There is a very significant difference between Microsoft and Coca-Cola at this point. Coca-Cola still produces it's product, while Microsoft only buys/licenses other, lesser brands, and repackages them as it's own. In this respect, Microsoft is more like Tommy Hilfiger than Coca-Cola.
Coca-Cola was foolish enough several years ago to change a Good Thing. The population unanimously (or as close at this is possible) vetoed the New Coke, and Coca-Cola bent to consumer pressure and reverted to what people wanted. When was the last time Microsoft did anything even remotely in response to customer wishes?
Microsoft has NEVER created an original product. Even if you go back as far as you can, to Bill Gates and Paul Allen coding BASIC for the Altair, what they did was port someone elses product to another machine - this was respectable, but here is where the Innovation(tm) ended. DOS was bought, and each new feature that was added to it was included to squeeze an add-on or competitor out of the market. Windows was clearly a work-alike of MacOS, which itself was a work-alike of Xerox PARC research. NT is really DEC Prism in disguise (Dave Cutler left DEC in disgust when the Prism project was killed, and took the OS design with him), and was supposed to be OS/2 until Gates' ego swelled a bit too much for Big Blue to handle. IE was another DOS-feature-levarage maneuver like EMS/XMS management (QuarterDeck's QUEMM386 died for that one) and DoubleSpace (Stacker anyone?), but this time aimed at Netscape... The only MS product whose history I am unclear on is their development tools, but I know for a fact that Borland did it first and better; and don't even start on Java...
Hilfiger does the same thing. He buys other manufacturer's products, sans labels, and has a facility where they sow on his name. That's all. He's not a designer, he's not an innovator. He's a poseur and a brand-pirate. Just like Gates.
Microsoft tactics are even worse than this. They don't actually buy another product to propagate their brand. They license it. Then they output version 1.0; and they study what they've licensed. By the time version 2.0 is ready, it's a reverse-engineered clone of the original. The license dies and soon after, so does the licensor.
Coca-Cola has brand loyalty, it has a pedigree and a reputation. This means something in the market. Microsoft has Gestapo/strongarm tactics that got it a monopolistic market-share. Microsoft brand 'loyalty' stems not from it's reputation and pedigree but from the fact that all/most available alternatives have been killed, and the brand has been burned into 95% of all PC's sold in the last decade. People choose to drink Coca-Cola; people do not really have a choice about running Microsoft software.
Average people do not have a choice because Linux takes experience to get off the ground, and most people have real work to do instead of reading HOWTO's. Mac software isn't really available to the general public - you have to own a Mac to get to those resources in the first place, and that's a huge leap of faith for the under-informed. The under-informed are that way due to Microsoft's propaganda engine. Not even geeky people have much choice, since we have to talk to other systems, and those use Microsoft-brand file formats.
Well, there it is. Microsoft is a brand by force, they're rustlers and pirates; they're the Jay Gatsby of Silicon Valley, all flash and poise standing on shaky and shady foundations.
"Where do you want to go today?" To the kitchen, to get myself a Coke.
It's about who decides what is and is not appropriate. The whole idea of 'too violent' or 'indecent' is a continuum, and having the town hall, or the board of education, or the board of selectmen (who may attend the same church) make that decision becomes a problem. I hope you realize this.
If the line in the sand is drawn within your tolerance then it is a good law, but if that line is a few inches too far to the right, it's suddenly censorship and fascist. If it is too far left, then the law is permissive and lax. If there is a variance in the fairness of the law, depending on your personal view, then that law should be looked at closely.
Imagine a locale where the religiously influenced are the elected officials, and in accordance with their faith, they do not accept the idea of afterlife. Does Pac-Man suddenly become heretical, just because your mayor doesn't want kids to see ghosts on the video screen?
I know this is hyperbolic and extreme, but it is a good way to test the soundness of an ordinance. Walk the law from one extreme to the other, and see if it is continuous in its sensibility. If so, it's a decent law. If not, it's excessive and impinges on the rights of certain non-deviant members of your society. The responsibility of raising children belongs to the parents. If parents fail to do a good job, the Child Protective Services people step in. But who punishes the government for first taking that responsibility away from the parents and then failing to do the job right?
Do red pixels in Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat make the game too violent? If that's the only difference between those games and Clay Fighter, then you need to educate your kids about real vs fantasy, not sanction their access to video games.
Tyrants and deviant freaks come in many shapes and sizes. People throughout history have tried to force their ideals onto an otherwise free society. You would be suprised at the stuff Noah Webster did to the English language.
Rule #1 on/., don't advertise your gender. It tends to draw peculiar attention.:) Scrap your username and create a new one. I know that it's not how it SHULD be, but like many things, the workaround is simpler than the solution.
Rule #2 on/., don't take it personally. Few, if any people here actually know you. The rest of my response may offend you. Keep Rule #2 in mind. It isn't personal, don't take it as such.
Rule #3 on/., recognize that threads have critical-mass potential. Once you start arguing about moderation, the flames begin.
Ok, now onto your post:
stir up controversy about cel phones. Probably right. After the results come out, and show no real danger (beyond that of wearing a walkman or watching TV), everyone will breate a sigh of relief and buy more cell phones. It's reverse psychology folks! Scare 'em, and relieve them of stress... Then relieve them of money. Please,/., let's not be so naive.
Besides, why worry yourselves with this POTENTIAL radiation damage and POSSIBLE side effects? You're forgetting how advanced and quickly moving our technology is anyway. Spoken like a true neophile. I'm really surprised that this didn't get you a +2 Insightful, considering this is/. afterall. This is the only possible 'troll' aspect of your post - but it's a perfectly valid POV as well.
I can handle driving my Chevy Tahoe while talking on the cel phone quite well. Gasp! Your Tahoe?? Daddy bought you a Tahoe? You lucky thing, you! Frankly, driving a Tahoe is much more dangerous than driving ANYTHING else and using a cell phone. See yesterday's discussion about the Honda Insight.:)
I know a few rare accidents occur because people drive while talking on cel phones, but I'd rather take that risk than risk missing an important call from one of my girlfriends. Ok,/., come on! This HAS to be an hones POV of a 16 year old girl... Tell me Pat, how IMPORTANT are those calls?
Maybe some of you guys just need a life so you can see how important a cel phone actually is:) Ooh! Glad you put that smiley there. No better way to incite the masses to riot than to act like 'the popular girl'.
And the remainder:
Now, all that said, I'll agree with Pat. She gave us an honest view into the mind of the average, non-hardenned-geek cell phone user. Cell phones are a convenience that most people are not willing to set aside while driving.
We're used to thinking in terms of accountability, delayed gratification, self-imposed hardship and responsability. We're used to solving problems created by technology, not just sucking the marrow out of tech, and letting others wipe our chins. This is why we run Linux.
Most people out there are Mac users, if not in practice then in mentality. They want the convenience, without considering what goes on under the hood. They consider their phone calls IMPORTANT, because Josie and Barbie just heard that Scott and Joel have tickets to the next Britney Spears concert - or, like, whatever. (I'm not judging you Pat, relax, it's an umbrella statement about the breadth of people who wouldn't even try to make sense of/., you're beyond that by virtue of speaking on this forum.)
These people (they, not you Pat) don't think in terms of consequences, because most of what they have is given to them. Like a new Tahoe on a 16th b-day.
Now, just for the record, I have a cell phone, and I sometimes use it while driving. To use it on the road, I pull into the right lane, fall well behind the car in front of me, and make/take a quick call. If the call runs over three minutes, I pull over. I drive a stick, so I only use the phone on open highway. You'd have to be insane to handle a stick and a phone at the same time.
I also leave the phone OFF 90% of the time. It's there for my convenience, I am not there for its convenience. The phone spills to vmail when off, and that suits me just fine.
I'm not sure you were being sarcastic, but in case you were not:
BULLSHIT!
What's the difference between talking on the phone and talking to someone sitting next to you? Or drinking a hot coffee? Or fidgetting with the radio controls? Or checking your blind-spot, hence taking your eyes off the road ahead? Or checking directions on a map? Are all these activities, and countless others, somehow less distracting to a driver? Should (Are) these also be banned?
