Taxed too high by your state? You are not required to live in that state. Don't like the Bush administration's policies You are not required to live in America.
That's a weak argument. The government is the sovereign power, and as such must use its power responsibly. If a policy's bad, telling people they don't have to live in an area run by that government isn't a particularly practical solution; the onus is on the government to do a good job, not on the governed to shop around jurisdictions.
I don't disagree with anything you say in principle. But Syrinx was still being a jerk about it. And while I can't say definitively this applies to him/her, it seems the vast majority of the self-proclaimed grammar/language nazis are awfully selective in their objections; it's somehow cool and trendy to correct this technical mis-use, but many of them couldn't really speak intelligently about other idioms and issues of language.
Using the phrase correctly, and encouraging others to do so is one thing. Being crass and saying things like "No, it doesn't. Don't use phrases if you don't know what they mean" is just being an ass.
Perhaps that's what it's about in practice, but it shouldn't be. Why continue to make decisions, of any kind (including software acquisition) on the assumption that's all it's about?
First of all, school isn't (strictly) about job preparation; it's about education. And they'll encounter any variety of things in the corporate world, not just Office. If their skills are good, they'll adjust to whatever they've got put in front of them. School is most importantly about learning to learn.
But aside from all that, if schools start using, say, OpenOffice, you might start to see corporations do the same. And since it's taxpayers funding the software acquisition, I'd rather the district stick to the free option so long as it works well enough for the students' purposes.
None of which contradicts the basic observation of the study - that there's a correlation between hanging around fat people and getting fat. The simplest explanation for that is friends make similar choices to one other (similar thinking can either be the cause of, or a consequence of, a relationship with someone). It doesn't let them off the hook for their own bad choices, it just identifies a key influence.
In short, the scientists aren't saying that if all your friends jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, you should too. They're saying they watched a bunch of friends of bridge-jumpers jump themselves. No one is arguing these people don't have control over their own lives; they're only observing what's happened.
No one is making excuses. They're making observations.
They're not claiming that fat rubs off from one person onto another. But friends engage in similar behaviors to one another - that's socialization. The scientists' observation will apply less to those with strong will and more to those who follow group behaviors. Nothing in what these scientists have observed contradicts the idea of personal responsibility; they're making the rather bland discovery that people tend to act like those with whom they identify and those with whom they enjoy spending time. You sound a little too quick to jump the gun with the fed-up borderline-hostile response.
That being said, while weight and physical health are more dependent on personal choices than most would like to believe, to discount the impact of biological and genetic factors outright is just silly. Personal choice has an influence, as do circumstances beyond the person's control; how much is to blame for a given case depends on the person.
"A government operates to benefit society as a whole, but does so by making laws and creating incentives which work for the individual."
There's another area where I differ from the popular thought. I don't see government's place as being to benefit society as a whole, no matter what mechanism it uses - as any effort to do so puts one person's liberties above another's not because of a clear moral right but because of a nebulous concept of the greater good. Leave me to a basic social contract government that does only those few things inherent to the sovereign (enforce laws, provide military protection from invaders, etc).
Really, my initial post is an outgrowth of the same philosophy. I'd rather see innovation stall because the vacuum cleaner inventor has no financial incentive to put in years of research than see the government stick its nose into the process. As a side note, I think innovation would still occur - but the innovators would have to be more creative in their efforts to profit without IP as a tool at their disposal.
"Without such a system, there's nothing stopping me from spending 10 years in a shed developing a revolutionary new vacuum cleaner, bringing it to market - and then you waltzing into a shop, buying one, copying it and selling it for half the price I do."
See, here's where I differ from the common thinking - I don't see that as a problem the government has business tackling. I don't see why the government should be in the business of protecting business plans. I get that the thinking behind intellectual property law is to encourage innovation for the good of the market as a whole, but I'm not convinced it always does that, and even if it does, that still doesn't seem to me like a strong enough reason to invoke the authority of the government, which is made possible only through coercive force.
I acknowledge that's a logistical issue for the vacuum cleaner inventor, but I see that as his problem and no one else's. In some types of technology, the tech itself is complex enough to delay reverse engineering for a while; other inventors may not have that luxury. But why is the response from the government anything more than "tough luck?"
