I'm not familiar with such Catholic doctrine. I suppose it depends on whether or not the liar has better judgement than the target.
If I accepted that whoever lied to me for my own good had better judgement than I did, I don't know if I'd be offended. I'm not upset at the lies my parents told me for my own good when I was a kid or immature teenager.
Aside from children, it's a bit of a catch 22. If I accepted that someone had better judgement than me, I'd probably consider their advice anyway without the lie. If I didn't accept that they had better judgement, then that's not an acceptable situation to lie for my own good.
The public, for the record, doesn't seem to upset about many of the lies they're told. Clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a reason we needed to invade, for example.
Edit: For the record, I would never do such a thing. I probably should have gone with "I could do the 'I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, i'm not touching you' thing" rather than an actual specific, violent strawman. Sorry about that.
We do have rights to the atmosphere, whether they're legally recognized already or not. If I have no rights concerning the atmosphere, then I don't see why people dumping carbon into it have rights to it either, and I would be free to emit mustard gas or other toxins into their local atmosphere.
Lying for the greater good is sometimes okay if you ask me personally. Parents lie to their kids for their own good. If you think that the general public is rational and informed enough to lead themselves on issues more complex than "Stealing bad" then you have a higher opinion of them then me.
Anyway, yes, I am comfortable with the public being lied to to prevent global warming. Even were pro-carbon-emitting interests not already baldly lying to the public, I would be okay with it. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to public policy and the public.
If the theories are correct, then the right of industries to emit carbon is at odds with my rights to an unadulterated climate. Alternatively, their externalized costs are becoming our internalized costs. If the government is not the best option to balance our interests, what is? Firearms?
I don't think unpredictable weather patterns mean global warming is false. In terms of scientific method, saying Sandy was a result of global warming is probably a dramatic overstatement.
In terms of PR, it's a good move that I agree with because I'm convinced global warming is a threat. It's not the "cleanest" way to get the public and voters on board with curbing carbon emissions, but this is public policy. The fossil fuel industry isn't playing straight either, they're engaging in all the FUD they can, so playing fair is a good way to lose.
(Futile disclaimer: I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not global warming is real or not, that's not my point, and there's numerous other people and websites for that. I'm also not going to get into a debate about whether or not abortion is all good, whether or not one should vote republican or democrat, or whether the giants or the dolphins are going to win the world cup. If you want to argue about that, go somewhere else.)
you're the dumbass for buying DRMed goods and then being pissy when only some and not all DRM was removed from them later.
I don't know where you got that I was blaming apple, was pissed at apple, or was trying to shift responsibility there. The context was that someone had suggested that DRM was no longer an issue for apple at all. I was pointing out that there were some cases where DRM was still an issue with itunes (and again, it was pointed out to me that as far as songs go, they have now been completely resolved.) Blame was not part of it.
You're stunned that they litigated? Which part? Some higher up at Apple signed off on pursuing a ridiculous, abusive lawsuit that defies all logic? Surely you aren't stunned that the lawyers suggested such a stupid waste of billable time in the first place.
f someone rooted one of the seeds of your Linux ISO and stuck a bunch of child porn in it, you're guilty of both downloading and distributing child pornography at that point.
That strikes me as a somewhat unlikely, paranoid reason not to use bittorrent for anything. I think it's much, much more likely that someone who decided they didn't like me would simply plant a flash drive full of such material in my house. And much much much more likely that I'll get hit by a bus. There's no such thing as being absolutely safe, bittorrent or any program is never going to be 100% secure from dangers like that. Doesn't mean they're dangerous or stupid.
Interesting. Apple put up the cloud after I had already found another workaround. That being just downloading the mp3s from places who were willing to give backup copies away for free (piracy, to use the RIAA's preferred terms.)
I can't speak for Florida, but in the Midwest it was probably to pretend they don't live in the middle of nowhere.