Banning cell-phones have been done in a few towns in a few states here in the US as well. It's stupid and short-sighted. It's government, trying to protect it's citizens from anything potentially harmful; and this is wrong!
What's the next step? Legislation requiring homes to be one level only, so no one can hurt themselves by falling down stairs? Federally mandated safety-scissors? Restricted, liquid-only diet to reduce risk of choking?
Banning a single technology or behaviour is sheer ignorance.
Magnetic bracelets to get rid of arthritis, magnetic insoles (even Dr. Scholes (sp) actually sells these) to get rid of whatever affects feet, magnetic sheets to place between your mattress and box-spring to cure insomnia...
EnerX, an 'all natural' alternative to Viagra, which is most likely just a 'secret' blend of Ginseng, Ginko and St. John's Wort; sold at 10x the price of the ingredients.
Viagra, and the whole slew of 'lifestyle' drugs - while there are valid medical reasons for a few individuals, people are popping these things like M&M's. Just wait until we get to see the long-term effects of that one... Ritalin, given to every child who doesn't pay attention in class (like any of us did, right?) is the new Valium...
I suspect that mothers who took Valium while pregnant, brought forth kids who now NEED Ritalin. These same mothers are much more likely to cure their kids' problems with pills than with proper upbringing... And these are the same mothers who defer parental responsibility to the TV set and school system.
What sort of advertising campaign could convince people that inhaling smoke is actually good for you? Where's the common sense?
Oh, wait... This is America after all, and people get an extra large burger, and a Diet Coke to go with it! This is where people eat exorbitant amounts of beef and chicken fat, because they know that they can always have it violently vacuumed (liposuctioned) out of their ass by a surgeon. And if they're too poor for that, they can use a drug to reduce their cholesterol - hell, we can transplant a new liver for you after the drugs fry the original. This is where people buy a Ford Excursion (14MPG) to go to the grocery store; and drive the beast at 90MPH in the right lane. This is where people will buy sour-cream labelled as 'lite' to counter-act the burger (since the Coke didn't do it); and where the marketter can label a product as 'lite' because it's brighter in colour than the "leading national brand". This is where people move to the 'big city' for the higher paying job, and spend twice as much as they should for rent; where they ride a stationary bike (that doesn't go anywhere), so they can look good while baking in the sun.
Convenience-lemmings will, of course, keep on using cell-phones; even if the price is a guaranteed brain tumour by the age of 80... After all, most will die of emphysema, skin cancer, colon cancer, car accident or heart attack long before that.
And the remaining rich have good insurance.
This is a disposable society, using disposable goods, disposable resources and disposable organs. There are disposable people living in the streets. Disposable kids, the products of disposable marriages, let themselves into their empty disposable homes after school and get baby-sat by an idiot-box whose only purpose is to reinforce this mentality. They hope that, their disposable dad doesn't get disposed of by his employer and doesn't dispose of their step-mom whose disposable T&A are starting to sag again.
We, the geeks of the world, have failed to appeal to your sense of humour. We should all commit hara-kiri today, as pennance.:)
Seriously, Wolverine flipping off cyclops with a claw didn't give you the slightest chuckle? The 'yellow spandex' line didn't make you smirk (well, that one was a bit on the 'inside', but still)? That sort of humor was too 'immature' for you?
By that same token, I'm sure that the impossible special effects were also too unrealistic to be believable, and that the whole movie just offended your sense of maturity.
Why'd you even go to see the movie then? The whole point of movies like X-Men is to entertain kids, and allow adults to suspend disbelief and distance themselves from their mudane, everyday maturity, and feel like a kid again - if only for an hour and a half. We got to ooh and aah for a while, and laugh at some dumb jokes; yes, they were dumb, but they were funny.
If you saw the film in the hope of being enlightened, well, maybe X-Men wasn't such a bad choice. But you missed the greatest benefit of such movies. Pure enjoyment, without the need to analyze, evaluate and project a front.
"Knock-knock" jokes are actually good for you. Quit brooding and see "Scary Movie", just for the dumb jokes.
Where there are electronics, there can be a jammer.
Then by that logic, we should all revert to pre-1980 cars, before fuel injection, ABS, efficiency computers that manage air/fuel ratios...
There's electronics in virtually every car you see on the road. The ones that DO NOT have to worry about jamming are either refurb antiques, or about to fall apart due to gravity.
IMO, little cam-pods would look absolutely great on my car, and they'd give me a better field of vision. I'd never have to adjust them once aimed. I could opt for the fish-eye lenses to get rid of that pesky blind-spot. I could get the deluxe version with IR-at-night...
Hell, I wouldn't mind having one pointed out the back, and the front too... This would also allow for a great savings in insurance cost across the board. Install a Tivo in the trunk, and loop the last few minutes. In the event of an accident, the police and insurance could reconstruct the whole situation without ambiguity.
Finally, a good use for all those outdated 486 boxes...:) Tivo, coupled to the car's other sensors, i.e. speed, braking force, whathaveyou. A blackbox for the car. Sure, they'd need a bit of hardening, but most accidents would not kill a notebook PC as it is, and with a bit of planning, you'd have to be completely pulverized for there to not be recoverable data.
If you need torque (towing), 4 wheel drive and capacity for both cargo AND people, then an SUV (station wagon with big tires) is a great solution to your problem.
If you don't need to carry a soccer team, get a 4x4 pick-up. If you don't need to off-road, or transport a refridgerator, get a Subaru Outback. If you don't need 4x4, get a mini-van or a Volvo station wagon (The Soccer-mon cars, except they're so "Married!") The only thing that keeps those Soccer-moms in the SUV is the soccer-dad who doesn't want to have to drive something so un-cool. "Buddy, if you didn't want to look married, you shouldn't have said "I do.""
I have an SUV which totally sucks on gas and has poor acceleration. I drive it only in the New England winters (which have been pretty forgiving recently). I bought it specifically for the reasons in the first paragraph. I need the 4x4 for the winter (my daily car is 'too good' for snow), I need to accomodate more than three people, and I need to be able to pull a decent amount of weight/volume.
What struck me most (apart from the symmetry of each mutants 'gift' being also their curse) was the amount of conflict in the film (and complete X-Men saga), and the way it's shown in the context of accelerated evolution. It parallels very well with a Babylon 5 concept, that hardship, conflict and the fight for survival is a requirement for evolution.
I don't know if this is an intentional, integral part of the X-Men, but the argument is that without hardship, there is no need for evolution; so in the X-Men Universe, where individuals are evolving in different directions very rapidly, it makes sense that they be conflicted internally, as well as externally. It adds a lot of depth to the plot - and becomes a theme as well.
Ms. Marvel is fatally wounded, there's no way to save her. Rogue is the only one around, and comforts her on her death-bed. Marvel asks Rogue to take her 'spirit'/'essence' (whathaveyou) so that she may live on in some small part... Simple, clean, believable.
I don't know, maybe it's the result of post-Columbine stress and alienation; I don't know. Jon, what's it like to be an outcast among the outcasts? Does it make you normal?
Katz doesn't seem to grasp the kernel of what makes X-Men (movie, comic, cartoon) a great concept.
There are not easy answers; there is no black and white; there is cruel irony all around us!
We are not supposed to hate Magneto, not at all. We're supposed to understand, and even accept his motivation. We are supposed to see his view throught his eyes, and see it as completely justified.
The openning scene of the movie was absolutely powerful - it set a tone that (IMO) the rest of the movie failed to live up to. If the entire movie carried the emotional payload of the first five minutes, it would have been draining, and not envigorating. It would have left half of it's target audience, the early-teen boys, in shambles, asking some very hard questions. The first scene, hopefully, foreshadows the potential of the (impending, I'm sure) sequels. X-Men SHOULD be a franchise, but I hope that it will not be another Batman; it has much more potential than that. But I digress...
X-Men is about difficult choices, and about there not being a simple black and white world.