Well, actually it is, but only for extremely poor video in comparison to extremely high quality audio.
There will always be a need for faster, more capable machines. We'll want them to do new things, and we'll want them to do old things better. We'll want better-than-HD video uncompressed, delivered instantly, playable by a machine that's busy doing many other complex things at once. We'll want extraordinarily complex data indexing. We'll want lifelike 3D. We'll want artificial intelligence. We'll want complex medical diagnostics. We'll want perfectly accurate voice recognition. We'll want all data, everywhere, immediately searchable. We'll want it to be able to toast bread and look hot in a French maid outfit.:)
We've just hit a point where many of the things people use computers for can be done with acceptably small lag time. The mainstream market hasn't yet caught up to the sorts of tasks that require today's most powerful machines, but come the next Big Thing, it probably will. But there will always be those with a need to push the envelope. And everyone still has an occasional task that takes burdensomely long to complete; we'll want those instantly achievable as well.
Are you suggesting it's impossible for rational and civil discourse to include expressions of violent, shocking or demeaning thought? That's fucking absurd. Certain things deserve to be demeaned, or at least it's possible to make fair arguments that they do. Certain things deserve to have violence done to them, or at least it's possible to make fair arguments that they do. And all progressive ideas are shocking.
But you know as well as I do that in practice, the deadly words have been watered down to the point where they rarely are used to express their most potent meanings. Are we to regulate broadcast expression of perfectly typical sentiments, like those expressed by Joe Average daily?
And why should congress get to make that demand in the first place? And who is congress, or any governmental entity, to decide what's rational and civil? Government shouldn't be in the business of telling us what's an acceptable way to think and feel, or drawing and distinctions between when it's appropriate to express sentiments outside of that norm and when it's not.
They're just fucking words. Words most of the fucking shitheads I know were saying by the fourth grade explicitly BECAUSE they were told they were naughty. They do no harm, they hold no foul power. They're naughty only because we say so, and virtually everyone uses them from time to time no matter how we regulate media. They're just fucking words.
Why the fuck does the FCC even care? Why do the politicians care? What the fuck is the matter with these people?
It depends on where the revenue comes from. If the pervasiveness of the advertising-driven tips makes the site less useful, people may turn somewhere else. There will always be people looking for more than the Arby's; if site X doesn't give it to them, because only Arby's paid up, site Y will, but with a different revenue model supporting site Y.
The law is absolute when it comes to speed limits. Enforcement isn't. That's a problem. That speed limits are typically set lower than what's necessary is also a problem. There's no justifiable reason for setting the limit any lower than rational analysis says is needed for safety. That legislators set laws with the expectation they'll be broken sometimes is a bad thing. It gives police the authority to selectively enforce law - to punish some for the exact same behavior demonstrated by others, for whatever reasons they choose. Maybe it's because they sense malice in one case and none in another; maybe its because one driver's black and the other's white; maybe it's because it won't look very good for the officer if he finishes out the month without enough tickets written.
Create a more reasonable law, and enforce it absolutely.
In your Chicago example, we'd both agree - that's just bad government with its priorities in the wrong place. It doesn't really speak to either of our arguments. We'd both agree the law should be about safety, and not setting traps for good-natured people.
As to your question about "the very nebulous entity of intent" - cops don't, and shouldn't have the authority to let people go simply because they believe the suspects intentions are pure (that this happens in the real world is yet another problem). The law should be written to account for intent where appropriate (as it does, for instance, to distinguish between varying degrees of a crime, or murder vs. manslaughter). We have judges and court systems before which intent, as well as other aspects of the alleged crime, can be argued when there's dispute.
Um, no. You're supposed to follow the law, to the letter, all the time. The fact that people don't is a problem. The fact that, for all intents and purposes, there's a grey area of infractions everyone commits often, but police only punish at their discretion (which may or may not be good-natured) is also a problem.
Now, if the law is too strict, it's too strict - no matter how effective or ineffective the enforcement mechanism is, because sometimes, somebody is going to be punished for breaking it, and that application of justice may not be based on any noble intent. If it's not reasonable to enforce a law that says get exactly behind the line and stay there for a prescribed time, change the law.