They certainly didn't name Mexico Missouri after Mexico because they really like hispanic immigrants. And Versailles Missouri wasn't named because of their love of French words: the correct pronunciation is exactly as you would read phonetically in English. If you say "ver-SAI" Missouri, that's wrong. It's "Ver-say-lez."
Er, I meant that to read "I doubt that lingering DRM... is apple's fault." Switching from a double negative statement to a positive statement, I did it halfway.
Music you purchased that was DRMed before, the DRM was never removed. Movies and TV shows I think are still DRMed, and apps on the iDevices, I think of that as very intrusive DRM.
I have little doubt that the lingering DRM on music and movies and TV shows are apple's fault though. If I remember hearing correctly, apple in fact should be commended for forcing an end to DRM on music in the first place. I think on this issue, apple is more closely aligned with consumer interests than content's interests (and I've become pretty anti-apple). And I don't see the app store or old DRM DECREASING sales. But DRM in itunes is still an issue.
All technology, with the possible exception of vaccines, have advantages and disadvantages. And it's always a judgement call as to whether it's a good deal or not. Pilots and truckers would say no, travelers looking at potentially lower ticket prices, taxpayers looking at potentially less budget spent on the FAA, consumers looking at lower costs of goods would probably say yes.
Unless these things were perceived as unsafe, be it through FUD campaigns based on isolated incidents or be it companies making these devices pushing them before they are sufficiently mature.
I'd say we should try it, but I'm convinced it's the VOTERS that need to be replaced more. As long as most of them are willing to sacrifice liberties for a little bit of perceived security, someone will ALWAYS run for office offering them that deal.
The summary also mentions methane emissions have fallen. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and is emitted from landfills. Landfills often try to burn the methane (according to the wiki page on methane). But I'm guessing the process will be much more optimized if someone is making money off of it as opposed to someone being directed to burn it to prevent global warming or to explosions. The lowered emissions seem consistent with that.
Yes, but where will it stop? After they've taken control of Europe's natural trash resources, they'll turn to Russia, then it will only be a matter of time before they attack us on our own jersey shores.
Just as Kim Jong-Un had to purge a bunch of his father's old advisers in order to solidify his grip on North Korea, so too must new CEOs purge a board member or two in order to prove they're the boss.
I think it's a little early to be holding that up as a historical example of how to take power. He could be a puppet, he could be on his way out. Tomorrow we could read that Kim Jong-Un has been executed by being drowned in lemon juice after having his skin ripped off for the crime of not actually being Kim Jong-Il's son and this new guy who happened to be a general before is actually the true son and dear leader. And the people would absolutely accept that as true.
At any rate, I don't like apple and think much of what they do is utter nonsense and am disappointed by what their citizens/consumers are willing to accept from the management, but comparing Apple to North Korea is probably not fair to one or both parties.
My impression is that the "5 years" can be read "It's not available right now, there are some other barriers to this being marketed that I don't work on, it's anyone's guess as to how long that will take, but everyone will keep asking us how long until it's available unless we throw out a number so five is close enough to let you know you should remain interested but not so close that you'll expect it next year."
It's the marketing types, the reporters, and the audience of the news that demand the 5 year predictions, the researchers and engineers don't know, but we wouldn't be happy with "It will get here when it fucking gets here."
PS. After reading my comment, I realize you were responding to my suggestion that he pushed very hard for it. I went back and read an article about it that suggested you were right, that he gave up on it. So you may be right. Still, I don't think a public option was an option unless Obama were to have half the republicans in congress jailed.
Not being in the room, it's really impossible for us to say he never pushed for it. The thing barely squeaked by as was. I don't believe it would have passed had the public option been included. I'd rather we get some reform and preexisting health conditions covered than him trying to pass something that would have zero chance of getting passed.
Slashdot Mirror
Or not buying a microsoft kinect since they evidently have snapped up the exclusive rights to it.
I'm not familiar with such Catholic doctrine. I suppose it depends on whether or not the liar has better judgement than the target.
