I hate to break it to you, but both things happen. Women have their genitals 'corrected', and you can see the results of too much plastic surgery in the media. And both are not just consensual, the women pay a lot of money for them.
Damn right they weren't of equivalent value. The others died, uncertain about what, if anything, awaited them. Jesus chose to let himself be crucified, then rose from the dead and went on living, effectively giving up nothing. It's like honoring a person for a charitable donation, even after he canceled the check.
But it's hard to define 'consensual' with children. If a parent/trusted adult tells a young child that something is good, the child will likely trust him/her and do it. So for example a girl could agree to have her genitals mutilated, since it would make look 'pretty'. Would that be considered consensual? The 'legal age' is a bit arbitrarily set, but there has to be some way to protect children until they are old enough and have enough information about what they are consenting to.
Ultimate sacrifice? Wasn't the death of every other person that died on a cross a much bigger sacrifice? After all, they didn't come back from the dead. But the point of my comment was why persecute people creating images of torture, when the dominant religion in the country uses an implement of torture as it's symbol, and was founded on a person who had himself tortured to death. If creation of images of torture imply a desire to go on a killing spree then why restrict ourselves to 'keeping any eye on' just this artist? Shouldn't all the makers of crucifixes also be considered a danger? Shouldn't people who buy them?
And don't forget about watching all those Christians. They seem obsessed about the virtue of people dying on crosses and thereby absolving them of their sins. We wouldn't want them to decide to wash away some more sins.
Were the people in Brave New World clones or just grown in vitro? I seem to recall that genetic material of the 'current generation' was harvested (before they were sterilized). Sure there were genetic castes (and the lowest classes were given alcohol as fetuses to stunt their brains), but they were still new combinations of old material.
But let's say we learn to copy the brain (while not copying the decay). What do we do with the original brain? Kill it? Sure the new you would feel it was the same person as the old you, but so would the old you.
But what exactly makes a person 'too valuable to waste'? With a different set of experiences a clone is likely to turn out quite differently from the original. Let's say you clone a sports legend - with different experiences the clone likely won't choose to dedicate his/her life to training to repeat the achievements of the original.
Well there are a few scenarios where having a shelter might save you. But you'd have to live outside a city and very near the shelter. Any nuclear strike will still panic the people and cause them to rush out of the cities, causing roadblocks that would prevent you from reaching your shelter. Forget air travel - the army is going to shoot down anything they don't own. And when you get to the shelter my guess is that you're going to find it overfilled by a few 100% - why sell a spot once when you can sell it a hundred times - what are they going to do when they find out? Sue you?
So you support cutting the populating by 50% in one generation? We are already having problems with too many elderly and not enough people to take care of them, and you want to change the ratio by 100%?
Well there are two ways that things may go : either a quick nuclear war, where you're unlikely to even know the war is happening before you're vaporized, or a slow buildup to a war. And if it's slow I can guarantee you the government it going to seize all shelters for 'vital personnel'.
I guess they could write messages on the floor using the corpses of their enemies. That way there would be no way for the players to know who wrote them (unless they happened to be in the area in the hours it took to write) And I think that one of the MUDs I used to play allowed assassins to change their identity to 'assassin', making it difficult to identify them.
But how many of those patents have anything to do with innovation? My guess is that 90% of patents are nothing more then 'do X, but on a computer', while another 9% are of the 'we add the number 5 to each transmission so you can make compatible devices' variety. So only about 1% are the type of patents that contain actual innovations, but I doubt that even those contain enough information to recreate those innovations - the reason patents were created in the first place. The rest are just fluff useful for extorting/excluding competition through lawsuits. The whole patent system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Invalidate all current patents and allow owners to re-apply for them for a fee. Then refund the fee for those patents that get granted (those that contain both new ideas and how to implement them). And for goodness sake stop granting patents for problems - it's solutions that patents are supposed to cover.
And how did they break that law? The only thing they did was release the information someone gave them - that person might have been breaking the law, sure. But that makes Wikileaks guilty, then every other news organization is too - after all, they all released the information Wikileaks gave them. Or is it ok to release it as long as there are at least 2 people who broke the law to give it to you?
So all those newspapers that reported what Wikileaks released have also been shut down? Or does the responsibility to keep things classified evaporate as soon as you have enough money?
So why didn't you use your real name for your/. username? There was nothing stopping you (except perhaps the need to add a few numbers at the end to make it unique, oh wait you did that anyway).
People are capable of behaving themselves while anonymous and of behaving like total assholes while acting under their real names (just look at politicians). And there are reasons for wanting to be anonymous in any country. Germany for example is thinking about banning the neo-nazi party, which is not a very democratic thing to do. So why shouldn't it's followers be allowed to be anonymous online?
They still want to operate in Germany, just not follow German law. What's the point of having German users, if you can sell their info to German advertisers?
Slashdot Mirror
Are the risks of mixing violence and religion any less severe? What about violence and politics?
I hate to break it to you, but both things happen. Women have their genitals 'corrected', and you can see the results of too much plastic surgery in the media. And both are not just consensual, the women pay a lot of money for them.
Damn right they weren't of equivalent value.
