to me that Kurt should be out on the street too. A reprimand seems too generous.
The issue to debate here is not whether someone should lose their job over posting a vulgarity on the internet.
The issue to debate here is whether someone should lose their job over posting a vulgarity on the internet while at work.
And if anyone would RTFA, they would have noticed that he made the post twice. The first time, they just deleted it w/o a second thought, but he reposted it. Again, he did it while at work.
And, does anyone know what else was he doing on company time?
Not teaching. They frown on that kind of thing nowadays.
I don't agree with the idea that social taboo as a means of behavioral regulation is a bad thing. Telling teachers to behave in a manner that highlights to children how we would like the future generation to conduct themselves is not OMG CENSORSHIP, it's the process by which tribal savages become productive farmers, who become orderly towns people who become civilized nations.
I think the time for the moral majority is dying, and I'm thrilled. Keep your social taboos off my freedom of speech.
I also don't think people should be fired for shooting their mouths off in a venue unrelated to their job. I mean for god's sake, he wasn't even posting under his own name, his IP was traced. Even if it wasn't, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to express themselves? Shouldn't they be encouraging free expression, even if it's vulgar, between the test-prep sessions?
Okay, his post was fairly puerile and probably not the funny response he wanted. What the hell, sometimes you drop a bomb. It doesn't mean you should lose your job.
BTW, I meant to write: "If it hurt someone but it's not ILlegal, it's ok"
Sound like the same arguments that those robber barons use to screw over talent when they get them to sign a contract that benefits only the robber barons.
IMO:./'s Preview system suck's Donkey's balls
Yeah, preview could use some work. Carriage returns don't always seem to work the way you expect, either. Ah well.
On your other point, I have to say I disagree with your reasoning.
There's a big difference between major corporate interests using deep lobbying pockets to craft laws that benefit them, and individuals or small groups of people working within the confines of the laws by which they are compelled. The robber barons you refer to are measurably harming the talent. Making a digital copy of a work, it's just murkier. There's likely some indirect harm, and just as likely some indirect benefit, and the key word is "indirect".
Even looking past that though, we're actually discussing legal prosecution, not ethics or morality - I mean, I've known some lawyers. In essence, "it's not illegal" is the only part of the statement above that is relevant. Whether (or when) it's "okay" to in some indirect way aid the infringement of copyright - it just isn't something a court of law is made to decide - only the law.
If courts throw out actual law in favor of what they think is "okay", then it just isn't a legal system - it's an angry mob.
In the eyes of the law (and flash) they are facily-tatin' the illegal distribution of moonshine. At the very least, they look guilty as hell, with them outlaw haircuts and that fancy car."
I agree with this. I think that if they look guilty, and have a name that makes them sound guilty, they should be treated as though they were guilty of breaking the law.
Details like, "are they actually guilty" then become totally irrelevant! They are being treated as though they were guilty, so they must be!
Besides, they have "pirate" right in their name! Just like those IP thieves over at Puzzle Pirates, or those hired goons in Pittsburg.
It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of public perception. TPB is looking like they're slapped on the wrist for doing something, and their response is "okay, we'll do that instead. Catch us now!". There's no better posture to adopt to attract the ire of the law, which, incidentally, does seem to operate on black and white more often than not...
It sounds like you may be confusing a court of law with the court of public opinion. If TPB is told they're doing something illegal, and their response is, "okay, we'll do that instead. Is it illegal now?", they may well attract the ire of individuals - but if they're obeying the letter of the law they won't be (legally) penalized.
In fact, if they are following the law and they get guilty verdicts anyway, it is a huge win for them - they are illustrating inherent injustice and justifying their value to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
But if she can be artificially made happy by booze, friends and hot guys for a few hours, it's logical to assume she is happy 24/7 at home...
It only seems logical if you have no understanding of mental illness. With a little effort you find that ignorance masquerading as logic is a poor substitute for real knowledge.
I have a few friends who suffer, and if they were not receiving medication and therapy, they would never have the will to see daylight, let alone accomplish anything
I'm not biting the bullet by myself. Wellbutrin is the greatest thing ever invented and I've got no problem writing out the 2 cents per paycheck to the FEds or my insurance so that people that need psych meds can get them. Without meds, its just aweful.
If you really are on Wellbutrin as you claim then maybe you understand how complex and time-consuming it is to find the correct medicine and dosage for illnesses like depression. Based on your comments, I'm not inclined to believe that you are - and if you are, perhaps it isn't the correct medication for you. Lack of empathy doesn't really fall into the depression spectrum, it's more like borderline or even paranoid personality disorders.
If you had a deeper understanding of mental illness, you would probably have some compassion for people who struggle for years after seeking treatment to have some positive results, and many others that find testing med after med leads to disaster as often as improvement.