There are multiple conflicts in the X-Men saga: 1. Between the mundanes and the mutants; driven by fear on both sides. Fear of the different and potentially superior vs fear of the establishment. 2. Between Congress and Individuals - between "The Law" and those who seemingly live beyond the laws of nature. 3. Between the good and the 'bad' mutants; though the 'bad' get a bad rap for nearsighted reasons. This is really a conflict between lawful and chaotic, in AD&D terms. Xavier wants to play by the rules, while to Magneto, the old rules are no longer applicable and new ones should be enforced. 4. Between individual characters: Cyclops and Wolverine, Xavier and Magneto, Wolverine and Sabertooth; more to come as the series goes on. 5. Within each character: Rogue, in effect a vampire, can kill with a touch and as a result can never be close to anyone; Woverine's healing factor is what singled him out for the adamantium infusion - and cost him his identity and memory. His cavalier attitude is a cover for the deep pain of not knowing who he is; Xavier's telepathy allows him to run around the world in the blink of an eye while his body is bound to his chair; Mystique, who is an outcast BECAUSE she is a chameleon.
In effect, each of the characters is crippled by their mutation (See: Algernon's Law.) The symmetry of this irony is a beautiful thing. X-Men is about opposites.
Also, Jon, the movie IS hilarious - it's just loaded with inside jokes. Wolverine complaining about the X-Men uniform, and cyclops suggesting yellow spandex had the theater in stitches!
I recognized Bobby right away, but was that Torch?? I hope the next installment will feature Beast as one of Xavier's school-teachers... Apparently he was left out since 'doing him justice would have blown the budget'. I can believe that. I'm really looking forward to the sequels - there is huge potential in X-Men.
Jon, you ought to see the movie again. Pay attention to the subtleties, since the movie tracks very well with the spirit of the X-Men.
You (general) can justify your drug use/advocacy by saying that other, legal substances are ALSO addictive and even more harmful, but what you're doing is still against the law.
As I've tried to make clear in other posts on this subject, I am not against drugs, I am against drug use due to personal experience (totally subjective), and in a broader sense due to their legal status.
Advocacy of drug legalization is much more likely to bring that result about than blatant disobedience of the laws. And to avoid any subsequent confusion, I did NOT just say that all laws are to be bindly obeyed...
Contract work is probably familiar territory for many O S developers, as is the idea of requirements; but many amateur hackers are not that well informed.
I've been involved in some large projects where specification of requirements, deliverables, functionality and schedule are at least as significant to the project as the coding itself.
If there was a mutually agreed-upon contract, and it stipulated certain requirements such as UI standards, performance, stability (MTBF for example), failsafes, and adherence to specified constraints - and if the delivered product does not live up to the contract - and the contractee loses bussiness, customers or any other resource as a result, than the contractor is liable. They have breached the contract.
Imagine being a company with something to sell. You get some funding, and you take out start-up loans. You hire a bunch of coders to develop your online presence, and you advertise it's expected availability. Your business plan calls for the site to start generating revenue the day it goes live, and your product can support this plan. But, on openning day, your site is useless due to being poorly developed, and the bank is expecting you to start paying off that loan... What would YOU do to the contractor, if you are facing huge fines, and the site is a piece of junk?
I certainly hope that this will set a precedent. This sort of accountability has always been there in mission-critical, safety-critical and heavy-financial systems. Now that B2B and eCommerce and all that other buzz is a major economic force, I certainly hope that the expectations placed on developers of such systems will rise to a 'professional' standard.
At this point in time, a high-school drop-out with marginal VB skills can get a well paying job and end up costing a great deal of money while doing a great deal of damage. This needs to change.
On a recent vacation to Maine, I was struck by how sparsely populated that state is. A house every mile or so, with the center of a town denoted by an intersection with a single blinking red light.
I thought I lived out in the boonies; and by most standards I do - I let my dog roam and I can leave the house with the doors unlocked and the windows open, and go to work without worry. I have neighbors within shouting distance, and consider my area pretty crowded compared to the farmland nearby. And I live in Connecticut, dab-smack in the middle of the Boston-NYC corridor.
Here, outside the city, a car is required. In my close-quarters town, I can buy milk at the convenience store a quarter-mile away, but to do complete groceries I need to drive to the next town over (a large one) and choose one of the four supermarkets there. I do groceries for the week, not for the day. I'm fortunate to have a job 25 miles from home. I have friends who drive twice that far each day, and my GF is 65 miles away (no, not "away at college", actually lives that far).
Incidentally, on my vacation to maine, I learned that THERE, grocery shopping is a day trip for many people. Hell, all city dwellers should go there for a vacation. Stay in a cottage on Moosehead Lake and you'll meet people who live on one of the surrounding lakes... There are no roads to their homes. They own a float-plane which they fly to Moosehead, land there, get in their car and drive 40 minutes to Portland for a day-trip and annual clothes-shopping.
In Greenville ME., there is a great little restaurant (whose name escapes me) with a gravel parking lot on one side, and a boat dock on the other. People from across the lake, or from a few lakes over, take either their boat or float-plane out to dinner.
Hnice, get out of the city - you're much more likely to get killed in the street by a speeding bus or garbage/delivery truck that you are to develop pollution-related cancer in the 'burbs. And for God's sake, go on vacation and see some real trees.
Here's a major selling point for me. How are the performance specs for alternative fuels? I like my speed, and I like getting pressed into the seat when I hit the throttle - and with today's high-tech engines, that rush isn't even that costly in fuel.
Diesel is sluggish, and smells real bad. Yes, you can get a turbo-charged diesel car to power up a hill like a run of the mill gasoline burner, but a gas car made to perform will rocket up that same hill. Diesels are fast but they're not nimble, and that's putting it kindly. Adrenaline is better than caffeine after a long day at work.:)
Electric is sluggish. The new Honda Insight promises 60MPG, but I'm sure that it can barely get out of the way of a run-away semi. They're good commuter-mobiles, but they are simply NOT exciting to drive. Underpowered electrics may be efficient, but I just do not feel safe in one.
A buddy here at work is part of an electric vehicle test program, and while the car is an interesting concept, and has no emissions to speak of, it is a featherweight, underpowered slug. Also, the issue with electric is that the juice has to come from somewhere - and in many/most cases, that somewhere is a petrol or coal-fired plant. This is just defering the fossil consumption to a centralized location, a better solution, but not a complete one.
Electric cars are good for flat commutes, and for buzzing around town; but they fail to impress in terms of performance and comfort in hilly, rural areas.
I've never driven a methanol or propane powered vehicle. How are they for performance, both in terms of speed and power? How are they for cost of ownership (not just conversion by fuel, maintenance...)?
I know we've all been raised on Star Trek, but few people have qualms about stepping on an ant on their way to work. Is extra-terrestrial life all that different?
Certainly, until we have an understanding of things, we should not blindly wipe them out. But, if you recall the precautions that were taken by NASA when the first moon rocks were brought back to Earth.. We'', they're professionals after all, they know what they're doing.
Personally I'm torn on the issue. (I guess I need some more immediate problems, no?) On the one hand, we shouldn't soil yet another planet/moon/world just because we can, but on the other hand... Damn! Why not? If there's gold in them there hills, and it keep our yard a little cleaner... Maslow's pyramid comes to mind.
And hey, if there is no life there, and we use it as a petri-dish to make some, then all the better. One step closer to realizing Godhood.
Man, did you even read the rest of this thread? Everything you've brought up has been discussed. There's a difference between ignoring the law for personal pleasure and blindly following it into immorality.
Do you think anyone is as stupid as you accuse me of being?? Well, let me qualify that I do not know any Religious Right Extremists or KKK members, but other than those two groups... Damn, quit with the flamebait already.
FWIW, much as you've just done, I tend to offer an extreme interpretation of a point of view, just to test how reasonable it's foundations are; fair enough; but come on! The thread is wearing much too thin, and I think I've made my argument adequately well. Any intelligent person knows that there is no law that is perfect.
The rest of the post set that single statement in an appropriate context. Once you take it out of context though, it still stands up.
Read it again, and this time, notice the word "tangible". The codified laws are a standard to which we can all refer - without that, it all boils down to opinion and personal preference, which is exactly what you've just demonstrated.
I chose that specific phrasing ('tangible') to make exactly that point, but I appreciate your reactionary response without actually thinking. This sort of flamage is exactly what gives "Linux Zealots" an undeservedly extremist reputation.
To reiterate, my posts have all centered around 'right' and 'wrong' is reference to the Law, not in reference to some personal and highly variable moral standard.