If I accepted that whoever lied to me for my own good had better judgement than I did, I don't know if I'd be offended. I'm not upset at the lies my parents told me for my own good when I was a kid or immature teenager.
Aside from children, it's a bit of a catch 22. If I accepted that someone had better judgement than me, I'd probably consider their advice anyway without the lie. If I didn't accept that they had better judgement, then that's not an acceptable situation to lie for my own good.
The public, for the record, doesn't seem to upset about many of the lies they're told. Clear evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq being a reason we needed to invade, for example.
Oh come on, discussions about global warming on slashdot are hairy enough without Godwining.
Edit: For the record, I would never do such a thing. I probably should have gone with "I could do the 'I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, i'm not touching you' thing" rather than an actual specific, violent strawman. Sorry about that.
Both of which already are and must be regulated.
We do have rights to the atmosphere, whether they're legally recognized already or not. If I have no rights concerning the atmosphere, then I don't see why people dumping carbon into it have rights to it either, and I would be free to emit mustard gas or other toxins into their local atmosphere.
Lying for the greater good is sometimes okay if you ask me personally. Parents lie to their kids for their own good. If you think that the general public is rational and informed enough to lead themselves on issues more complex than "Stealing bad" then you have a higher opinion of them then me.
Anyway, yes, I am comfortable with the public being lied to to prevent global warming. Even were pro-carbon-emitting interests not already baldly lying to the public, I would be okay with it. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to public policy and the public.
If the theories are correct, then the right of industries to emit carbon is at odds with my rights to an unadulterated climate. Alternatively, their externalized costs are becoming our internalized costs. If the government is not the best option to balance our interests, what is? Firearms?
I don't think unpredictable weather patterns mean global warming is false. In terms of scientific method, saying Sandy was a result of global warming is probably a dramatic overstatement.
In terms of PR, it's a good move that I agree with because I'm convinced global warming is a threat. It's not the "cleanest" way to get the public and voters on board with curbing carbon emissions, but this is public policy. The fossil fuel industry isn't playing straight either, they're engaging in all the FUD they can, so playing fair is a good way to lose.
(Futile disclaimer: I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not global warming is real or not, that's not my point, and there's numerous other people and websites for that. I'm also not going to get into a debate about whether or not abortion is all good, whether or not one should vote republican or democrat, or whether the giants or the dolphins are going to win the world cup. If you want to argue about that, go somewhere else.)
I know, but I was assuming the RIAA would still try to call it piracy. Did I underestimate them?
you're the dumbass for buying DRMed goods and then being pissy when only some and not all DRM was removed from them later.
I don't know where you got that I was blaming apple, was pissed at apple, or was trying to shift responsibility there. The context was that someone had suggested that DRM was no longer an issue for apple at all. I was pointing out that there were some cases where DRM was still an issue with itunes (and again, it was pointed out to me that as far as songs go, they have now been completely resolved.) Blame was not part of it.
You're stunned that they litigated? Which part? Some higher up at Apple signed off on pursuing a ridiculous, abusive lawsuit that defies all logic? Surely you aren't stunned that the lawyers suggested such a stupid waste of billable time in the first place.
f someone rooted one of the seeds of your Linux ISO and stuck a bunch of child porn in it, you're guilty of both downloading and distributing child pornography at that point.
That strikes me as a somewhat unlikely, paranoid reason not to use bittorrent for anything. I think it's much, much more likely that someone who decided they didn't like me would simply plant a flash drive full of such material in my house. And much much much more likely that I'll get hit by a bus. There's no such thing as being absolutely safe, bittorrent or any program is never going to be 100% secure from dangers like that. Doesn't mean they're dangerous or stupid.
Interesting. Apple put up the cloud after I had already found another workaround. That being just downloading the mp3s from places who were willing to give backup copies away for free (piracy, to use the RIAA's preferred terms.)
