And you have justified nothing about your argument.
You claim it would destroy the world economy yet you offer no argument. you only have faith that copyright an other IP laws are the only way. I'm guessing that you yourself make your income from the current system and think we're bad people for arguing against you.
But imagine. Imagine a world where cooking wasn't covered by IP law you'd never be able to set up your own restaurant!
Why would a chef ever come up with a new recipe? Surely if he came up with a good one then McDonalds would just steal it and include it in their own chain and lock that chef out.
As soon as you came up with a good idea, theme or dish someone would just swoop in , copy your ideas and push you out of business.
Nobody would ever even try! We'd all be stuck without anything good to eat!
You know I sometimes wonder if the world would be a richer or poorer place without copyright, plenty of things would be different certainly and those who make their money from the current system will of course tell you the world would be a poorer, worse off world for it.
It's almost taken as a given that the world would have less creativity without copyright but I do wonder.
If the chef at your local restaurant had to pay royalties whenever he used a recipe published by a celebrity chef would you have a tastier and more enjoyable meal? What if he risked being sued into the ground if he created a derivative work by altering the recipe slightly without a license? or would you just have a more bland, unoriginal, uninspired and ultimately vastly more expensive meal?
If your hairdresser had to pay royalties whenever some kid comes in with a magazine picture and says they want their hair to "look like that". Would everyone have far more interesting hairstyles or would it just cost far more and see people getting sued for doing their own hair at home in a copyrighted style?
Both these things are creative and also involve a skill much like storytelling or playing a musical instrument and in both cases I've heard of people trying to get copyright protections extended to cover them.
Imagine a world where in the 17th century someone had decided that recipes and cooking should fall under copyright along with books. You can be sure that were someone to call for it's repeal 300 years later there would be no lack of "professional recipe composers" who would talk about how much work they put into working out new recipes and the time and effort it takes and how we're bad people for implying that they haven't worked hard and that they somehow don't deserve a cut whenever someone follows their recipes.
of course in a world where we're all free to take someone elses recipe, use it, copy it, publish it or even claim it as our own we know very well that fuck all harm has been done to the industry for the lack of legal protection on such creativity. We live in a world where everyone has family recipes but hardly anyone has family music.
In a world where such legal protections existed and nobody ever knew such an open and unprotected situation as we have in this world it would be very easy to claim that there would be no creativity, no well paid chefs and that setting up a kitchen would be pointless since someone else would just copy the chefs recipes.
Similarly it's taken almost as a given that the world would have less good books, less good stories and less origionality without copyright but try questioning that even for a moment.
Of course someone is going to complain that composing and cooking a good meal can't be compared to composing and playing a good piece of music because..... well just because!
Yes. we get it. you think you're very very smart. No need to keep trying to convince the world of it.
but unfortunatly the english language has no official standards body. none. Some languages do, english does not.
so if you read it and you actually understand what they intended to say then it's english. No ifs. no buts. nor any if's,but's,ifs' or buts'
So fuck off you pedantic troll. You and idiots like you make reading this site painful.
you latch on to some minor grammatical error and like the fat kid with no friends waving his hand in the air going "Oh, teacher, oh oh ask me!" you just can't stay silent and let everyone else get on with enjoying the content of the site.
Yes I'm sure you've very happy with yourself that you avoided one hazard when choosing a location.
but just also make sure to avoid anywhere near the ocean at all in case of tsunamis and any cities over fault lines and anywhere in Tornado Alley and anywhere which often experiences hurricanes and anywhere that has or could have problems with wildfires and anywhere bellow cliffs or steep hillsides in case of landslides or avalanches and anywhere near an active or dormant volcano and anywhere near deep lakes in case of limnic eruptions and anywhere which experiences serious dust storms and anywhere which experiences extreme cold and anywhere where the land is unstable and might have large sinkholes.
ok I'm fairly sure there's got to be some parts of the earths surface that I've not just eliminated...
At least one of them also has to be close to a population center where there's at least one job you can do.
all you have to do is move in there and you can feel smugly superior to every single poor fucker you ever see who's just lost everything to a natural disaster.
depends if there's a dam above his house which isn't being managed properly.
there was an unprecedented flood near where I live a while back which was very likely largly due to a new manager at the dam above the city keeping the water level higher(to increase electricity output) but as a consequence the dam wasn't able to buffer the city from flooding so well as it had been doing for decades.