My morals most likely do not map well to your morals, and arguments and violence often follow such disagreement; and this is EXACTLY why a codified standard defining 'right' and 'wrong' (again, in case you missed it, that does not mean morally but legally) is required.
I'm glad you used the word "wrong" is quotes, but your examples make the point you are arguing against. When a law against something is passed, that something becomes 'wrong' in the eyes of the law... That's sort of the definition of the concept.
The law is an attempt (ATTEMPT) at reflecting societal morality and ethics for the greatest common good (at least in principle - we've all seen plenty of corruption). The law, in principle, does not seek to dictate morally right and wrong actions; it only seeks to codify in a standard way the views of society.
Separating moral right and moral wrong is a job for the individual. The individual then, if they desire the benefits of living in a civilized society, has the responsibility to make their views known, so that they may be codified and made into Law.
If enough individuals share the same ethical views then the laws of their society reflect the views of the people.
If on the other hand, individuals just want to smoke a blunt in peace, but do not assert their right to do so, then their laws do not guarantee them this right. (If you have not realized it by now, I'll hand it to you: This thread is about the theory of law, not about whats right and wrong in a karmic, universal sense)
Get it now? I'm not saying the laws are just, I'm saying that the laws reflect the views of those individuals who made a point of voicing their opinion on the issue. People, historically, only speak out in opposition to the bad, and rarely in support of the good - and too often people are simply too lazy to take an active interest in the laws being passed, until it suddenly becomes illegal to live their lifestyle of choice. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the *silent* majority gets led around like sheep.
I'm not saying this is how it SHULD be, not by a long shot - but this is the unfortunate state of things. Bitching about it on/. won't accomplish squat, but writing yet another letter to your representative; a well reasoned one; just might make a difference. And if you do not take that step, then you will find yourself increasingly repressed by the laws made for the benefit of those who care enough to speak out.
That's the sort of twisted rationalization that results from blindly following any set of rules.
So you abdicate your right to think to the majority?
Absolutely not. The right to think (and discuss) and the right to act are very different things - and as far as this issue is concerned, I choose to act in accordance with the law. (Note: Nowhere am I saying that YOU must do the same.) The fact that I am here discussing this issue, and not running around shouting how all drug users are evil and depraved, should make that point clear.
I don't think that drugs should be illegal - personally I don't care. If they were legal, I still would not do them - but things being as they are, using drugs is illegal; and the law is the only tangible metric of right and wrong, isn't it?
So, in the legal (not moral) sense, it is wrong to do drugs. For me, this is enough to discourage me from doing them. I don't have time for the consequences. Am I passing judgement on you? I don't mean to, this is about my POV and IMHO as is pertains to MY lifestyle. Sheesh! Why is that so hard for casual drug users to accept? Is it latent guilt? Let it go, I have no beef with your lifestyle.
When someone wrongs you, the only thing you have to depend on for justice (besides your fists) is the law - but if your adherence to the law is spotty at best, then how dependable can the legal system be when you need it to protect you? I don't believe that great ideals can be served by compromising the small ones.
Drugs are pretty much a non-issue in my life, some friends do them, most don't - and at times like this they make for good conversation fodder. There are few arguments I can think of against legalizing drugs - at least the 'lightweight' (un-or simply reined ones) ones like pot. There are plenty of good arguments for legalizing pot. As long as they are illegal, I will see them as wrong (once they are legal, I will see them as 'not my thing').
But people who try to 'justify' their drug use are being hypocritical. You know it is illegal, you know you are breaking the law by doing it. The number of responses to my original post suggests a lot of guilt, as everyone clammors to make their excuse. Hey! It's your life, do as you wish. Have fun and be safe! I'm not in a position to forgive you or excuse you; but I don't resent or blam you in any way - I just won't join you.
Read this post, and think for a few minutes about what I'm saying, before you flame me. Then, if you still feel incindiary, fire away!
I'm well aware of the history of pot's legal standing, but thanks for posting the details. As an aside, Jefferson also owned slaves; or is that an inconvenient fact?
One for your side now: Marijuana is four times more effective at filtering greenhouse gasses out of the atmoshpere than the next best alternative, and grows to maturity in a fraction of the time. But it's still illegal. And just how does smoking it in your bedroom contribute to educating the public about the economic and environmental benefits of MJ? Make a web-site and educate, don't just cover yourself up with factoids to justify your lifestyle.
As for selective obedience to the law.. Well, there's some vacant space in Waco that's almost ready for lease. How do you feel about murder? Thought so. How about not providing medical care to a badly ill child for religious reasons? Is it murder if the child dies, because his/her parents are Christian Scientists?
Shoving each other back and forth on the tip of the iceberg isn't going to make much differnece, and the fact that we disagree doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong. I'm no more of a fascist than you are an anarchist.
And for the record, I never said Drugs are necessarily "Evil". If that's the vibe you got, maybe you're the one that's prejudiced against opinions other than your own. I just don't do them - and one of the reasons is that they are illegal. I've gone as far as to say that, even if they were reclassified, I would still not do them, for other reasons - of did you miss that part? I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just giving my opinion. That's what this place is about, isn't it?
I cleverly hid the following paragraph in my previous post:
The Law is a living thing, and it depends on evolving ideas and the variable needs of society; but as it is now, Drugs (not to be confused with medicinal or legal lower-case drugs) are illegal. If enough people in our society agreed to legalize pot, I would still draw the line in the same place, legal vs. illegal.
Sorry for the apparent discomfort. The law is changable, and there are proper channels for making this change happen.
In your example, the law was not adaptible quickly, because the bulk of society was either opposed or indifferent to what we now consider a moral obligation to their fellow man. It's really another topic entirely, but I appreciate the hyperbole.
Much as a soldier has the option (arguably an obligation) to not follow immoral orders (Mai Lei?) so does a person have the option (arguably obligation) to not follow an agruably immoral law.
But not following a (bad, arguably) law for the benefit of a person is not the same as ignoring a law for personal enjoyment. (Did I mention I drive too fast? I do it because it's FUN; but I only do it on open and empty roads.:) )
The law is a mutually agreed upon set of rules. All rules should be questioned and considered within the immediate context, certainly, but also in a broader sense. A law may hold perfectly well in 80% of all cases, and fail terribly in the remainder - this is why it gets revised, ammended, whatever. Or the POV of society changes and the law is retracted. Sometimes, civil disobedience is required to bring about awareness of the unfairness of a law, and it's eventual change. But going underground and doing as we please, for no higher purpose other than our own entertainment undermines the basis of society and leads to anarchy and lack of accountability for consequences.
It is just as unreasonable to expect universal adherence as it is to accept excessive non-compliance. I just happen to prefer the current state of affairs as far as Drugs are concerned, that's all.
Hindsight is 20/20, and from our perspective, the Fugitive Slave Law is evil since people are not property. In hindsight, either the lumber industry would not have lobbied so hard against help farming, or the Bill of Rights would not have been written on hemp paper; things being as they are, we have a bit of a paradox - the Law of the Land is written on paper made from an illegally grown economic competitor to wood-paper.
Sudden changes in law are difficult for society to accept. For example, should we be suddenly legally required to become vegetarians, because animals are made to suffer when they are made into food?
Yes, it's another hyperbole, but from the perspective of 150 years ago, so was your argument.
You mean our lawmaker do not have our best interests in mind? For shame...
And here they're trying to muzzle the Internet, the single most reliable source of information for enquiring minds.
Seems like a waste of effort to me though. If they just left the net alone, it would collapse under the weight of spam, first posts and Natalie Portman fan-sites anyway. Isn't entropy a beautiful thing?
Government intervention is self-defeating. If they could just keep their grubby little control-freak hands off of the thing, they would not be drawing attention to the issue. Hell, they could just release some fake drug-coctail info that would kill of a few of the intellectually-challenged amateur chemists; and suddenly the population would be begging them to make some law...
Is that what you meant about the way 'politics really works'?
Slashdot Mirror
There is a very significant difference between Microsoft and Coca-Cola at this point. Coca-Cola still produces it's product, while Microsoft only buys/licenses other, lesser brands, and repackages them as it's own. In this respect, Microsoft is more like Tommy Hilfiger than Coca-Cola.