If you are satisfied with taking your pill and feel that is all that your illness requires, I strongly suggest you consider a more complete treatment program that includes weekly therapy sessions with someone that isn't a psychiatrist. Perhaps you will gain some coping mechanisms to deal with the issues that a pill will never solve.
Good day, sir.
Public bans in "Restaurants, Bars, Etc," hmm, who owns the restaurant or bar where you go? Does the government own it? Does the "public" own it? I suspect a person or corporate entity owns it. That would make it a private property, not a public one. Where do you get off telling me or anyone else who my clientele will be? If I want to cater to smokers that should my business choice. Let's have a debate about public smoking since it is an issue, but first, lets remember what "public" is.
Grimjack
If you actually read my post you will note I specifically stated I was for private bans, not public bans as you suggest.
I read the article, and while it wasn't 100% clear, it looks like the computer is damaged by smoke (tar). What is confusing is that Apple is doing an OSHA violation stating we can't make anyone work on it because of contamination. What is it? Contamination or owner damage? If I have a warranty that includes fixing it including when I drop the computer, then they should fix it, but then they can say OSHA violation and NOT fix it.
If I had to guess, I'd say they want a way to avoid checking tar-laden computers on a case-by-case basis. If they find OSHA grounds, they can just say 'no' en masse without spending tech-man hours deciding whether to honor this or that computer.
I don't think it will hold up, but I can understand their reasons to give it a shot.
Yes, because /that/ is hugely relevant and entirely comparable, Jesus.
Hey, c'mon now - I could understand why that guy would hate porn. I mean, have you seen his palms?
That would void the warranties of about 90% of all apple products sold.
Yet another great reason to use a vaporizer.
If we're going to start voiding warranties for computers that spent time in households that contributed to component failure, though, smokers aren't really the only place to look (or even necessarily the place to start). Pet-owning households are particularly bad, for example.
I think acute and chronic stupidity would both qualify, too. Odorless, tasteless, they are the silent killers of the electronics world.
I mean, apart from the yelling and crashing sounds as I fall down the stairs.
If you're white, male, and under 40, you're pretty much screwed as far as anti discrimination laws are concerned.
Fortunately we pretty much have the market cornered for pro-discrimination laws, so I'd say it works out okay in the end.
I find cigarette smoking to be pretty repulsive myself, though I do enjoy a good cigar from time to time. I think we've gone too war with the war on smoking though. There are actually municipalities now that are considering banning smoking outdoors. WTF is wrong with that picture?
More than thinking about it, I assure you. I fully support banning smoking in bars and restaurants, but sidewalk bans are going too far.
But the reefer madness and junk science used by the tobacco prohibitionists has convinced people of the lies that second hand smoke is worse than plutonium. And lawyers and juries and OSHA will enforce these lies that will have employees opening computers in biohazard suits while they will sit quietly on a bench while a diesel bus idles next to them.
Apple users don't take the bus, you insensitive clod.
Something like 20%-25% of the population are smokers, but despite there being 3 times as many obese people, there are only slightly more obesity related deaths than smoking related deaths.
I want to believe these numbers, they make me feel good, but I'd love to see a link to your source.
Please tell me this a joke right?
Smoking is a personal choice and should be left as that. You wanting to impose HARSH penalties on smokers is nothing more then you wanting to dictate the actions of another person. You even want to impose your will in my private home? What the hell man. What would give you, or anyone else, the right to tell me what I can do in my own home?
I choose to smoke cigars and pipes and I will continue to do so even if illegal. They can come and take them when they come for my guns.
As much of a leftie as I am (I'm assuming you're towards the right based on your remarks), I actually agree with you. I don't have a problem with private bans on smoking (restaurants, bars, etc) but public bans (sidewalks) are a terrible idea and I won't even dignify a ban in people's homes with a response. I'm curious about your position on gay marriage.
I think there's a real opportunity to overcome some of these divisive issues so we can get rid of some of the rats in Washington. That's just good for everyone.
Can anyone explain this alphabet soup?
I'll take a shot.
1. Information wants to be free,
2. Ads cost money, therefore
3. Ads contain no information.
I think that's the gist, anyway.
Don't agree. After this whole thing blew up I watched the Verizon ads. They make clear they are discussing 3G coverage, not generalized coverage (which would be available almost everywhere).
Aside -
Have you ever been to a place without cellphone coverage (and I don't mean because the building's walls are blocking). My digital phone doesn't work in mountainous areas, but my old analog phone seemed to work everywhere. It makes me wish analog was still alive, if only for backup.
I agree, but I have to say I'm glad I don't have to buy and deploy all that cable every time I take a road trip anymore.
I feel bad this guy's cover was blown.
I'd probably watch it, and maybe even yell at the TV screen. ;-)
Yeah, Sunday round-table programming is like low-impact aerobics for me; my respiration and heart rate go up dramatically from all that yelling, and my upper body get a nice workout from pounding my chair arms.