A lot of poorer students got fucked over hard because they were in cheap ground floor or basement apartments which got flooded out badly destroying everything they had. Here it's also pretty much impossible to get contents insurance if you're living in a shared apartment.
so no. sometimes people can get fucked over when they don't have alternatives or when it's genuinely someone elses fault.
Bank loans and car insurance are already fairly heavily automated.
wasn't there an article a while back where it was pointed out you get better rates if you use certain browsers when applying for the loan(it only cared out correlations and apparently used that as a datapoint of some kind).
hey, I'm just surprised that the recommendations didn't simply read "we did ok but we need a lot more money for our departments because terrorists and cyberhackers"
it reads more like a report from a team building day out.
*Ya, we had lots of fun, great exercise, lets do this again some time*
they might be considering every spam email to be a separate attack.
In some cases they just make up a big number.
In others take the cost figure for an attack on some big organisation (inflated for a legal case where the jail time or penalties is based on the damage/cost) and multiply by some estimate of the number of attacks per year.
I'd still tend to go with the machines because in the end they're auditable, if you leave it to human judgement then it's easy for the humans involved to waffle on about something irrelevant and make up justifications when challenged .
but if it's in code then it's effectively in writing and you can check it and see "hey, look, it's been programmed to outright [reject]/[give AO rating to] anything with even a trace of homosexuality no matter how wholesome free of sex and violence "
It's not the fear of being outsourced that's unfair, it's all the things that often leads to.
people are afraid so they tell themselves things like "all work from that country is crap" or "just about all of them are incompetent" or even "it's morally wrong to give my job to someone overseas" to try to make themselves feel safer. but they come to believe it.
the initial worry is perfectly justified so skill up and get yourself some good blackmail material but the things people make themselves believe as a result often aren't justified.
There's pretty much the same spread of ability in Chinese workers: I spent a fair portion of my undergrad neck and neck with one of a group of Chinese students doing the course for the top of the class, (he won in the later years) but there was pretty much the exact same spread amongst the other Chinese students as amongst the rest of the class: some more interested in partying, some who did well, some who did not so well.
I'd be very surprised if there aren't back doors into US made systems, hell wasn't there a crypto scheme a while back which was being pushed by the US government where it turned out that due to a relationship between 2 numbers in the spec there could be a master key which could only be known by whoever wrote them into the spec.
I view it as stabilising, nothing like lots of trade and owing each other money to keep everyone smiling and not shooting, shooting your debtors is bad for business.
Both sides having back doors into the others secrets just makes sure they're not worried the other is planning to attack them.
It does surprise me how racist and protectionist many slashdot posters are. They're terrified of losing their job to someone abroad who's more competent so they've convinced themselves that the Chinese are incompetent and that it's (somehow)morally wrong for anyone but pure blooded Americans to get good jobs.
People seem to have missed the point: I was trying to make a point about the insane philosophy of apathy that some posters here seem to have, ie that since temperature or CO2 has been high before we should just ignore it and keep making the problem worse completely ignoring the fact that such changes often coincide with major extinction events.
You can find almost any extreme you're looking for if you don't mind going back far enough.
Why? there have always been forest fires and they're a significant source of dioxins.
PCBs are just another set of organic compounds. nothing exceptional.
mercury gets released from volcanos all the time, you can be sure the mercury levels in the water and air have fluctuated massively in the past.
GMO's are unexceptional, genes have been transplanted from species to species by viruses and other means for billions of years.
I think people missed my point in my yearlier post but your philosophy of apathy can be applied to absolutely everything. [genocide? sure millions of people have been killed off by totally natural events in the past so no need to worry about that]
So what if we're releasing a load of [anything] ? There's been loads of [anything] released into the earths atmosphere by [something that isn't human related] like volcanoes, forrest fires, asteroid strikes or new forms of life evolving and poisoning all the others.
now what this philosophy ignores is that while many things have changed the earths atmosphere to extreme degrees, made the CO2 level shoot up and down like a yoyo or released more poison into the atmosphere than every factory in history a great many of the events involved also killed off significant fractions of the life on the planet.