But in the example you quote, what liberty is being removed? Anonymity? You don't have that when driving a car on a public road - you've already got a license plate that the boys in blue can check on at any point. The technology would just automate the process. It's not more invasive - just more effective.
The same could be said of security cameras in public places. There's nothing wrong with a cop patrolling the streets looking for trouble - so what's wrong with a camera keeping tabs on a greater number of places. So long as there's no intrusion into a place where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, like private property, I don't see the problem.
I'm a libertarian with an awfully limited view of what the government's entitled to do. But I don't see this tech giving the government new powers - just making it more effective at using the powers it already has.
There are going to be a lot of posts about how this would mean suppressing a natural and beneficial process for dealing with tragedy - the more typical course of facing up to a trauma and learning to live with it, learn from it, and heal. I'm not saying those posters are wrong.
But how do we know they're right?
How do we know that the mechanisms for dealing with trauma we know now are really the best one? What' inherently wrong with chemistry be an aid in this? What's to say that's inferior?
My suspicion is that the best course is going to vary from person to person, and from trauma to trauma. In many cases, coming to terms with grief naturally, and with emotional support, is probably best. But What do we do with people who suffer such extraordinary grief that it wholly consumes them - and drives them into self-destructive behavior, or worse yet, suicide? Might something more chemically modern not be a better option?
It's a false nostalgia. The earlier presidents were bastards too. Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus. Harry Truman had loyalty reviews for federal employees (which Eisenhower later strengthened). Slavery and Jim Crow laws happened on the watches of countless presidents. Let's not forget about Japanese internment, authorized by FDR. The American government has just about never been about upholding bedrock American principles.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxed too high by your state? You are not required to live in that state. Don't like the Bush administration's policies You are not required to live in America.
That's a weak argument. The government is the sovereign power, and as such must use its power responsibly. If a policy's bad, telling people they don't have to live in an area run by that government isn't a particularly practical solution; the onus is on the government to do a good job, not on the governed to shop around jurisdictions.
I don't disagree with anything you say in principle. But Syrinx was still being a jerk about it. And while I can't say definitively this applies to him/her, it seems the vast majority of the self-proclaimed grammar/language nazis are awfully selective in their objections; it's somehow cool and trendy to correct this technical mis-use, but many of them couldn't really speak intelligently about other idioms and issues of language.
Using the phrase correctly, and encouraging others to do so is one thing. Being crass and saying things like "No, it doesn't. Don't use phrases if you don't know what they mean" is just being an ass.
On the "begs" thing, you're right by classical usage, and arguably wrong as popular usage eventually becomes standard in evolution of all language.
But mostly, you're just being a pedantic jerk.
"According to PC World, reaction from the community has been mostly positive."
PC World hadn't yet read this Slashdot thread.
Perhaps that's what it's about in practice, but it shouldn't be. Why continue to make decisions, of any kind (including software acquisition) on the assumption that's all it's about?
First of all, school isn't (strictly) about job preparation; it's about education. And they'll encounter any variety of things in the corporate world, not just Office. If their skills are good, they'll adjust to whatever they've got put in front of them. School is most importantly about learning to learn.
But aside from all that, if schools start using, say, OpenOffice, you might start to see corporations do the same. And since it's taxpayers funding the software acquisition, I'd rather the district stick to the free option so long as it works well enough for the students' purposes.
None of which contradicts the basic observation of the study - that there's a correlation between hanging around fat people and getting fat. The simplest explanation for that is friends make similar choices to one other (similar thinking can either be the cause of, or a consequence of, a relationship with someone). It doesn't let them off the hook for their own bad choices, it just identifies a key influence.
In short, the scientists aren't saying that if all your friends jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, you should too. They're saying they watched a bunch of friends of bridge-jumpers jump themselves. No one is arguing these people don't have control over their own lives; they're only observing what's happened.
No one is making excuses. They're making observations.
They're not claiming that fat rubs off from one person onto another. But friends engage in similar behaviors to one another - that's socialization. The scientists' observation will apply less to those with strong will and more to those who follow group behaviors. Nothing in what these scientists have observed contradicts the idea of personal responsibility; they're making the rather bland discovery that people tend to act like those with whom they identify and those with whom they enjoy spending time. You sound a little too quick to jump the gun with the fed-up borderline-hostile response.