Coca-Cola was foolish enough several years ago to change a Good Thing. The population unanimously (or as close at this is possible) vetoed the New Coke, and Coca-Cola bent to consumer pressure and reverted to what people wanted. When was the last time Microsoft did anything even remotely in response to customer wishes?
Microsoft has NEVER created an original product. Even if you go back as far as you can, to Bill Gates and Paul Allen coding BASIC for the Altair, what they did was port someone elses product to another machine - this was respectable, but here is where the Innovation(tm) ended. DOS was bought, and each new feature that was added to it was included to squeeze an add-on or competitor out of the market. Windows was clearly a work-alike of MacOS, which itself was a work-alike of Xerox PARC research. NT is really DEC Prism in disguise (Dave Cutler left DEC in disgust when the Prism project was killed, and took the OS design with him), and was supposed to be OS/2 until Gates' ego swelled a bit too much for Big Blue to handle. IE was another DOS-feature-levarage maneuver like EMS/XMS management (QuarterDeck's QUEMM386 died for that one) and DoubleSpace (Stacker anyone?), but this time aimed at Netscape... The only MS product whose history I am unclear on is their development tools, but I know for a fact that Borland did it first and better; and don't even start on Java...
Hilfiger does the same thing. He buys other manufacturer's products, sans labels, and has a facility where they sow on his name. That's all. He's not a designer, he's not an innovator. He's a poseur and a brand-pirate. Just like Gates.
Microsoft tactics are even worse than this. They don't actually buy another product to propagate their brand. They license it. Then they output version 1.0; and they study what they've licensed. By the time version 2.0 is ready, it's a reverse-engineered clone of the original. The license dies and soon after, so does the licensor.
Coca-Cola has brand loyalty, it has a pedigree and a reputation. This means something in the market. Microsoft has Gestapo/strongarm tactics that got it a monopolistic market-share. Microsoft brand 'loyalty' stems not from it's reputation and pedigree but from the fact that all/most available alternatives have been killed, and the brand has been burned into 95% of all PC's sold in the last decade. People choose to drink Coca-Cola; people do not really have a choice about running Microsoft software.
Average people do not have a choice because Linux takes experience to get off the ground, and most people have real work to do instead of reading HOWTO's. Mac software isn't really available to the general public - you have to own a Mac to get to those resources in the first place, and that's a huge leap of faith for the under-informed. The under-informed are that way due to Microsoft's propaganda engine. Not even geeky people have much choice, since we have to talk to other systems, and those use Microsoft-brand file formats.
Well, there it is. Microsoft is a brand by force, they're rustlers and pirates; they're the Jay Gatsby of Silicon Valley, all flash and poise standing on shaky and shady foundations.
"Where do you want to go today?" To the kitchen, to get myself a Coke.
It's about who decides what is and is not appropriate. The whole idea of 'too violent' or 'indecent' is a continuum, and having the town hall, or the board of education, or the board of selectmen (who may attend the same church) make that decision becomes a problem. I hope you realize this.
If the line in the sand is drawn within your tolerance then it is a good law, but if that line is a few inches too far to the right, it's suddenly censorship and fascist. If it is too far left, then the law is permissive and lax. If there is a variance in the fairness of the law, depending on your personal view, then that law should be looked at closely.
Imagine a locale where the religiously influenced are the elected officials, and in accordance with their faith, they do not accept the idea of afterlife. Does Pac-Man suddenly become heretical, just because your mayor doesn't want kids to see ghosts on the video screen?
I know this is hyperbolic and extreme, but it is a good way to test the soundness of an ordinance. Walk the law from one extreme to the other, and see if it is continuous in its sensibility. If so, it's a decent law. If not, it's excessive and impinges on the rights of certain non-deviant members of your society. The responsibility of raising children belongs to the parents. If parents fail to do a good job, the Child Protective Services people step in. But who punishes the government for first taking that responsibility away from the parents and then failing to do the job right?
Do red pixels in Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat make the game too violent? If that's the only difference between those games and Clay Fighter, then you need to educate your kids about real vs fantasy, not sanction their access to video games.
Tyrants and deviant freaks come in many shapes and sizes. People throughout history have tried to force their ideals onto an otherwise free society. You would be suprised at the stuff Noah Webster did to the English language.
Rule #1 on /., don't advertise your gender. It tends to draw peculiar attention. :) Scrap your username and create a new one. I know that it's not how it SHULD be, but like many things, the workaround is simpler than the solution.
/., don't take it personally. Few, if any people here actually know you. The rest of my response may offend you. Keep Rule #2 in mind. It isn't personal, don't take it as such.
/., recognize that threads have critical-mass potential. Once you start arguing about moderation, the flames begin.
/., let's not be so naive.
/. afterall. This is the only possible 'troll' aspect of your post - but it's a perfectly valid POV as well.
:)
/., come on! This HAS to be an hones POV of a 16 year old girl...
:)
/., you're beyond that by virtue of speaking on this forum.)
Rule #2 on
Rule #3 on
Ok, now onto your post:
stir up controversy about cel phones.
Probably right. After the results come out, and show no real danger (beyond that of wearing a walkman or watching TV), everyone will breate a sigh of relief and buy more cell phones. It's reverse psychology folks! Scare 'em, and relieve them of stress... Then relieve them of money. Please,
Besides, why worry yourselves with this POTENTIAL radiation damage and POSSIBLE side effects? You're forgetting how advanced and quickly moving our technology is anyway.
Spoken like a true neophile. I'm really surprised that this didn't get you a +2 Insightful, considering this is
I can handle driving my Chevy Tahoe while talking on the cel phone quite well.
Gasp! Your Tahoe?? Daddy bought you a Tahoe? You lucky thing, you!
Frankly, driving a Tahoe is much more dangerous than driving ANYTHING else and using a cell phone. See yesterday's discussion about the Honda Insight.
I know a few rare accidents occur because people drive while talking on cel phones, but I'd rather take that risk than risk missing an important call from one of my girlfriends.
Ok,
Tell me Pat, how IMPORTANT are those calls?
Maybe some of you guys just need a life so you can see how important a cel phone actually is
Ooh! Glad you put that smiley there. No better way to incite the masses to riot than to act like 'the popular girl'.
And the remainder:
Now, all that said, I'll agree with Pat. She gave us an honest view into the mind of the average, non-hardenned-geek cell phone user. Cell phones are a convenience that most people are not willing to set aside while driving.
We're used to thinking in terms of accountability, delayed gratification, self-imposed hardship and responsability. We're used to solving problems created by technology, not just sucking the marrow out of tech, and letting others wipe our chins. This is why we run Linux.
Most people out there are Mac users, if not in practice then in mentality. They want the convenience, without considering what goes on under the hood. They consider their phone calls IMPORTANT, because Josie and Barbie just heard that Scott and Joel have tickets to the next Britney Spears concert - or, like, whatever. (I'm not judging you Pat, relax, it's an umbrella statement about the breadth of people who wouldn't even try to make sense of
These people (they, not you Pat) don't think in terms of consequences, because most of what they have is given to them. Like a new Tahoe on a 16th b-day.
Now, just for the record, I have a cell phone, and I sometimes use it while driving. To use it on the road, I pull into the right lane, fall well behind the car in front of me, and make/take a quick call. If the call runs over three minutes, I pull over. I drive a stick, so I only use the phone on open highway. You'd have to be insane to handle a stick and a phone at the same time.
I also leave the phone OFF 90% of the time. It's there for my convenience, I am not there for its convenience. The phone spills to vmail when off, and that suits me just fine.
I'm not sure you were being sarcastic, but in case you were not:
BULLSHIT!
What's the difference between talking on the phone and talking to someone sitting next to you? Or drinking a hot coffee? Or fidgetting with the radio controls? Or checking your blind-spot, hence taking your eyes off the road ahead? Or checking directions on a map? Are all these activities, and countless others, somehow less distracting to a driver? Should (Are) these also be banned?
Banning cell-phones have been done in a few towns in a few states here in the US as well. It's stupid and short-sighted. It's government, trying to protect it's citizens from anything potentially harmful; and this is wrong!
What's the next step? Legislation requiring homes to be one level only, so no one can hurt themselves by falling down stairs? Federally mandated safety-scissors? Restricted, liquid-only diet to reduce risk of choking?