I'd prefer if we kept this planet habitable for ourselves, the rats and cockroaches will be fine whatever happens but we could be killed off fairly easily.
Why? The planet has been richer in CO2, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide in the past. When the planet at times has had almost no oxygen, at times it has had more, at times the air has been toxic to breath.
so why worry about pollution?
the real thing we should be worrying about is cats. sooner or later someone will invent a can opener that can be operated with a paw then we're all fucked.
Or when it comes to the point of going over your contract+ any negotiation you explain that you were advised in the past to be very wary of non competes and that you've heard stories of people being totally unable to get a job in their field for a year or more due to them so you'd prefer not to sign it unless there's some kind of income guaranteed for the term as a way to put food on your table and pay the bills for the term of the non-compete.
It's kinda hard to argue with that so they go with the easy option that costs nothing and it just gets quietly crossed off.
Or of course you could shoot yourself in the foot for fear of being rejected by the company which wants to ban you from making a living.
I think it best I explain using the words of Sagan.
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at
I think I've metamodded a handful of posts ever and I still get modpoints regularly.
and I rarely actually use them. I mostly keep them for comments I spot which are genuinely informative or interesting which aren't already at 5 so most of them expire.
I'm told this is unusually bad in the health industry: some med student friends claim that every small practice always seems to have 2 or 3 "pity jobs", people who don't actually do anything useful and only get makework who are invariably related to someone senior or married to someone.
Slashdot Mirror
And you have justified nothing about your argument.
You claim it would destroy the world economy yet you offer no argument.
you only have faith that copyright an other IP laws are the only way.
I'm guessing that you yourself make your income from the current system and think we're bad people for arguing against you.
But imagine.
Imagine a world where cooking wasn't covered by IP law you'd never be able to set up your own restaurant!
Why would a chef ever come up with a new recipe?
Surely if he came up with a good one then McDonalds would just steal it and include it in their own chain and lock that chef out.
As soon as you came up with a good idea, theme or dish someone would just swoop in , copy your ideas and push you out of business.
Nobody would ever even try!
We'd all be stuck without anything good to eat!
You know I sometimes wonder if the world would be a richer or poorer place without copyright, plenty of things would be different certainly and those who make their money from the current system will of course tell you the world would be a poorer, worse off world for it.
It's almost taken as a given that the world would have less creativity without copyright but I do wonder.
If the chef at your local restaurant had to pay royalties whenever he used a recipe published by a celebrity chef would you have a tastier and more enjoyable meal?
What if he risked being sued into the ground if he created a derivative work by altering the recipe slightly without a license?
or would you just have a more bland, unoriginal, uninspired and ultimately vastly more expensive meal?
If your hairdresser had to pay royalties whenever some kid comes in with a magazine picture and says they want their hair to "look like that".
Would everyone have far more interesting hairstyles or would it just cost far more and see people getting sued for doing their own hair at home in a copyrighted style?
Both these things are creative and also involve a skill much like storytelling or playing a musical instrument and in both cases I've heard of people trying to get copyright protections extended to cover them.
Imagine a world where in the 17th century someone had decided that recipes and cooking should fall under copyright along with books.
You can be sure that were someone to call for it's repeal 300 years later there would be no lack of "professional recipe composers" who would talk about how much work they put into working out new recipes and the time and effort it takes and how we're bad people for implying that they haven't worked hard and that they somehow don't deserve a cut whenever someone follows their recipes.
of course in a world where we're all free to take someone elses recipe, use it, copy it, publish it or even claim it as our own we know very well that fuck all harm has been done to the industry for the lack of legal protection on such creativity.
We live in a world where everyone has family recipes but hardly anyone has family music.
In a world where such legal protections existed and nobody ever knew such an open and unprotected situation as we have in this world it would be very easy to claim that there would be no creativity, no well paid chefs and that setting up a kitchen would be pointless since someone else would just copy the chefs recipes.
Similarly it's taken almost as a given that the world would have less good books, less good stories and less origionality without copyright but try questioning that even for a moment.
Of course someone is going to complain that composing and cooking a good meal can't be compared to composing and playing a good piece of music because..... well just because!
Yes. we get it.
you think you're very very smart.
No need to keep trying to convince the world of it.
but unfortunatly the english language has no official standards body.
none.
