Actually, even that isn't required. People just need to stop running random executable files that they find on the internet. Seriously, I don't even have anti-virus software and I don't even get viruses because I avoid stupid shit that's obviously a virus. Also, using IE doesn't help, either.
Clearly there needs to be more anti-piracy laws that hardly affect the pirate and mostly just affect the average citizen! What would we do without these worthless bills, laws, and treaties that don't actually affect their intended target, take away more of everyones rights, and try to 'recover' imaginary profits that pirates 'stole'?
If by "treehugger" you mean "those that actually care about the environment," then I don't know what you're talking about. I certainly care about the environment, and I welcome any improvement over oil. Unless the people you're talking about are opposed to technology, of course.
It's a game, guys, seriously. While there is a war going on right now, *this* is just a game. If people are seriously offended by that, well, then they can just not play it and stop being so oversensitive when someone mentions it. This is absolutely insane. These people claim to want to uphold freedom of speech and freedom of expression until it's something that *they* are personally offended by, then it's just wrong! If they don't like it, fine, but their dislikes should not affect my decision to play this completely harmless game. If they can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game, well, I feel that under societies' standards, they would be deemed insane.
I still don't know who you're talking about. I'm someone who cares about the environment (rightfully so), and the only reason I'd object to something such as that would be if it caused more harm than good. Those don't, and they are surely improvements over oil.
"The thing is, people -won't- keep having kids to infinity. Things change, environments change."
I'm saying that we should worry about the future before it's too late to change it and more people suffer than would have otherwise.
"When societies become technically advanced there is no need, no desire to keep having kids left and right, there simply isn't"
It doesn't mean the problem should be ignored, as ignoring it would actually cause problems. Warning people about potential future problems is a good thing.
"In an agrarian society with little industry and little human development, kids are great to have. They can help around the house, go milk cows, help plow, help sow seeds, etc. When we get to 21st century human development kids are a luxury, no longer do you need 5 kids to go out and milk cows, if you have a farm a single person can be more productive than 5 kids were 150 years ago and for everyone else you can just run to the store. Etc."
Good point. However, again, the warnings shouldn't simply fade into non-existence. It's highly irresponsible and dangerous to think of the environment and the planet as something big with a bunch of resources made specifically for us that we'll never run out of.
"Saying that populations will keep growing to infinity is as silly as saying typewriters sales will hold constant despite many businesses switching to PCs already, yeah, there are some countries that will remain with little human development but they will keep getting better as time goes on..."
I didn't say they would. I just said that it should be a concern. Infinity? That's likely not even possible. A very large population will have horrible results. Hopefully the entire world will become more technologically advanced and this won't ever be a problem. Hopefully the people don't completely lose their rights by then, though.
No big deal there, considering how inefficient oil is in regards to the amount of pollution that is caused by it and the risk of oil spills such as the recent one.
"we have other power sources"
Yes, we do.
"A) The people who don't want us to oil want to block those too"
What? Are you saying that the people opposed to using oil are opposed to using clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources? Or something else? All of those things are highly important when choosing a new energy source.
"B) Because we aren't going to be running out of oil until sometime in the distant future, its still cheap enough for our needs."
Another problem introduced by worthless artificial currency and greed. How unsurprising.
"Eventually, cheap, efficient solar cells will be able to provide a lot of power. Safe nuclear reactors will be able to provide a lot of other power. And wind and other energy sources will be able to provide the rest."
Hopefully.
"Fish can be farmed, just like any other animal. Yeah, so you might not be able to say that you are eating a 400 pound prized sport fish caught yesterday, but its very much possible to raise animals in captivity, just like humans have been doing with cattle, etc."
Just because they can be doesn't mean they should. The lack of consideration for other species is simply astounding. We should reduce the population and consume things that don't suffer just as we do. For such a 'civil' and 'moral' species, we sure do seem pretty evil by killing things to satisfy our own taste buds. Survival? Fine. That's one thing. Even if it was a human who was eaten. However, most of the time these animals are killed not because there's a lack of plants to consume, but to satisfy the taste buds of humans.
"I know of no test to empirically asses the relative "need" the Earth has for humans, "froggies," or squirrels."
At least you mentioned humans in that list, too. Ultimately, nothing has a purpose, but that doesn't mean that we should allow such animals to go into extinction or mistreat them. For such a 'civil' and 'moral' society, we sure seem pretty evil, even the ones that claim to be innocent.
That's odd, because most of what they do is consume.
"It's only when you mis-manage that resource that they appear to be a burden."