Banning a single technology or behaviour is sheer ignorance.
Magnetic bracelets to get rid of arthritis, magnetic insoles (even Dr. Scholes (sp) actually sells these) to get rid of whatever affects feet, magnetic sheets to place between your mattress and box-spring to cure insomnia...
EnerX, an 'all natural' alternative to Viagra, which is most likely just a 'secret' blend of Ginseng, Ginko and St. John's Wort; sold at 10x the price of the ingredients.
Viagra, and the whole slew of 'lifestyle' drugs - while there are valid medical reasons for a few individuals, people are popping these things like M&M's. Just wait until we get to see the long-term effects of that one... Ritalin, given to every child who doesn't pay attention in class (like any of us did, right?) is the new Valium...
I suspect that mothers who took Valium while pregnant, brought forth kids who now NEED Ritalin. These same mothers are much more likely to cure their kids' problems with pills than with proper upbringing... And these are the same mothers who defer parental responsibility to the TV set and school system.
What sort of advertising campaign could convince people that inhaling smoke is actually good for you? Where's the common sense?
Oh, wait... This is America after all, and people get an extra large burger, and a Diet Coke to go with it! This is where people eat exorbitant amounts of beef and chicken fat, because they know that they can always have it violently vacuumed (liposuctioned) out of their ass by a surgeon. And if they're too poor for that, they can use a drug to reduce their cholesterol - hell, we can transplant a new liver for you after the drugs fry the original. This is where people buy a Ford Excursion (14MPG) to go to the grocery store; and drive the beast at 90MPH in the right lane. This is where people will buy sour-cream labelled as 'lite' to counter-act the burger (since the Coke didn't do it); and where the marketter can label a product as 'lite' because it's brighter in colour than the "leading national brand". This is where people move to the 'big city' for the higher paying job, and spend twice as much as they should for rent; where they ride a stationary bike (that doesn't go anywhere), so they can look good while baking in the sun.
Convenience-lemmings will, of course, keep on using cell-phones; even if the price is a guaranteed brain tumour by the age of 80... After all, most will die of emphysema, skin cancer, colon cancer, car accident or heart attack long before that.
And the remaining rich have good insurance.
This is a disposable society, using disposable goods, disposable resources and disposable organs. There are disposable people living in the streets. Disposable kids, the products of disposable marriages, let themselves into their empty disposable homes after school and get baby-sat by an idiot-box whose only purpose is to reinforce this mentality. They hope that, their disposable dad doesn't get disposed of by his employer and doesn't dispose of their step-mom whose disposable T&A are starting to sag again.
But hey, it's all good.
We, the geeks of the world, have failed to appeal to your sense of humour. We should all commit hara-kiri today, as pennance. :)
Seriously, Wolverine flipping off cyclops with a claw didn't give you the slightest chuckle? The 'yellow spandex' line didn't make you smirk (well, that one was a bit on the 'inside', but still)? That sort of humor was too 'immature' for you?
By that same token, I'm sure that the impossible special effects were also too unrealistic to be believable, and that the whole movie just offended your sense of maturity.
Why'd you even go to see the movie then? The whole point of movies like X-Men is to entertain kids, and allow adults to suspend disbelief and distance themselves from their mudane, everyday maturity, and feel like a kid again - if only for an hour and a half. We got to ooh and aah for a while, and laugh at some dumb jokes; yes, they were dumb, but they were funny.
If you saw the film in the hope of being enlightened, well, maybe X-Men wasn't such a bad choice. But you missed the greatest benefit of such movies. Pure enjoyment, without the need to analyze, evaluate and project a front.
"Knock-knock" jokes are actually good for you. Quit brooding and see "Scary Movie", just for the dumb jokes.
Where there are electronics, there can be a jammer.
:) Tivo, coupled to the car's other sensors, i.e. speed, braking force, whathaveyou. A blackbox for the car. Sure, they'd need a bit of hardening, but most accidents would not kill a notebook PC as it is, and with a bit of planning, you'd have to be completely pulverized for there to not be recoverable data.
Then by that logic, we should all revert to pre-1980 cars, before fuel injection, ABS, efficiency computers that manage air/fuel ratios...
There's electronics in virtually every car you see on the road. The ones that DO NOT have to worry about jamming are either refurb antiques, or about to fall apart due to gravity.
IMO, little cam-pods would look absolutely great on my car, and they'd give me a better field of vision. I'd never have to adjust them once aimed. I could opt for the fish-eye lenses to get rid of that pesky blind-spot. I could get the deluxe version with IR-at-night...
Hell, I wouldn't mind having one pointed out the back, and the front too... This would also allow for a great savings in insurance cost across the board. Install a Tivo in the trunk, and loop the last few minutes. In the event of an accident, the police and insurance could reconstruct the whole situation without ambiguity.
Finally, a good use for all those outdated 486 boxes...
For those not familiar with the idea of what Rice is all about, here's the Riceboy Page.
And while bashing our fellow motorists, why not get in a few digs at the upscale SUV driver, at the Ultimate Sports Utility Poseur Page.
Enjoy, the Devil made me do it!
A 3-cyl Honda engine just might get you that far.
A 4-cyl Dodge engine will barely get you half-way.
:)
If you need torque (towing), 4 wheel drive and capacity for both cargo AND people, then an SUV (station wagon with big tires) is a great solution to your problem.
If you don't need to carry a soccer team, get a 4x4 pick-up. If you don't need to off-road, or transport a refridgerator, get a Subaru Outback. If you don't need 4x4, get a mini-van or a Volvo station wagon (The Soccer-mon cars, except they're so "Married!") The only thing that keeps those Soccer-moms in the SUV is the soccer-dad who doesn't want to have to drive something so un-cool. "Buddy, if you didn't want to look married, you shouldn't have said "I do.""
I have an SUV which totally sucks on gas and has poor acceleration. I drive it only in the New England winters (which have been pretty forgiving recently). I bought it specifically for the reasons in the first paragraph. I need the 4x4 for the winter (my daily car is 'too good' for snow), I need to accomodate more than three people, and I need to be able to pull a decent amount of weight/volume.
What struck me most (apart from the symmetry of each mutants 'gift' being also their curse) was the amount of conflict in the film (and complete X-Men saga), and the way it's shown in the context of accelerated evolution. It parallels very well with a Babylon 5 concept, that hardship, conflict and the fight for survival is a requirement for evolution.
I don't know if this is an intentional, integral part of the X-Men, but the argument is that without hardship, there is no need for evolution; so in the X-Men Universe, where individuals are evolving in different directions very rapidly, it makes sense that they be conflicted internally, as well as externally. It adds a lot of depth to the plot - and becomes a theme as well.
Here's a scenario:
Ms. Marvel is fatally wounded, there's no way to save her. Rogue is the only one around, and comforts her on her death-bed. Marvel asks Rogue to take her 'spirit'/'essence' (whathaveyou) so that she may live on in some small part... Simple, clean, believable.
I don't know, maybe it's the result of post-Columbine stress and alienation; I don't know. Jon, what's it like to be an outcast among the outcasts? Does it make you normal?
Katz doesn't seem to grasp the kernel of what makes X-Men (movie, comic, cartoon) a great concept.
There are not easy answers; there is no black and white; there is cruel irony all around us!
We are not supposed to hate Magneto, not at all. We're supposed to understand, and even accept his motivation. We are supposed to see his view throught his eyes, and see it as completely justified.
The openning scene of the movie was absolutely powerful - it set a tone that (IMO) the rest of the movie failed to live up to. If the entire movie carried the emotional payload of the first five minutes, it would have been draining, and not envigorating. It would have left half of it's target audience, the early-teen boys, in shambles, asking some very hard questions. The first scene, hopefully, foreshadows the potential of the (impending, I'm sure) sequels. X-Men SHOULD be a franchise, but I hope that it will not be another Batman; it has much more potential than that. But I digress...
X-Men is about difficult choices, and about there not being a simple black and white world.
There are multiple conflicts in the X-Men saga:
1. Between the mundanes and the mutants; driven by fear on both sides. Fear of the different and potentially superior vs fear of the establishment.