Some languages do, english does not.
so if you read it and you actually understand what they intended to say then it's english. ,but's ,ifs' or buts'
No ifs.
no buts.
nor any if's
So fuck off you pedantic troll.
You and idiots like you make reading this site painful.
you latch on to some minor grammatical error and like the fat kid with no friends waving his hand in the air going "Oh, teacher, oh oh ask me!" you just can't stay silent and let everyone else get on with enjoying the content of the site.
Yes I'm sure you've very happy with yourself that you avoided one hazard when choosing a location.
but just also make sure to avoid anywhere near the ocean at all in case of tsunamis and any cities over fault lines and anywhere in Tornado Alley and anywhere which often experiences hurricanes and anywhere that has or could have problems with wildfires and anywhere bellow cliffs or steep hillsides in case of landslides or avalanches and anywhere near an active or dormant volcano and anywhere near deep lakes in case of limnic eruptions and anywhere which experiences serious dust storms and anywhere which experiences extreme cold and anywhere where the land is unstable and might have large sinkholes.
ok I'm fairly sure there's got to be some parts of the earths surface that I've not just eliminated...
At least one of them also has to be close to a population center where there's at least one job you can do.
all you have to do is move in there and you can feel smugly superior to every single poor fucker you ever see who's just lost everything to a natural disaster.
depends if there's a dam above his house which isn't being managed properly.
there was an unprecedented flood near where I live a while back which was very likely largly due to a new manager at the dam above the city keeping the water level higher(to increase electricity output) but as a consequence the dam wasn't able to buffer the city from flooding so well as it had been doing for decades.
A lot of poorer students got fucked over hard because they were in cheap ground floor or basement apartments which got flooded out badly destroying everything they had.
Here it's also pretty much impossible to get contents insurance if you're living in a shared apartment.
so no.
sometimes people can get fucked over when they don't have alternatives or when it's genuinely someone elses fault.
Bank loans and car insurance are already fairly heavily automated.
wasn't there an article a while back where it was pointed out you get better rates if you use certain browsers when applying for the loan(it only cared out correlations and apparently used that as a datapoint of some kind).
hey, I'm just surprised that the recommendations didn't simply read "we did ok but we need a lot more money for our departments because terrorists and cyberhackers"
it reads more like a report from a team building day out.
*Ya, we had lots of fun, great exercise, lets do this again some time*
they might be considering every spam email to be a separate attack.
In some cases they just make up a big number.
In others take the cost figure for an attack on some big organisation (inflated for a legal case where the jail time or penalties is based on the damage/cost) and multiply by some estimate of the number of attacks per year.
I'd still tend to go with the machines because in the end they're auditable, if you leave it to human judgement then it's easy for the humans involved to waffle on about something irrelevant and make up justifications when challenged .
but if it's in code then it's effectively in writing and you can check it and see "hey, look, it's been programmed to outright [reject]/[give AO rating to] anything with even a trace of homosexuality no matter how wholesome free of sex and violence "
It's not the fear of being outsourced that's unfair, it's all the things that often leads to.
people are afraid so they tell themselves things like "all work from that country is crap" or "just about all of them are incompetent" or even "it's morally wrong to give my job to someone overseas" to try to make themselves feel safer.
but they come to believe it.
the initial worry is perfectly justified so skill up and get yourself some good blackmail material but the things people make themselves believe as a result often aren't justified.
There's pretty much the same spread of ability in Chinese workers: I spent a fair portion of my undergrad neck and neck with one of a group of Chinese students doing the course for the top of the class, (he won in the later years) but there was pretty much the exact same spread amongst the other Chinese students as amongst the rest of the class: some more interested in partying, some who did well, some who did not so well.
I'd be very surprised if there aren't back doors into US made systems, hell wasn't there a crypto scheme a while back which was being pushed by the US government where it turned out that due to a relationship between 2 numbers in the spec there could be a master key which could only be known by whoever wrote them into the spec.
I view it as stabilising, nothing like lots of trade and owing each other money to keep everyone smiling and not shooting, shooting your debtors is bad for business.
Both sides having back doors into the others secrets just makes sure they're not worried the other is planning to attack them.