I can't speak for Florida, but in the Midwest it was probably to pretend they don't live in the middle of nowhere.
They certainly didn't name Mexico Missouri after Mexico because they really like hispanic immigrants. And Versailles Missouri wasn't named because of their love of French words: the correct pronunciation is exactly as you would read phonetically in English. If you say "ver-SAI" Missouri, that's wrong. It's "Ver-say-lez."
Er, I meant that to read "I doubt that lingering DRM... is apple's fault." Switching from a double negative statement to a positive statement, I did it halfway.
Music you purchased that was DRMed before, the DRM was never removed. Movies and TV shows I think are still DRMed, and apps on the iDevices, I think of that as very intrusive DRM.
I have little doubt that the lingering DRM on music and movies and TV shows are apple's fault though. If I remember hearing correctly, apple in fact should be commended for forcing an end to DRM on music in the first place. I think on this issue, apple is more closely aligned with consumer interests than content's interests (and I've become pretty anti-apple). And I don't see the app store or old DRM DECREASING sales. But DRM in itunes is still an issue.
All technology, with the possible exception of vaccines, have advantages and disadvantages. And it's always a judgement call as to whether it's a good deal or not. Pilots and truckers would say no, travelers looking at potentially lower ticket prices, taxpayers looking at potentially less budget spent on the FAA, consumers looking at lower costs of goods would probably say yes.
Unless these things were perceived as unsafe, be it through FUD campaigns based on isolated incidents or be it companies making these devices pushing them before they are sufficiently mature.
Who did you vote for in the primaries?
I'd say we should try it, but I'm convinced it's the VOTERS that need to be replaced more. As long as most of them are willing to sacrifice liberties for a little bit of perceived security, someone will ALWAYS run for office offering them that deal.
The summary also mentions methane emissions have fallen. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and is emitted from landfills. Landfills often try to burn the methane (according to the wiki page on methane). But I'm guessing the process will be much more optimized if someone is making money off of it as opposed to someone being directed to burn it to prevent global warming or to explosions. The lowered emissions seem consistent with that.
Yes, but where will it stop? After they've taken control of Europe's natural trash resources, they'll turn to Russia, then it will only be a matter of time before they attack us on our own jersey shores.
Just as Kim Jong-Un had to purge a bunch of his father's old advisers in order to solidify his grip on North Korea, so too must new CEOs purge a board member or two in order to prove they're the boss.
I think it's a little early to be holding that up as a historical example of how to take power. He could be a puppet, he could be on his way out. Tomorrow we could read that Kim Jong-Un has been executed by being drowned in lemon juice after having his skin ripped off for the crime of not actually being Kim Jong-Il's son and this new guy who happened to be a general before is actually the true son and dear leader. And the people would absolutely accept that as true.
At any rate, I don't like apple and think much of what they do is utter nonsense and am disappointed by what their citizens/consumers are willing to accept from the management, but comparing Apple to North Korea is probably not fair to one or both parties.
My impression is that the "5 years" can be read "It's not available right now, there are some other barriers to this being marketed that I don't work on, it's anyone's guess as to how long that will take, but everyone will keep asking us how long until it's available unless we throw out a number so five is close enough to let you know you should remain interested but not so close that you'll expect it next year."
It's the marketing types, the reporters, and the audience of the news that demand the 5 year predictions, the researchers and engineers don't know, but we wouldn't be happy with "It will get here when it fucking gets here."
PS. After reading my comment, I realize you were responding to my suggestion that he pushed very hard for it. I went back and read an article about it that suggested you were right, that he gave up on it. So you may be right. Still, I don't think a public option was an option unless Obama were to have half the republicans in congress jailed.
Not being in the room, it's really impossible for us to say he never pushed for it. The thing barely squeaked by as was. I don't believe it would have passed had the public option been included. I'd rather we get some reform and preexisting health conditions covered than him trying to pass something that would have zero chance of getting passed.