The others died, uncertain about what, if anything, awaited them.
Jesus chose to let himself be crucified, then rose from the dead and went on living, effectively giving up nothing.
It's like honoring a person for a charitable donation, even after he canceled the check.
But it's hard to define 'consensual' with children. If a parent/trusted adult tells a young child that something is good, the child will likely trust him/her and do it. So for example a girl could agree to have her genitals mutilated, since it would make look 'pretty'. Would that be considered consensual?
The 'legal age' is a bit arbitrarily set, but there has to be some way to protect children until they are old enough and have enough information about what they are consenting to.
That he won a special effects Oscar for Saw XXIII.5?
As long as the actresses are of legal age and just look under-aged, then go for it.
Ultimate sacrifice? Wasn't the death of every other person that died on a cross a much bigger sacrifice? After all, they didn't come back from the dead.
But the point of my comment was why persecute people creating images of torture, when the dominant religion in the country uses an implement of torture as it's symbol, and was founded on a person who had himself tortured to death. If creation of images of torture imply a desire to go on a killing spree then why restrict ourselves to 'keeping any eye on' just this artist? Shouldn't all the makers of crucifixes also be considered a danger? Shouldn't people who buy them?
And don't forget about watching all those Christians. They seem obsessed about the virtue of people dying on crosses and thereby absolving them of their sins. We wouldn't want them to decide to wash away some more sins.
There is another problem - like you said, we would be copying a person. What do we do with the original?
Were the people in Brave New World clones or just grown in vitro? I seem to recall that genetic material of the 'current generation' was harvested (before they were sterilized). Sure there were genetic castes (and the lowest classes were given alcohol as fetuses to stunt their brains), but they were still new combinations of old material.
But let's say we learn to copy the brain (while not copying the decay). What do we do with the original brain? Kill it? Sure the new you would feel it was the same person as the old you, but so would the old you.
And your brainless copy can spend it's time doing healthy exercise and waiting to go to the Island.
But what exactly makes a person 'too valuable to waste'? With a different set of experiences a clone is likely to turn out quite differently from the original. Let's say you clone a sports legend - with different experiences the clone likely won't choose to dedicate his/her life to training to repeat the achievements of the original.
Well there are a few scenarios where having a shelter might save you. But you'd have to live outside a city and very near the shelter.
Any nuclear strike will still panic the people and cause them to rush out of the cities, causing roadblocks that would prevent you from reaching your shelter. Forget air travel - the army is going to shoot down anything they don't own.
And when you get to the shelter my guess is that you're going to find it overfilled by a few 100% - why sell a spot once when you can sell it a hundred times - what are they going to do when they find out? Sue you?
So you support cutting the populating by 50% in one generation? We are already having problems with too many elderly and not enough people to take care of them, and you want to change the ratio by 100%?
Well there are two ways that things may go : either a quick nuclear war, where you're unlikely to even know the war is happening before you're vaporized, or a slow buildup to a war. And if it's slow I can guarantee you the government it going to seize all shelters for 'vital personnel'.
CEOs involved in fraud - never let them hold money again, they might misuse it.
I guess they could write messages on the floor using the corpses of their enemies. That way there would be no way for the players to know who wrote them (unless they happened to be in the area in the hours it took to write)
And I think that one of the MUDs I used to play allowed assassins to change their identity to 'assassin', making it difficult to identify them.
But how many of those patents have anything to do with innovation? My guess is that 90% of patents are nothing more then 'do X, but on a computer', while another 9% are of the 'we add the number 5 to each transmission so you can make compatible devices' variety. So only about 1% are the type of patents that contain actual innovations, but I doubt that even those contain enough information to recreate those innovations - the reason patents were created in the first place. The rest are just fluff useful for extorting/excluding competition through lawsuits.
The whole patent system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. Invalidate all current patents and allow owners to re-apply for them for a fee. Then refund the fee for those patents that get granted (those that contain both new ideas and how to implement them). And for goodness sake stop granting patents for problems - it's solutions that patents are supposed to cover.
Wasn't this whole discussion stared by two quotes who blamed secular schools for the murders?
And even if they are certain of their case that does not mean they have the money needed to pay their lawyers long enough to even reach a judgement.
And how did they break that law? The only thing they did was release the information someone gave them - that person might have been breaking the law, sure. But that makes Wikileaks guilty, then every other news organization is too - after all, they all released the information Wikileaks gave them. Or is it ok to release it as long as there are at least 2 people who broke the law to give it to you?
So all those newspapers that reported what Wikileaks released have also been shut down? Or does the responsibility to keep things classified evaporate as soon as you have enough money?
So why didn't you use your real name for your /. username? There was nothing stopping you (except perhaps the need to add a few numbers at the end to make it unique, oh wait you did that anyway).
People are capable of behaving themselves while anonymous and of behaving like total assholes while acting under their real names (just look at politicians). And there are reasons for wanting to be anonymous in any country. Germany for example is thinking about banning the neo-nazi party, which is not a very democratic thing to do. So why shouldn't it's followers be allowed to be anonymous online?
They still want to operate in Germany, just not follow German law. What's the point of having German users, if you can sell their info to German advertisers?