It does surprise me how racist and protectionist many slashdot posters are. They're terrified of losing their job to someone abroad who's more competent so they've convinced themselves that the Chinese are incompetent and that it's (somehow)morally wrong for anyone but pure blooded Americans to get good jobs.
People seem to have missed the point: I was trying to make a point about the insane philosophy of apathy that some posters here seem to have, ie that since temperature or CO2 has been high before we should just ignore it and keep making the problem worse completely ignoring the fact that such changes often coincide with major extinction events.
You can find almost any extreme you're looking for if you don't mind going back far enough.
but anyway, not a journal but reasonable:
sulphur dioxide:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110401_bombardment.htm
nitrogen dioxide:
Not perfect but major volcanic events can be a significant source of NO and NO2.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/10/905
but then my point was supposed to be that just because something can or has happened "naturally" doesn't stop it from being very bad.
Why?
there have always been forest fires and they're a significant source of dioxins.
PCBs are just another set of organic compounds. nothing exceptional.
mercury gets released from volcanos all the time, you can be sure the mercury levels in the water and air have fluctuated massively in the past.
GMO's are unexceptional, genes have been transplanted from species to species by viruses and other means for billions of years.
I think people missed my point in my yearlier post but your philosophy of apathy can be applied to absolutely everything. [genocide? sure millions of people have been killed off by totally natural events in the past so no need to worry about that]
So what if we're releasing a load of [anything] ?
There's been loads of [anything] released into the earths atmosphere by [something that isn't human related] like volcanoes, forrest fires, asteroid strikes or new forms of life evolving and poisoning all the others.
now what this philosophy ignores is that while many things have changed the earths atmosphere to extreme degrees, made the CO2 level shoot up and down like a yoyo or released more poison into the atmosphere than every factory in history a great many of the events involved also killed off significant fractions of the life on the planet.
I'd prefer if we kept this planet habitable for ourselves, the rats and cockroaches will be fine whatever happens but we could be killed off fairly easily.
Why?
The planet has been richer in CO2, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide in the past.
When the planet at times has had almost no oxygen, at times it has had more, at times the air has been toxic to breath.
so why worry about pollution?
the real thing we should be worrying about is cats. sooner or later someone will invent a can opener that can be operated with a paw then we're all fucked.
Or even more simply: sign but insist that the companies they're disallowing you from working at are named individually in the contract.
sounds like a damn good way to stop companies chancing their arms and putting illegal clauses into their contracts.
Or when it comes to the point of going over your contract+ any negotiation you explain that you were advised in the past to be very wary of non competes and that you've heard stories of people being totally unable to get a job in their field for a year or more due to them so you'd prefer not to sign it unless there's some kind of income guaranteed for the term as a way to put food on your table and pay the bills for the term of the non-compete.
It's kinda hard to argue with that so they go with the easy option that costs nothing and it just gets quietly crossed off.
Or of course you could shoot yourself in the foot for fear of being rejected by the company which wants to ban you from making a living.
what are you on?
you're attacking a strawman.
I think it best I explain using the words of Sagan.
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at
the queen bee can sting without dying: it has no barb and occasionally one has to fight it's mother/daughter for control of the hive.
.... you do realise that the athiests aren't the ones claiming the world is 6000 years old right?
There's a decent number of people who genuinely believe it along with a lot of other very very silly things.
forget cars, try cats.:D
the less damage that is done by a power source the more people focus on the rare problems, unlikely scenarios or minor damage.
I think I've metamodded a handful of posts ever and I still get modpoints regularly.
and I rarely actually use them. I mostly keep them for comments I spot which are genuinely informative or interesting which aren't already at 5 so most of them expire.
I'm told this is unusually bad in the health industry: some med student friends claim that every small practice always seems to have 2 or 3 "pity jobs", people who don't actually do anything useful and only get makework who are invariably related to someone senior or married to someone.
and hotsz didn't do that until after sony had fucked over the OtherOS users.
If they hadn't fucked over their users in the first place there would have been no need to get the root key.
it all leads back to sony.
they dropped the ball.
they fucked up.
idiots and astroturfers like you blame the wrong person.
fucking astroturfers.
get a real job and stop writing bullshit paid comments.
sony fucked the common good. it all leads back to them removing otherOS.
That dollar amount of damage against consumers was done purely by sony when they decided to fuck a minority of their users.