OK, your post is a horrible display of over-generalization and creulty. You were modded up for being a demeaning asshole. First you state,"... and the first thing the Slashdot crowd wants to do is run Linux on it." which is plainly over-generalizing the people here and what they are interested in. Then you get self-righteous and start declaring the curious intelligent people playing with computers, to see what they can do, as immature, sickening dorks with low self-esteems.
What the fuck is your problem? Everyone has a hobby that can be construed as "wasting time", from watching TV to collecting baseball cards. Here someone is experimenting with computers, they are probably Linux hobbyists doing something a little more creative than picking up Teddy Bear themed cookie jars at auctions (not that there is anything wrong if that's your hobby), and you go off on them. Maybe you are thinking they believe in the ideals that come out of the GPL, so you have a venomous hatred of that??? Maybe you are just a troll, I'm not a frequent enough poster to know the game, but please, I see no reason for your attitude towards people. I make it a habit not to be a jerk to people in general, especially over something as minor as interest in an operating system.
Why would you write such a post? Are you actually serious when you write this or are you just trolling? You are being a dick to J. Katz because he thinks people should be able to choose for themselves what to know and research and view. You then go on to suggest it is no big deal that corporations will collude with governements to strip people of liberty, because you seem to value a corps drive to profit and a governments drive to control information in attempts to control people and keep itself in power over all other things. These are countries without any democratic forms of government, run by kings and princes. The seek to censor information that runs counter to thier own limited interests. To support corporations that help in these tasks, or support the governments desire, is basically fascism. It would be supporting the self-serving drives of govt. and corps blindly over the interest of people. You trivialize the importance of an open and free society. I am saddened that people found your post worthy of positive moderation.
While I am not in opposition to your message, I have to take issue with your hysterical moralizing. It does no good to simply express outrage, then refuse to back up your position because "If you actually need an answer to that question, you are yourself in dire need of help." You just lay out multiple opinions and statements and think your disgust is justification for not explaining yourself. Lay out the facts. Do not let moral outrage shutdown your ability to use rationality. Blind moral outrage is cave-man thinking. Rise above it.
"WE ARE AT WAR. I think this story is to spit on the graves of everyone who died this week."
I think you are going over the line with that statement.
I completely fail to see how fighting to make sure our civil liberties stay intact through this time of crisis is akin to spitting on the graves of the dead. I think we all understand some increased paranoia and concern for security, but because of the highly emotional state some people are in, it is important to have advocates to help stem the tide and make sure we do not go too far. Maybe you believe there should be a temporary restriction of liberties for safety, I am not sure of your exact position on this matter, but I hope we both agree that we'd like to maximize liberty in the world, that eventually the whole world could be a freer place. If we agree that we would like the world to be a freer place, than the difference between us is merely one of opinion on tactics and strategy for reaching those ends. You seem to believe that liberties should take a back seat at the moment, others may think for various reasons that that would be a bad tactic. Regardless, to say someone is disrespecting the dead for wishing to maximize or maintain liberty is really uncalled for. To try to claim a moral high ground and shame us for thinking of liberty at a time like this, it is just a silly thing for you to have done.
"I want a cold, calculated, well planned, painful, mass devastation of the terrorists, their homes, their families, their harboring country and any nation caught funding their operation. Rinse. Repeat."
China, without a doubt, needs to work on being a less reprssive place, but when beanerspace states:
"Still, for those who thought human rights weren't an olympic issue, just think of how much fun it's not going to be to go the Olympics and attempt to transmit stories and images of the results from behind the Great Firewall. So much for thinking that bringing commerce and communications would have the same effect as the barbarians did to Rome."
It reminded me of most of the other recent Olympics, with the Olympic committee itself preventing the transmission of stories and images from observers or participants in the games. I found the Olympics committees actions just as objectionable and anti-liberty. One takes liberty for power and control, the other takes liberty for all the money it can get. A sad state of affairs....
"Yeah, well, if it prevents incidents like the Chinese holding 24 of our soldiers captive, I'm all for it. In case you didn't notice, everybody's got nukes now, and we need a different edge. Our economy won't be bulletproof forever, and we need to do this kind of R&D work while the money is available."