2. Between Congress and Individuals - between "The Law" and those who seemingly live beyond the laws of nature.
3. Between the good and the 'bad' mutants; though the 'bad' get a bad rap for nearsighted reasons. This is really a conflict between lawful and chaotic, in AD&D terms. Xavier wants to play by the rules, while to Magneto, the old rules are no longer applicable and new ones should be enforced.
4. Between individual characters: Cyclops and Wolverine, Xavier and Magneto, Wolverine and Sabertooth; more to come as the series goes on.
5. Within each character: Rogue, in effect a vampire, can kill with a touch and as a result can never be close to anyone; Woverine's healing factor is what singled him out for the adamantium infusion - and cost him his identity and memory. His cavalier attitude is a cover for the deep pain of not knowing who he is; Xavier's telepathy allows him to run around the world in the blink of an eye while his body is bound to his chair; Mystique, who is an outcast BECAUSE she is a chameleon.
In effect, each of the characters is crippled by their mutation (See: Algernon's Law.) The symmetry of this irony is a beautiful thing. X-Men is about opposites.
Also, Jon, the movie IS hilarious - it's just loaded with inside jokes. Wolverine complaining about the X-Men uniform, and cyclops suggesting yellow spandex had the theater in stitches!
I recognized Bobby right away, but was that Torch?? I hope the next installment will feature Beast as one of Xavier's school-teachers... Apparently he was left out since 'doing him justice would have blown the budget'. I can believe that. I'm really looking forward to the sequels - there is huge potential in X-Men.
Jon, you ought to see the movie again. Pay attention to the subtleties, since the movie tracks very well with the spirit of the X-Men.
You're right. What I should have said is:
You (general) can justify your drug use/advocacy by saying that other, legal substances are ALSO addictive and even more harmful, but what you're doing is still against the law.
As I've tried to make clear in other posts on this subject, I am not against drugs, I am against drug use due to personal experience (totally subjective), and in a broader sense due to their legal status.
Advocacy of drug legalization is much more likely to bring that result about than blatant disobedience of the laws. And to avoid any subsequent confusion, I did NOT just say that all laws are to be bindly obeyed...
Contract work is probably familiar territory for many O S developers, as is the idea of requirements; but many amateur hackers are not that well informed.
I've been involved in some large projects where specification of requirements, deliverables, functionality and schedule are at least as significant to the project as the coding itself.
If there was a mutually agreed-upon contract, and it stipulated certain requirements such as UI standards, performance, stability (MTBF for example), failsafes, and adherence to specified constraints - and if the delivered product does not live up to the contract - and the contractee loses bussiness, customers or any other resource as a result, than the contractor is liable. They have breached the contract.
Imagine being a company with something to sell. You get some funding, and you take out start-up loans. You hire a bunch of coders to develop your online presence, and you advertise it's expected availability. Your business plan calls for the site to start generating revenue the day it goes live, and your product can support this plan. But, on openning day, your site is useless due to being poorly developed, and the bank is expecting you to start paying off that loan... What would YOU do to the contractor, if you are facing huge fines, and the site is a piece of junk?
I certainly hope that this will set a precedent. This sort of accountability has always been there in mission-critical, safety-critical and heavy-financial systems. Now that B2B and eCommerce and all that other buzz is a major economic force, I certainly hope that the expectations placed on developers of such systems will rise to a 'professional' standard.
At this point in time, a high-school drop-out with marginal VB skills can get a well paying job and end up costing a great deal of money while doing a great deal of damage. This needs to change.
On a recent vacation to Maine, I was struck by how sparsely populated that state is. A house every mile or so, with the center of a town denoted by an intersection with a single blinking red light.
I thought I lived out in the boonies; and by most standards I do - I let my dog roam and I can leave the house with the doors unlocked and the windows open, and go to work without worry. I have neighbors within shouting distance, and consider my area pretty crowded compared to the farmland nearby. And I live in Connecticut, dab-smack in the middle of the Boston-NYC corridor.
Here, outside the city, a car is required. In my close-quarters town, I can buy milk at the convenience store a quarter-mile away, but to do complete groceries I need to drive to the next town over (a large one) and choose one of the four supermarkets there. I do groceries for the week, not for the day. I'm fortunate to have a job 25 miles from home. I have friends who drive twice that far each day, and my GF is 65 miles away (no, not "away at college", actually lives that far).
Incidentally, on my vacation to maine, I learned that THERE, grocery shopping is a day trip for many people. Hell, all city dwellers should go there for a vacation. Stay in a cottage on Moosehead Lake and you'll meet people who live on one of the surrounding lakes... There are no roads to their homes. They own a float-plane which they fly to Moosehead, land there, get in their car and drive 40 minutes to Portland for a day-trip and annual clothes-shopping.
In Greenville ME., there is a great little restaurant (whose name escapes me) with a gravel parking lot on one side, and a boat dock on the other. People from across the lake, or from a few lakes over, take either their boat or float-plane out to dinner.
Hnice, get out of the city - you're much more likely to get killed in the street by a speeding bus or garbage/delivery truck that you are to develop pollution-related cancer in the 'burbs. And for God's sake, go on vacation and see some real trees.
Here's a major selling point for me. How are the performance specs for alternative fuels? I like my speed, and I like getting pressed into the seat when I hit the throttle - and with today's high-tech engines, that rush isn't even that costly in fuel.
:)
Diesel is sluggish, and smells real bad. Yes, you can get a turbo-charged diesel car to power up a hill like a run of the mill gasoline burner, but a gas car made to perform will rocket up that same hill. Diesels are fast but they're not nimble, and that's putting it kindly. Adrenaline is better than caffeine after a long day at work.
Electric is sluggish. The new Honda Insight promises 60MPG, but I'm sure that it can barely get out of the way of a run-away semi. They're good commuter-mobiles, but they are simply NOT exciting to drive. Underpowered electrics may be efficient, but I just do not feel safe in one.
A buddy here at work is part of an electric vehicle test program, and while the car is an interesting concept, and has no emissions to speak of, it is a featherweight, underpowered slug. Also, the issue with electric is that the juice has to come from somewhere - and in many/most cases, that somewhere is a petrol or coal-fired plant. This is just defering the fossil consumption to a centralized location, a better solution, but not a complete one.
Electric cars are good for flat commutes, and for buzzing around town; but they fail to impress in terms of performance and comfort in hilly, rural areas.
I've never driven a methanol or propane powered vehicle. How are they for performance, both in terms of speed and power? How are they for cost of ownership (not just conversion by fuel, maintenance...)?
I presume you've read the article... Heh!
I know we've all been raised on Star Trek, but few people have qualms about stepping on an ant on their way to work. Is extra-terrestrial life all that different?
Certainly, until we have an understanding of things, we should not blindly wipe them out. But, if you recall the precautions that were taken by NASA when the first moon rocks were brought back to Earth.. We'', they're professionals after all, they know what they're doing.
Personally I'm torn on the issue. (I guess I need some more immediate problems, no?) On the one hand, we shouldn't soil yet another planet/moon/world just because we can, but on the other hand... Damn! Why not? If there's gold in them there hills, and it keep our yard a little cleaner... Maslow's pyramid comes to mind.
And hey, if there is no life there, and we use it as a petri-dish to make some, then all the better. One step closer to realizing Godhood.
Man, did you even read the rest of this thread?
Everything you've brought up has been discussed.
There's a difference between ignoring the law for personal pleasure and blindly following it into immorality.
Do you think anyone is as stupid as you accuse me of being?? Well, let me qualify that I do not know any Religious Right Extremists or KKK members, but other than those two groups... Damn, quit with the flamebait already.
FWIW, much as you've just done, I tend to offer an extreme interpretation of a point of view, just to test how reasonable it's foundations are; fair enough; but come on! The thread is wearing much too thin, and I think I've made my argument adequately well. Any intelligent person knows that there is no law that is perfect.
The rest of the post set that single statement in an appropriate context. Once you take it out of context though, it still stands up.
/. won't accomplish squat, but writing yet another letter to your representative; a well reasoned one; just might make a difference. And if you do not take that step, then you will find yourself increasingly repressed by the laws made for the benefit of those who care enough to speak out.
Read it again, and this time, notice the word "tangible". The codified laws are a standard to which we can all refer - without that, it all boils down to opinion and personal preference, which is exactly what you've just demonstrated.