Not great for my blood pressure though.
That sort of "pay back" would be just as bad as the thing that he did. Better if his employer simply reprimands him for violating the anonymity inherent in the poll he administrated.
Just because he could did not mean he was justified in doing so. The correct action would have been to delete the offensive content, then either (A) remove the anonymity, so that the anonymous user couldn't continue to post or (B) ban that IP for the rest of the poll (or permanently, it's your decision).
Since Kurt evidently violated the site's privacy policy by his actions, and that violation resulted in the wronged party losing his job, it seems to me that Kurt should be out on the street too. A reprimand seems too generous.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
>"A vulgarity"? You mean the word pussy? OMFG WHAT WOULD JESUS THINK IF HE SAW THAT WORD? Guess what? People have sex.
Not in the US they don't. Decent people have their babies delivered by Fedex. Only European heathens have sex.
Pervert.
You use FedEx? You latte-drinking, book-reading, Harvard elite liberal. Real Americans use the USPS.
Pinko.
Excuse my ignorance but, isn't a pussy a small cute hairy mammal?
If you're lucky.
The issue to debate here is not whether someone should lose their job over posting a vulgarity on the internet.
The issue to debate here is whether someone should lose their job over posting a vulgarity on the internet while at work.
And if anyone would RTFA, they would have noticed that he made the post twice. The first time, they just deleted it w/o a second thought, but he reposted it. Again, he did it while at work.
And, does anyone know what else was he doing on company time?
Not teaching. They frown on that kind of thing nowadays.
I don't agree with the idea that social taboo as a means of behavioral regulation is a bad thing. Telling teachers to behave in a manner that highlights to children how we would like the future generation to conduct themselves is not OMG CENSORSHIP, it's the process by which tribal savages become productive farmers, who become orderly towns people who become civilized nations.
I think the time for the moral majority is dying, and I'm thrilled. Keep your social taboos off my freedom of speech.
I also don't think people should be fired for shooting their mouths off in a venue unrelated to their job. I mean for god's sake, he wasn't even posting under his own name, his IP was traced. Even if it wasn't, why shouldn't teachers be allowed to express themselves? Shouldn't they be encouraging free expression, even if it's vulgar, between the test-prep sessions?
Okay, his post was fairly puerile and probably not the funny response he wanted. What the hell, sometimes you drop a bomb. It doesn't mean you should lose your job.
Scientology is no more a religeon than "Jedi"
I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
BTW, I meant to write:
"If it hurt someone but it's not ILlegal, it's ok"
Sound like the same arguments that those robber barons use to screw over talent when they get them to sign a contract that benefits only the robber barons.
IMO: ./'s Preview system suck's Donkey's balls
Yeah, preview could use some work. Carriage returns don't always seem to work the way you expect, either. Ah well.
On your other point, I have to say I disagree with your reasoning.
There's a big difference between major corporate interests using deep lobbying pockets to craft laws that benefit them, and individuals or small groups of people working within the confines of the laws by which they are compelled. The robber barons you refer to are measurably harming the talent. Making a digital copy of a work, it's just murkier. There's likely some indirect harm, and just as likely some indirect benefit, and the key word is "indirect".
Even looking past that though, we're actually discussing legal prosecution, not ethics or morality - I mean, I've known some lawyers. In essence, "it's not illegal" is the only part of the statement above that is relevant. Whether (or when) it's "okay" to in some indirect way aid the infringement of copyright - it just isn't something a court of law is made to decide - only the law.
If courts throw out actual law in favor of what they think is "okay", then it just isn't a legal system - it's an angry mob.
In the eyes of the law (and flash) they are facily-tatin' the illegal distribution of moonshine. At the very least, they look guilty as hell, with them outlaw haircuts and that fancy car."
I agree with this. I think that if they look guilty, and have a name that makes them sound guilty, they should be treated as though they were guilty of breaking the law.
Details like, "are they actually guilty" then become totally irrelevant! They are being treated as though they were guilty, so they must be!
Besides, they have "pirate" right in their name! Just like those IP thieves over at Puzzle Pirates, or those hired goons in Pittsburg.
It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of public perception. TPB is looking like they're slapped on the wrist for doing something, and their response is "okay, we'll do that instead. Catch us now!". There's no better posture to adopt to attract the ire of the law, which, incidentally, does seem to operate on black and white more often than not...
It sounds like you may be confusing a court of law with the court of public opinion. If TPB is told they're doing something illegal, and their response is, "okay, we'll do that instead. Is it illegal now?", they may well attract the ire of individuals - but if they're obeying the letter of the law they won't be (legally) penalized.
In fact, if they are following the law and they get guilty verdicts anyway, it is a huge win for them - they are illustrating inherent injustice and justifying their value to the public.
(IMO, YMMV, IANAL, WWBBD, etc)