Resources are *not* infinite, and continuing to allow humanity to grow at such a frightful rate is simply irresponsible to the highest degree possible.
"But we have plenty of food for the world. We have so much, we grow food to feed our food just so it tastes slightly better."
Right now, perhaps. However, allowing humanity to grow at such a dangerous rate will eventually exhaust the planets resources far faster than we would have managed to do otherwise.
"Overpopulation is a silly concern. The only reason why people starve is because of corrupt governments, otherwise the industrialized countries could easily, easily feed the poorer nations. When Africa and parts of Asia turn industrialized, it becomes apparent that children are more of a hindrance than a help, think about it, while its pretty nice to have 5 extra hands helping out on your tiny farm, it becomes 5 hungry mouths to feed when you become industrialized, 5 large college tuition bills, more clothing, etc."
What? You're saying that if humanity continues to grow at an unbelievable rate that it won't cause problems down the road? While people do starve because of greed and corruption, overpopulation is a legitimate issue.
"Not to mention that if space ever becomes an issue people will simply have fewer kids to save themselves space in their house/apartment."
By then it will be far too late. It will exhaust the planet of its resources much faster than it would have otherwise. Conceiving children every five minutes *will* lead to even more problems down the road and should be *highly* discouraged.
Ah, so we should wait until it becomes a huge problem before we do anything about it? That sounds about right for humans. I'm sure we'll also wait until most of the forests have been cut down and we've crippled the environment with our pollution and trash before anything is done about that, too. People that express their concerns about the future are some of the least selfish people in existence, as they're thinking about beings other than themselves.
"It seems like if you are all about wiping out humans weapons of mass destruction is certainly what you seek."
Is that what he said? I'm pretty sure he was just advocating the improvement of society. Overpopulation, mass conformity, governmental corruption, and the mistreatment of the environment and its inhabitants (humans included) are actually problems. This won't change anything, but neither will doing nothing. Far too many people ignore obvious problems such as these, and call everyone who cares about the environment and its inhabitants "extremists" and other such things.
Ultimately, humans are no more important than anything else on the planet. If nothing existed, nothing would care. Nothing can't care about anything, and the universe does not rely on our existence or the existence of anything else. It's this kind of false sense of superiority that create the problems we have today.
Overpopulation, indoctrination, complete lack of concern for other species or the environment, etc. These problems are very apparent and I can't see how some people don't realize this. They just keep having more babies, not questioning the government or authority, and trashing the environment without a care in the world. It makes me sick. I applaud this man for expressing his concerns in the very least.
The government has done much, much worse than Wikileaks ever could. Their only interest is money (from corporations, etc) and power. While Wikileaks may not be perfect, at least it isn't the government. Their goals are respected by people who aren't foolish enough to trust the government without question.
"So your one kid puts your other kid's hand on the stove. It's happening right now. What do you do? Do you waggle your finger? Launch into a pompous explanation of what heat is? What do you think is called for here?"
Certainly not waste my time beating on a kid and get that other kids hand out of the stove, and then logically and calmly tell the other kid why that isn't a good thing to do.
"You find your kid torturing a kitten. What do you do? How fast do you do it? Is there any pain involved for your kid?"
Perhaps stop him from torturing the kitten by either taking it away or pulling the kid away from it?
"You find your kid shooting out the neighbor's windows, not only causing property damage, but endangering everyone who might be in his line of fire. What do you do?"
It certainly wouldn't be a good idea to hit them while they're aiming a gun. Take it away from them after making them aware of your presence and explain to them why that likely isn't a good idea.
"You going to put them in the corner for a little "quiet time"? Explain those burns in terms of hugs and kisses, or maybe hold back a baseball lesson? Send the kid to an NRA class?"
I offer a clear, logical explanation why it generally isn't a good idea to do those things, not use violence against them directly after they was using violence.
"And if you wouldn't react similarly, you're a complete failure as a human being."
Again, your definition of morality does not apply to all and is not absolute. Besides, it was obvious that I was talking about situations where no violence was initiated in the first place. Self defense is fine.
Honestly, giving the government too much power wouldn't be good, either. I'm all for net neutrality, but with restrictions put on what the government can do. Doing nothing with have very bad results, as will giving the government too much power over the internet. I know because I'm one of the many people caught in an area with only one high speed ISP (Comcast). Sucks.
"No one said anything about "needless" except you. There are times a spanking or a slap on the hand is called for."
Violence is needless. If you truly have to resort to violence when you don't like what someone said or did, it just shows that you can't form a coherent argument.
"Ah, sweeping generalizations. One more certain indicator you have no idea what you're talking about."