I chose that specific phrasing ('tangible') to make exactly that point, but I appreciate your reactionary response without actually thinking. This sort of flamage is exactly what gives "Linux Zealots" an undeservedly extremist reputation.
To reiterate, my posts have all centered around 'right' and 'wrong' is reference to the Law, not in reference to some personal and highly variable moral standard.
My morals most likely do not map well to your morals, and arguments and violence often follow such disagreement; and this is EXACTLY why a codified standard defining 'right' and 'wrong' (again, in case you missed it, that does not mean morally but legally) is required.
I'm glad you used the word "wrong" is quotes, but your examples make the point you are arguing against. When a law against something is passed, that something becomes 'wrong' in the eyes of the law... That's sort of the definition of the concept.
The law is an attempt (ATTEMPT) at reflecting societal morality and ethics for the greatest common good (at least in principle - we've all seen plenty of corruption). The law, in principle, does not seek to dictate morally right and wrong actions; it only seeks to codify in a standard way the views of society.
Separating moral right and moral wrong is a job for the individual. The individual then, if they desire the benefits of living in a civilized society, has the responsibility to make their views known, so that they may be codified and made into Law.
If enough individuals share the same ethical views then the laws of their society reflect the views of the people.
If on the other hand, individuals just want to smoke a blunt in peace, but do not assert their right to do so, then their laws do not guarantee them this right. (If you have not realized it by now, I'll hand it to you: This thread is about the theory of law, not about whats right and wrong in a karmic, universal sense)
Get it now? I'm not saying the laws are just, I'm saying that the laws reflect the views of those individuals who made a point of voicing their opinion on the issue. People, historically, only speak out in opposition to the bad, and rarely in support of the good - and too often people are simply too lazy to take an active interest in the laws being passed, until it suddenly becomes illegal to live their lifestyle of choice. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the *silent* majority gets led around like sheep.
I'm not saying this is how it SHULD be, not by a long shot - but this is the unfortunate state of things. Bitching about it on
That's the sort of twisted rationalization that results from blindly following any set of rules.
Yeah, no thought went into it whatsoever.
So you abdicate your right to think to the majority?
Absolutely not. The right to think (and discuss) and the right to act are very different things - and as far as this issue is concerned, I choose to act in accordance with the law. (Note: Nowhere am I saying that YOU must do the same.) The fact that I am here discussing this issue, and not running around shouting how all drug users are evil and depraved, should make that point clear.
I don't think that drugs should be illegal - personally I don't care. If they were legal, I still would not do them - but things being as they are, using drugs is illegal; and the law is the only tangible metric of right and wrong, isn't it?
So, in the legal (not moral) sense, it is wrong to do drugs. For me, this is enough to discourage me from doing them. I don't have time for the consequences. Am I passing judgement on you? I don't mean to, this is about my POV and IMHO as is pertains to MY lifestyle. Sheesh! Why is that so hard for casual drug users to accept? Is it latent guilt? Let it go, I have no beef with your lifestyle.
When someone wrongs you, the only thing you have to depend on for justice (besides your fists) is the law - but if your adherence to the law is spotty at best, then how dependable can the legal system be when you need it to protect you? I don't believe that great ideals can be served by compromising the small ones.
Drugs are pretty much a non-issue in my life, some friends do them, most don't - and at times like this they make for good conversation fodder. There are few arguments I can think of against legalizing drugs - at least the 'lightweight' (un-or simply reined ones) ones like pot. There are plenty of good arguments for legalizing pot.
As long as they are illegal, I will see them as wrong (once they are legal, I will see them as 'not my thing').
But people who try to 'justify' their drug use are being hypocritical. You know it is illegal, you know you are breaking the law by doing it. The number of responses to my original post suggests a lot of guilt, as everyone clammors to make their excuse. Hey! It's your life, do as you wish. Have fun and be safe! I'm not in a position to forgive you or excuse you; but I don't resent or blam you in any way - I just won't join you.
Read this post, and think for a few minutes about what I'm saying, before you flame me. Then, if you still feel incindiary, fire away!
I'm well aware of the history of pot's legal standing, but thanks for posting the details. As an aside, Jefferson also owned slaves; or is that an inconvenient fact?
One for your side now: Marijuana is four times more effective at filtering greenhouse gasses out of the atmoshpere than the next best alternative, and grows to maturity in a fraction of the time. But it's still illegal. And just how does smoking it in your bedroom contribute to educating the public about the economic and environmental benefits of MJ? Make a web-site and educate, don't just cover yourself up with factoids to justify your lifestyle.
As for selective obedience to the law.. Well, there's some vacant space in Waco that's almost ready for lease. How do you feel about murder? Thought so. How about not providing medical care to a badly ill child for religious reasons? Is it murder if the child dies, because his/her parents are Christian Scientists?
Shoving each other back and forth on the tip of the iceberg isn't going to make much differnece, and the fact that we disagree doesn't make one of us right and the other wrong. I'm no more of a fascist than you are an anarchist.
And for the record, I never said Drugs are necessarily "Evil". If that's the vibe you got, maybe you're the one that's prejudiced against opinions other than your own. I just don't do them - and one of the reasons is that they are illegal. I've gone as far as to say that, even if they were reclassified, I would still not do them, for other reasons - of did you miss that part? I'm not telling you not to do drugs, I'm just giving my opinion. That's what this place is about, isn't it?
I cleverly hid the following paragraph in my previous post:
:) )
The Law is a living thing, and it depends on evolving ideas and the variable needs of society; but as it is now, Drugs (not to be confused with medicinal or legal lower-case drugs) are illegal. If enough people in our society agreed to legalize pot, I would still draw the line in the same place, legal vs. illegal.
Sorry for the apparent discomfort. The law is changable, and there are proper channels for making this change happen.
In your example, the law was not adaptible quickly, because the bulk of society was either opposed or indifferent to what we now consider a moral obligation to their fellow man. It's really another topic entirely, but I appreciate the hyperbole.
Much as a soldier has the option (arguably an obligation) to not follow immoral orders (Mai Lei?) so does a person have the option (arguably obligation) to not follow an agruably immoral law.
But not following a (bad, arguably) law for the benefit of a person is not the same as ignoring a law for personal enjoyment. (Did I mention I drive too fast? I do it because it's FUN; but I only do it on open and empty roads.
The law is a mutually agreed upon set of rules. All rules should be questioned and considered within the immediate context, certainly, but also in a broader sense. A law may hold perfectly well in 80% of all cases, and fail terribly in the remainder - this is why it gets revised, ammended, whatever. Or the POV of society changes and the law is retracted. Sometimes, civil disobedience is required to bring about awareness of the unfairness of a law, and it's eventual change. But going underground and doing as we please, for no higher purpose other than our own entertainment undermines the basis of society and leads to anarchy and lack of accountability for consequences.
It is just as unreasonable to expect universal adherence as it is to accept excessive non-compliance. I just happen to prefer the current state of affairs as far as Drugs are concerned, that's all.
Hindsight is 20/20, and from our perspective, the Fugitive Slave Law is evil since people are not property. In hindsight, either the lumber industry would not have lobbied so hard against help farming, or the Bill of Rights would not have been written on hemp paper; things being as they are, we have a bit of a paradox - the Law of the Land is written on paper made from an illegally grown economic competitor to wood-paper.
Sudden changes in law are difficult for society to accept. For example, should we be suddenly legally required to become vegetarians, because animals are made to suffer when they are made into food?
Yes, it's another hyperbole, but from the perspective of 150 years ago, so was your argument.
You mean our lawmaker do not have our best interests in mind? For shame...
And here they're trying to muzzle the Internet, the single most reliable source of information for enquiring minds.
Seems like a waste of effort to me though. If they just left the net alone, it would collapse under the weight of spam, first posts and Natalie Portman fan-sites anyway. Isn't entropy a beautiful thing?
Government intervention is self-defeating. If they could just keep their grubby little control-freak hands off of the thing, they would not be drawing attention to the issue. Hell, they could just release some fake drug-coctail info that would kill of a few of the intellectually-challenged amateur chemists; and suddenly the population would be begging them to make some law...
Is that what you meant about the way 'politics really works'?