That being said, while weight and physical health are more dependent on personal choices than most would like to believe, to discount the impact of biological and genetic factors outright is just silly. Personal choice has an influence, as do circumstances beyond the person's control; how much is to blame for a given case depends on the person.
"A government operates to benefit society as a whole, but does so by making laws and creating incentives which work for the individual."
There's another area where I differ from the popular thought. I don't see government's place as being to benefit society as a whole, no matter what mechanism it uses - as any effort to do so puts one person's liberties above another's not because of a clear moral right but because of a nebulous concept of the greater good. Leave me to a basic social contract government that does only those few things inherent to the sovereign (enforce laws, provide military protection from invaders, etc).
Really, my initial post is an outgrowth of the same philosophy. I'd rather see innovation stall because the vacuum cleaner inventor has no financial incentive to put in years of research than see the government stick its nose into the process. As a side note, I think innovation would still occur - but the innovators would have to be more creative in their efforts to profit without IP as a tool at their disposal.
I get you, and agree with you, but the answer is: When we want an efficient SDK that makes it easy to use all sorts of neat features.
"Without such a system, there's nothing stopping me from spending 10 years in a shed developing a revolutionary new vacuum cleaner, bringing it to market - and then you waltzing into a shop, buying one, copying it and selling it for half the price I do."
See, here's where I differ from the common thinking - I don't see that as a problem the government has business tackling. I don't see why the government should be in the business of protecting business plans. I get that the thinking behind intellectual property law is to encourage innovation for the good of the market as a whole, but I'm not convinced it always does that, and even if it does, that still doesn't seem to me like a strong enough reason to invoke the authority of the government, which is made possible only through coercive force.
I acknowledge that's a logistical issue for the vacuum cleaner inventor, but I see that as his problem and no one else's. In some types of technology, the tech itself is complex enough to delay reverse engineering for a while; other inventors may not have that luxury. But why is the response from the government anything more than "tough luck?"
Well, actually it is, but only for extremely poor video in comparison to extremely high quality audio.
:)
There will always be a need for faster, more capable machines. We'll want them to do new things, and we'll want them to do old things better. We'll want better-than-HD video uncompressed, delivered instantly, playable by a machine that's busy doing many other complex things at once. We'll want extraordinarily complex data indexing. We'll want lifelike 3D. We'll want artificial intelligence. We'll want complex medical diagnostics. We'll want perfectly accurate voice recognition. We'll want all data, everywhere, immediately searchable. We'll want it to be able to toast bread and look hot in a French maid outfit.
We've just hit a point where many of the things people use computers for can be done with acceptably small lag time. The mainstream market hasn't yet caught up to the sorts of tasks that require today's most powerful machines, but come the next Big Thing, it probably will. But there will always be those with a need to push the envelope. And everyone still has an occasional task that takes burdensomely long to complete; we'll want those instantly achievable as well.
If the words have real meaning, they're not pointless or gratuitous. If they don't, they're not harmful.
Again, they're just fucking words.
Are you suggesting it's impossible for rational and civil discourse to include expressions of violent, shocking or demeaning thought? That's fucking absurd. Certain things deserve to be demeaned, or at least it's possible to make fair arguments that they do. Certain things deserve to have violence done to them, or at least it's possible to make fair arguments that they do. And all progressive ideas are shocking.
But you know as well as I do that in practice, the deadly words have been watered down to the point where they rarely are used to express their most potent meanings. Are we to regulate broadcast expression of perfectly typical sentiments, like those expressed by Joe Average daily?
And why should congress get to make that demand in the first place? And who is congress, or any governmental entity, to decide what's rational and civil? Government shouldn't be in the business of telling us what's an acceptable way to think and feel, or drawing and distinctions between when it's appropriate to express sentiments outside of that norm and when it's not.
Fuckers.
They're just fucking words. Words most of the fucking shitheads I know were saying by the fourth grade explicitly BECAUSE they were told they were naughty. They do no harm, they hold no foul power. They're naughty only because we say so, and virtually everyone uses them from time to time no matter how we regulate media. They're just fucking words.
Why the fuck does the FCC even care? Why do the politicians care? What the fuck is the matter with these people?