Ah, lack of explanation. One more certain indicator you have no idea what you're talking about.
"What you've shown them is that you value their dignity and pain threshold over their adherence to correct behavior, and no doubt at all that kind of misguided parenting will lead them to think that stepping out of line in the real world will lead to some kind of painless reaction, if it gets one at all."
What you've shown them by hitting them is that it's okay to use violence against someone if you don't like what they said or did, as long as you feel you have some imaginary degree of power over them. I certainly wouldn't hit a stranger, and I'm not going to hit someone just because of their age. Rights don't appear or vanish because of a persons age, no matter what the law saws.
"over their adherence to correct behavior"
There's no such thing as absolute morals or 'right' and 'wrong'. Some people think it isn't correct behavior to be part of a religion that isn't their own, etc.
"But the real world is full of very painful, very harsh events and reactions. When a happy, never been spanked, "I am so entitled" kid steps out of line, gets tasered, arrested, stomped by the courts, stuck in prison for a few years, experiences all the joys of the system... that's when all this parenting failure you espouse comes home to roost."
Not hitting someone != not teaching them common sense. Violence isn't a means to teach someone something. It's highly ineffective and will just lead to more violence down the road, which I know from experience.
"Kids need to know that errors in judgment and breaking rules lead to entirely undesirable consequences"
Lots of people need to know when they are being 'idiotic', not just kids. Corrupt politicians, brainwashed tools who mindlessly obey authority without question, people who get angry at someone because they are part of another religion than them, people who ruin the environment for profit, people who take advantage of other people for profit, etc. It isn't just kids. Yet, you can't hit those people, can you? Violence doesn't teach anything but violence.
"because if they don't learn it at home, the world will teach them for you, much more thoroughly and violently than you ever thought of, and you know what? It'll be all your fault."
It doesn't take violence to teach them about the world. In fact, it'll likely just make the world worse, in many cases. Many adults are in need of a wake up call, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, even that isn't required. People just need to stop running random executable files that they find on the internet. Seriously, I don't even have anti-virus software and I don't even get viruses because I avoid stupid shit that's obviously a virus. Also, using IE doesn't help, either.
Clearly there needs to be more anti-piracy laws that hardly affect the pirate and mostly just affect the average citizen! What would we do without these worthless bills, laws, and treaties that don't actually affect their intended target, take away more of everyones rights, and try to 'recover' imaginary profits that pirates 'stole'?
"(an usually corrected"
Ha, ha. No, it's abused further until it becomes enough of a problem that everyone demands that it be fixed. You're right about the rest, though.
"yet treehuggers block that all the time."
If by "treehugger" you mean "those that actually care about the environment," then I don't know what you're talking about. I certainly care about the environment, and I welcome any improvement over oil. Unless the people you're talking about are opposed to technology, of course.
It's a game, guys, seriously. While there is a war going on right now, *this* is just a game. If people are seriously offended by that, well, then they can just not play it and stop being so oversensitive when someone mentions it. This is absolutely insane. These people claim to want to uphold freedom of speech and freedom of expression until it's something that *they* are personally offended by, then it's just wrong! If they don't like it, fine, but their dislikes should not affect my decision to play this completely harmless game. If they can't differentiate between what we know as reality and a video game, well, I feel that under societies' standards, they would be deemed insane.
I still don't know who you're talking about. I'm someone who cares about the environment (rightfully so), and the only reason I'd object to something such as that would be if it caused more harm than good. Those don't, and they are surely improvements over oil.
"You can't ethically get rid of anybody else"
Not by your ethics, anyway. But, you can warn people about the dangers of overpopulation.
Who are you talking about? I've never seen anyone that objects to clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources.
We could always replace them it something more efficient, and someone who actually cares.
Now, if only the people who think it's fine to abuse the environment and its inhabitants for profit would die as well...
"The thing is, people -won't- keep having kids to infinity. Things change, environments change."
I'm saying that we should worry about the future before it's too late to change it and more people suffer than would have otherwise.
"When societies become technically advanced there is no need, no desire to keep having kids left and right, there simply isn't"
It doesn't mean the problem should be ignored, as ignoring it would actually cause problems. Warning people about potential future problems is a good thing.
"In an agrarian society with little industry and little human development, kids are great to have. They can help around the house, go milk cows, help plow, help sow seeds, etc. When we get to 21st century human development kids are a luxury, no longer do you need 5 kids to go out and milk cows, if you have a farm a single person can be more productive than 5 kids were 150 years ago and for everyone else you can just run to the store. Etc."