Hmm, nationalistic self-identification... Us vs. Them thinking... I've always been disappointed that so much of the world thinks this way. A recipe for endless strife. :-(
Hmm, you say, "First of all, it's worth noting that this is a prediction based on a theory."
You do realize that everything science has to say takes the form of predictions made from theories (tested hypotheses), aye? Your wording is similar to the phrases creationists use to "discredit" evolution. "It's just a theory". Much like it is just a theory that if you let go of an object in your hand it will fall to the ground. Maybe you believe the theory has not been well enough tested, but please don't say that because something is a "prediction based on a theory" that it must be suspect on those grounds alone. Every rational decision and prediction we make is based on a theory. Facts and observations lead to hypotheses that are tested to form theories. Theories don't lead to facts, but are instead the most consistant explanation derived from the facts.
This has been a sloppy science terminology report.
I remember in the Cyberpunk RPG by R. Talsorian, the cheapest cyberdeck was a Radio Shack deck of some sort. One time, I made a character who basically had no cash, and couldn't afford even the cheapest deck, so we invented one with worse stats and I dubbed it "The Vic 2020".....
"Sounds like you are also against logic. How can you be against censorship and also against a web site, regardless of what it promotes."
There is nothing illogical about being against censorship and also being against a web site. There is nothing wrong with trying to change society for the better, it is a noble thing to do. For example, I wish there weren't hundreds of white-power sites on the internet, is that wrong of me? Come on! When someone says they are against censorship and against a web page, that means they wish to fight against an idea with words and logic and reason, not laws, cops, and prisons. You seem to advocate living a life where we don't try to make things better in any way, and just sit around as isolated individuals, enjoying shallow pleasures. You also seem to ignore the public effects of what you may think is private behavior. I agree that as a consunsual act, drugs should be legalised. I oppose the governments thuggish and brutal way of dealing with drugs. This does not stop me from believing drug use (from nicotine and alcohol to heroin and cocaine) is a silly, dangerous (depending on drug partly) shallow pleasure that I have no respect for, and oppose. I think it makes the world a worse place, and causes misery for people, and it would make me happy to see people live fulfilling happy lives without a chemical crutch. See, it is possible to be against something whole-heartedly without resorting to censorship and locking up the population, because those things are greater evils than what you wish was fixed. Sure, we shouldn't be poking around in other people's private lives and legislating the sort of behaviors you refer to, but there is also nothing wrong with advocating for or against these private behaviors either.
Why is it that a country needs military significance? Why is it that not working 10 hour days putting the drivers side door on an Audi makes us weak and decadent? Does work make you stupid and leisure make you weak? I believe there are those with fullfilling and creative jobs that allow them to develop their minds, and those who are given menial mindless tasks, that do nothing for them but allow them to survive. Basically we are trying to find a way to be happy, and deeply content with our lives, to maybe find some sort of reason to feel our lives are significant. There is no need to necessarilly be "highly productive" (i.e.: make lots of widgets to sell in a capitalist economy). We simply need to do what we need to make ourselves comfortable, while doing our best not to screw the next guy and deny him his comfort. While I agree that it is possible to be shallow and decadent, searching for idle pleasure, I do not believe all culture (telling each other stories, history and custom, etc.) or philosophy (what is the nature of the world? What is our part?) can be termed "decadent". I also believe that a certain rigor of mind, or work ethic is beneficial, but we should remember what our ends are. You say, "None of their "cultural and philosophical awareness" gets them longer lifespans, higher technology, or military significance." and a case can be made that perhaps some of those things can help some of us towards our ends of finding contentment (except maybe the military part...), but culture and philosophy are in no way inconsequential. They are the discussions we have with ourselves as we try to puzzle this crazy world out (though I need to mention science, as it is so important in grounding our philosophical musings in reality, and keeping us from the fantastical dreamy "mental masturbation, I think you are opposed to). As I type this post, I think we probably agree with more than I thought at 1st, except perhaps I think you value work too highly (when you mention, "but when they start cutting into your working hours, it is decadence.").