Fuckshitfuck.
It depends on where the revenue comes from. If the pervasiveness of the advertising-driven tips makes the site less useful, people may turn somewhere else. There will always be people looking for more than the Arby's; if site X doesn't give it to them, because only Arby's paid up, site Y will, but with a different revenue model supporting site Y.
The law is absolute when it comes to speed limits. Enforcement isn't. That's a problem. That speed limits are typically set lower than what's necessary is also a problem. There's no justifiable reason for setting the limit any lower than rational analysis says is needed for safety. That legislators set laws with the expectation they'll be broken sometimes is a bad thing. It gives police the authority to selectively enforce law - to punish some for the exact same behavior demonstrated by others, for whatever reasons they choose. Maybe it's because they sense malice in one case and none in another; maybe its because one driver's black and the other's white; maybe it's because it won't look very good for the officer if he finishes out the month without enough tickets written.
Create a more reasonable law, and enforce it absolutely.
In your Chicago example, we'd both agree - that's just bad government with its priorities in the wrong place. It doesn't really speak to either of our arguments. We'd both agree the law should be about safety, and not setting traps for good-natured people.
As to your question about "the very nebulous entity of intent" - cops don't, and shouldn't have the authority to let people go simply because they believe the suspects intentions are pure (that this happens in the real world is yet another problem). The law should be written to account for intent where appropriate (as it does, for instance, to distinguish between varying degrees of a crime, or murder vs. manslaughter). We have judges and court systems before which intent, as well as other aspects of the alleged crime, can be argued when there's dispute.
Um, no. You're supposed to follow the law, to the letter, all the time. The fact that people don't is a problem. The fact that, for all intents and purposes, there's a grey area of infractions everyone commits often, but police only punish at their discretion (which may or may not be good-natured) is also a problem.
Now, if the law is too strict, it's too strict - no matter how effective or ineffective the enforcement mechanism is, because sometimes, somebody is going to be punished for breaking it, and that application of justice may not be based on any noble intent. If it's not reasonable to enforce a law that says get exactly behind the line and stay there for a prescribed time, change the law.
But in the example you quote, what liberty is being removed? Anonymity? You don't have that when driving a car on a public road - you've already got a license plate that the boys in blue can check on at any point. The technology would just automate the process. It's not more invasive - just more effective.
The same could be said of security cameras in public places. There's nothing wrong with a cop patrolling the streets looking for trouble - so what's wrong with a camera keeping tabs on a greater number of places. So long as there's no intrusion into a place where there's a reasonable expectation of privacy, like private property, I don't see the problem.
I'm a libertarian with an awfully limited view of what the government's entitled to do. But I don't see this tech giving the government new powers - just making it more effective at using the powers it already has.
Won't someone please think of the redheads? I guess I'll have to do it. Conveniently, I already was.
There are going to be a lot of posts about how this would mean suppressing a natural and beneficial process for dealing with tragedy - the more typical course of facing up to a trauma and learning to live with it, learn from it, and heal. I'm not saying those posters are wrong.
But how do we know they're right?
How do we know that the mechanisms for dealing with trauma we know now are really the best one? What' inherently wrong with chemistry be an aid in this? What's to say that's inferior?
My suspicion is that the best course is going to vary from person to person, and from trauma to trauma. In many cases, coming to terms with grief naturally, and with emotional support, is probably best. But What do we do with people who suffer such extraordinary grief that it wholly consumes them - and drives them into self-destructive behavior, or worse yet, suicide? Might something more chemically modern not be a better option?
Um, dude. Solitaire. Win 3.11 edition. Before they ruined it with fancy graphics. Back when it was pure.
It's a false nostalgia. The earlier presidents were bastards too. Lincoln suspended Habeas corpus. Harry Truman had loyalty reviews for federal employees (which Eisenhower later strengthened). Slavery and Jim Crow laws happened on the watches of countless presidents. Let's not forget about Japanese internment, authorized by FDR. The American government has just about never been about upholding bedrock American principles.
Clearly, I did. But I still wanted to make a funny.
Actually, it's not clear that I did. But I did. I'm clear on that.
Actually, it says "Beware of the 64-bit Windows." It should work just fine with Leopard.