Good point. However, again, the warnings shouldn't simply fade into non-existence. It's highly irresponsible and dangerous to think of the environment and the planet as something big with a bunch of resources made specifically for us that we'll never run out of.
"Saying that populations will keep growing to infinity is as silly as saying typewriters sales will hold constant despite many businesses switching to PCs already, yeah, there are some countries that will remain with little human development but they will keep getting better as time goes on..."
I didn't say they would. I just said that it should be a concern. Infinity? That's likely not even possible. A very large population will have horrible results. Hopefully the entire world will become more technologically advanced and this won't ever be a problem. Hopefully the people don't completely lose their rights by then, though.
"Ok, so we're running out of oil"
No big deal there, considering how inefficient oil is in regards to the amount of pollution that is caused by it and the risk of oil spills such as the recent one.
"we have other power sources"
Yes, we do.
"A) The people who don't want us to oil want to block those too"
What? Are you saying that the people opposed to using oil are opposed to using clean, efficient, and renewable energy sources? Or something else? All of those things are highly important when choosing a new energy source.
"B) Because we aren't going to be running out of oil until sometime in the distant future, its still cheap enough for our needs."
Another problem introduced by worthless artificial currency and greed. How unsurprising.
"Eventually, cheap, efficient solar cells will be able to provide a lot of power. Safe nuclear reactors will be able to provide a lot of other power. And wind and other energy sources will be able to provide the rest."
Hopefully.
"Fish can be farmed, just like any other animal. Yeah, so you might not be able to say that you are eating a 400 pound prized sport fish caught yesterday, but its very much possible to raise animals in captivity, just like humans have been doing with cattle, etc."
Just because they can be doesn't mean they should. The lack of consideration for other species is simply astounding. We should reduce the population and consume things that don't suffer just as we do. For such a 'civil' and 'moral' species, we sure do seem pretty evil by killing things to satisfy our own taste buds. Survival? Fine. That's one thing. Even if it was a human who was eaten. However, most of the time these animals are killed not because there's a lack of plants to consume, but to satisfy the taste buds of humans.
"I know of no test to empirically asses the relative "need" the Earth has for humans, "froggies," or squirrels."
At least you mentioned humans in that list, too. Ultimately, nothing has a purpose, but that doesn't mean that we should allow such animals to go into extinction or mistreat them. For such a 'civil' and 'moral' society, we sure seem pretty evil, even the ones that claim to be innocent.
"People are a resource, not a burden."
That's odd, because most of what they do is consume.
"It's only when you mis-manage that resource that they appear to be a burden."
Resources are *not* infinite, and continuing to allow humanity to grow at such a frightful rate is simply irresponsible to the highest degree possible.
"But we have plenty of food for the world. We have so much, we grow food to feed our food just so it tastes slightly better."
Right now, perhaps. However, allowing humanity to grow at such a dangerous rate will eventually exhaust the planets resources far faster than we would have managed to do otherwise.
"Overpopulation is a silly concern. The only reason why people starve is because of corrupt governments, otherwise the industrialized countries could easily, easily feed the poorer nations. When Africa and parts of Asia turn industrialized, it becomes apparent that children are more of a hindrance than a help, think about it, while its pretty nice to have 5 extra hands helping out on your tiny farm, it becomes 5 hungry mouths to feed when you become industrialized, 5 large college tuition bills, more clothing, etc."
What? You're saying that if humanity continues to grow at an unbelievable rate that it won't cause problems down the road? While people do starve because of greed and corruption, overpopulation is a legitimate issue.
"Not to mention that if space ever becomes an issue people will simply have fewer kids to save themselves space in their house/apartment."
By then it will be far too late. It will exhaust the planet of its resources much faster than it would have otherwise. Conceiving children every five minutes *will* lead to even more problems down the road and should be *highly* discouraged.
Ah, so we should wait until it becomes a huge problem before we do anything about it? That sounds about right for humans. I'm sure we'll also wait until most of the forests have been cut down and we've crippled the environment with our pollution and trash before anything is done about that, too. People that express their concerns about the future are some of the least selfish people in existence, as they're thinking about beings other than themselves.
"It seems like if you are all about wiping out humans weapons of mass destruction is certainly what you seek."
Is that what he said? I'm pretty sure he was just advocating the improvement of society. Overpopulation, mass conformity, governmental corruption, and the mistreatment of the environment and its inhabitants (humans included) are actually problems. This won't change anything, but neither will doing nothing. Far too many people ignore obvious problems such as these, and call everyone who cares about the environment and its inhabitants "extremists" and other such things.
"We must never forget the Squirrels."