A more accurate representation of a corporate death penalty would to revoke a company's corporate charter and auction off its assets. As has been discussed here before, some decisions I believe occured in the late 1800's, that gave corporations legal status as persons. I've always felt this strange abstraction was pretty silly, but it is possible for a state to revoke the corporate charter of a company if it finds its actions detrimental to the public good. A couple articles that discuss this are at: http://adbusters.org/campaigns/charter/ and http://adbusters.org/campaigns/charter/death.html
Slashdot Mirror
OK, your post is a horrible display of over-generalization and creulty. You were modded up for being a demeaning asshole. First you state ,"... and the first thing the Slashdot crowd wants to do is run Linux on it." which is plainly over-generalizing the people here and what they are interested in. Then you get self-righteous and start declaring the curious intelligent people playing with computers, to see what they can do, as immature, sickening dorks with low self-esteems.
What the fuck is your problem? Everyone has a hobby that can be construed as "wasting time", from watching TV to collecting baseball cards. Here someone is experimenting with computers, they are probably Linux hobbyists doing something a little more creative than picking up Teddy Bear themed cookie jars at auctions (not that there is anything wrong if that's your hobby), and you go off on them. Maybe you are thinking they believe in the ideals that come out of the GPL, so you have a venomous hatred of that??? Maybe you are just a troll, I'm not a frequent enough poster to know the game, but please, I see no reason for your attitude towards people. I make it a habit not to be a jerk to people in general, especially over something as minor as interest in an operating system.
Why would you write such a post? Are you actually serious when you write this or are you just trolling? You are being a dick to J. Katz because he thinks people should be able to choose for themselves what to know and research and view. You then go on to suggest it is no big deal that corporations will collude with governements to strip people of liberty, because you seem to value a corps drive to profit and a governments drive to control information in attempts to control people and keep itself in power over all other things. These are countries without any democratic forms of government, run by kings and princes. The seek to censor information that runs counter to thier own limited interests. To support corporations that help in these tasks, or support the governments desire, is basically fascism. It would be supporting the self-serving drives of govt. and corps blindly over the interest of people. You trivialize the importance of an open and free society. I am saddened that people found your post worthy of positive moderation.
While I am not in opposition to your message, I have to take issue with your hysterical moralizing. It does no good to simply express outrage, then refuse to back up your position because "If you actually need an answer to that question, you are yourself in dire need of help." You just lay out multiple opinions and statements and think your disgust is justification for not explaining yourself. Lay out the facts. Do not let moral outrage shutdown your ability to use rationality. Blind moral outrage is cave-man thinking. Rise above it.
"WE ARE AT WAR. I think this story is to spit on the graves of everyone who died this week."
I think you are going over the line with that statement.
I completely fail to see how fighting to make sure our civil liberties stay intact through this time of crisis is akin to spitting on the graves of the dead. I think we all understand some increased paranoia and concern for security, but because of the highly emotional state some people are in, it is important to have advocates to help stem the tide and make sure we do not go too far. Maybe you believe there should be a temporary restriction of liberties for safety, I am not sure of your exact position on this matter, but I hope we both agree that we'd like to maximize liberty in the world, that eventually the whole world could be a freer place. If we agree that we would like the world to be a freer place, than the difference between us is merely one of opinion on tactics and strategy for reaching those ends. You seem to believe that liberties should take a back seat at the moment, others may think for various reasons that that would be a bad tactic. Regardless, to say someone is disrespecting the dead for wishing to maximize or maintain liberty is really uncalled for. To try to claim a moral high ground and shame us for thinking of liberty at a time like this, it is just a silly thing for you to have done.
"I want a cold, calculated, well planned, painful, mass devastation of the terrorists, their homes, their families, their harboring country and any nation caught funding their operation. Rinse. Repeat."
Your statement tells me one thing.
You are a part of the problem.
China, without a doubt, needs to work on being a less reprssive place, but when beanerspace states:
"Still, for those who thought human rights weren't an olympic issue, just think of how much fun it's not going to be to go the Olympics and attempt to transmit stories and images of the results from behind the Great Firewall. So much for thinking that bringing commerce and communications would have the same effect as the barbarians did to Rome."
It reminded me of most of the other recent Olympics, with the Olympic committee itself preventing the transmission of stories and images from observers or participants in the games. I found the Olympics committees actions just as objectionable and anti-liberty. One takes liberty for power and control, the other takes liberty for all the money it can get. A sad state of affairs....
Hmm, nationalistic self-identification... Us vs. Them thinking... I've always been disappointed that so much of the world thinks this way. A recipe for endless strife.