Ultimately, humans are no more important than anything else on the planet. If nothing existed, nothing would care. Nothing can't care about anything, and the universe does not rely on our existence or the existence of anything else. It's this kind of false sense of superiority that create the problems we have today.
Overpopulation, indoctrination, complete lack of concern for other species or the environment, etc. These problems are very apparent and I can't see how some people don't realize this. They just keep having more babies, not questioning the government or authority, and trashing the environment without a care in the world. It makes me sick. I applaud this man for expressing his concerns in the very least.
The government has done much, much worse than Wikileaks ever could. Their only interest is money (from corporations, etc) and power. While Wikileaks may not be perfect, at least it isn't the government. Their goals are respected by people who aren't foolish enough to trust the government without question.
"So your one kid puts your other kid's hand on the stove. It's happening right now. What do you do? Do you waggle your finger? Launch into a pompous explanation of what heat is? What do you think is called for here?"
Certainly not waste my time beating on a kid and get that other kids hand out of the stove, and then logically and calmly tell the other kid why that isn't a good thing to do.
"You find your kid torturing a kitten. What do you do? How fast do you do it? Is there any pain involved for your kid?"
Perhaps stop him from torturing the kitten by either taking it away or pulling the kid away from it?
"You find your kid shooting out the neighbor's windows, not only causing property damage, but endangering everyone who might be in his line of fire. What do you do?"
It certainly wouldn't be a good idea to hit them while they're aiming a gun. Take it away from them after making them aware of your presence and explain to them why that likely isn't a good idea.
"You going to put them in the corner for a little "quiet time"? Explain those burns in terms of hugs and kisses, or maybe hold back a baseball lesson? Send the kid to an NRA class?"
I offer a clear, logical explanation why it generally isn't a good idea to do those things, not use violence against them directly after they was using violence.
I'm going to patent the act of ignoring an entire argument because of one or more grammar/spelling errors! It's such a logical thing to do.
Also...
"And if you wouldn't react similarly, you're a complete failure as a human being."
Again, your definition of morality does not apply to all and is not absolute. Besides, it was obvious that I was talking about situations where no violence was initiated in the first place. Self defense is fine.
Honestly, giving the government too much power wouldn't be good, either. I'm all for net neutrality, but with restrictions put on what the government can do. Doing nothing with have very bad results, as will giving the government too much power over the internet. I know because I'm one of the many people caught in an area with only one high speed ISP (Comcast). Sucks.
"No one said anything about "needless" except you. There are times a spanking or a slap on the hand is called for."
Violence is needless. If you truly have to resort to violence when you don't like what someone said or did, it just shows that you can't form a coherent argument.
"Ah, sweeping generalizations. One more certain indicator you have no idea what you're talking about."
Ah, lack of explanation. One more certain indicator you have no idea what you're talking about.
"What you've shown them is that you value their dignity and pain threshold over their adherence to correct behavior, and no doubt at all that kind of misguided parenting will lead them to think that stepping out of line in the real world will lead to some kind of painless reaction, if it gets one at all."
What you've shown them by hitting them is that it's okay to use violence against someone if you don't like what they said or did, as long as you feel you have some imaginary degree of power over them. I certainly wouldn't hit a stranger, and I'm not going to hit someone just because of their age. Rights don't appear or vanish because of a persons age, no matter what the law saws.
"over their adherence to correct behavior"
There's no such thing as absolute morals or 'right' and 'wrong'. Some people think it isn't correct behavior to be part of a religion that isn't their own, etc.
"But the real world is full of very painful, very harsh events and reactions. When a happy, never been spanked, "I am so entitled" kid steps out of line, gets tasered, arrested, stomped by the courts, stuck in prison for a few years, experiences all the joys of the system... that's when all this parenting failure you espouse comes home to roost."
Not hitting someone != not teaching them common sense. Violence isn't a means to teach someone something. It's highly ineffective and will just lead to more violence down the road, which I know from experience.
"Kids need to know that errors in judgment and breaking rules lead to entirely undesirable consequences"
Lots of people need to know when they are being 'idiotic', not just kids. Corrupt politicians, brainwashed tools who mindlessly obey authority without question, people who get angry at someone because they are part of another religion than them, people who ruin the environment for profit, people who take advantage of other people for profit, etc. It isn't just kids. Yet, you can't hit those people, can you? Violence doesn't teach anything but violence.
"because if they don't learn it at home, the world will teach them for you, much more thoroughly and violently than you ever thought of, and you know what? It'll be all your fault."
It doesn't take violence to teach them about the world. In fact, it'll likely just make the world worse, in many cases. Many adults are in need of a wake up call, as well.