:-(
You do realize that everything science has to say takes the form of predictions made from theories (tested hypotheses), aye? Your wording is similar to the phrases creationists use to "discredit" evolution. "It's just a theory". Much like it is just a theory that if you let go of an object in your hand it will fall to the ground. Maybe you believe the theory has not been well enough tested, but please don't say that because something is a "prediction based on a theory" that it must be suspect on those grounds alone. Every rational decision and prediction we make is based on a theory. Facts and observations lead to hypotheses that are tested to form theories. Theories don't lead to facts, but are instead the most consistant explanation derived from the facts.
This has been a sloppy science terminology report.
Thank you for your time
I remember in the Cyberpunk RPG by R. Talsorian, the cheapest cyberdeck was a Radio Shack deck of some sort. One time, I made a character who basically had no cash, and couldn't afford even the cheapest deck, so we invented one with worse stats and I dubbed it "The Vic 2020".....
Yeah, so it was a bad joke....
Heh....
"Sounds like you are also against logic. How can you be against censorship and also against a web site, regardless of what it promotes."
There is nothing illogical about being against censorship and also being against a web site. There is nothing wrong with trying to change society for the better, it is a noble thing to do. For example, I wish there weren't hundreds of white-power sites on the internet, is that wrong of me? Come on! When someone says they are against censorship and against a web page, that means they wish to fight against an idea with words and logic and reason, not laws, cops, and prisons. You seem to advocate living a life where we don't try to make things better in any way, and just sit around as isolated individuals, enjoying shallow pleasures. You also seem to ignore the public effects of what you may think is private behavior. I agree that as a consunsual act, drugs should be legalised. I oppose the governments thuggish and brutal way of dealing with drugs. This does not stop me from believing drug use (from nicotine and alcohol to heroin and cocaine) is a silly, dangerous (depending on drug partly) shallow pleasure that I have no respect for, and oppose. I think it makes the world a worse place, and causes misery for people, and it would make me happy to see people live fulfilling happy lives without a chemical crutch. See, it is possible to be against something whole-heartedly without resorting to censorship and locking up the population, because those things are greater evils than what you wish was fixed. Sure, we shouldn't be poking around in other people's private lives and legislating the sort of behaviors you refer to, but there is also nothing wrong with advocating for or against these private behaviors either.
Why is it that a country needs military significance? Why is it that not working 10 hour days putting the drivers side door on an Audi makes us weak and decadent? Does work make you stupid and leisure make you weak?
I believe there are those with fullfilling and creative jobs that allow them to develop their minds, and those who are given menial mindless tasks, that do nothing for them but allow them to survive. Basically we are trying to find a way to be happy, and deeply content with our lives, to maybe find some sort of reason to feel our lives are significant. There is no need to necessarilly be "highly productive" (i.e.: make lots of widgets to sell in a capitalist economy). We simply need to do what we need to make ourselves comfortable, while doing our best not to screw the next guy and deny him his comfort.
While I agree that it is possible to be shallow and decadent, searching for idle pleasure, I do not believe all culture (telling each other stories, history and custom, etc.) or philosophy (what is the nature of the world? What is our part?) can be termed "decadent". I also believe that a certain rigor of mind, or work ethic is beneficial, but we should remember what our ends are. You say, "None of their "cultural and philosophical awareness" gets them longer lifespans, higher technology, or military significance." and a case can be made that perhaps some of those things can help some of us towards our ends of finding contentment (except maybe the military part...), but culture and philosophy are in no way inconsequential. They are the discussions we have with ourselves as we try to puzzle this crazy world out (though I need to mention science, as it is so important in grounding our philosophical musings in reality, and keeping us from the fantastical dreamy "mental masturbation, I think you are opposed to).
As I type this post, I think we probably agree with more than I thought at 1st, except perhaps I think you value work too highly (when you mention, "but when they start cutting into your working hours, it is decadence.").
A more accurate representation of a corporate death penalty would to revoke a company's corporate charter and auction off its assets. As has been discussed here before, some decisions I believe occured in the late 1800's, that gave corporations legal status as persons. I've always felt this strange abstraction was pretty silly, but it is possible for a state to revoke the corporate charter of a company if it finds its actions detrimental to the public good. A couple articles that discuss this are at: http://adbusters.org/campaigns/charter/ and http://adbusters.org/campaigns/charter/death.html