I do believe Dante mentioned these people. The were suposed to have a place reserved on the lowest ring.
We can dream, at least... or maybe if we are even luckier, they will be stuck in a crowded elevator for all of eternity, listening to "It's a small world after all."
And for every truth, there's a way to simplify it to the point of idiocy.
No discussion on/., or otherwise on the net is going to capture the subtle nuances, complex sets of laws and traditions, and the many an varied moral issues dealing with people who could perhaps be considered "mass vandals." So far they haven't put any lives in danger (typically one of the prerequisites for capital punishment, though it varies by state) - they merely cause inconvenience / reversable "damage" to a large number of improperly secured computers. I feel this is reasonably generalized in my previous statement, and stand by my assertion.
Sometimes if you're not going to delve into significant depth (and we are not, this is/.), it's better to deal with more general arguments that require less amounts of specific information. Without this generalization/simplificaiton, no discussion on Slashdot would be remotely possible.
I think the word achievement is very apropos in this context (as, like many other english words, it has multiple possible meanings/connotations) - they developed a considerable amount of technology, both to disable other spyware, and to prevent their spyware from being likewise removed. This is a signficant achievement, one which was in no small part a reason for their success. It can be recognized as such when readers isolate their analytical mind from their moral repugnance.
Also do remember that they are in the business of making money, not of causing problems for the user (that, to them, is merely an unfortunate side effect) - likely some people at that job slept easier knowing at least their software did one useful thing.
PMITA prison for 20 years should chill some of these guys out... Considering what a big impact this kind of behavior has on our economy, I'm surprised there isn't more action to stop it by our law enforcement officials.
find executives
kill them (or pay a crackhead to do it)
rejoice
Thus illustrating the old saying "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." When it becomes OK to kill anyone that does something you don't like, it also becomes equally possible that others will kill you when you do something they don't care for. But of course you're a good enough troll to know that already.
Let me guess you are someone who derives value from the outsider effect. It is when you use things because the majority doesn't, just to be different, to feel independent or so you can claim to be better. You fail to realize if you make your choices by picking the opposite of what others choose, you are no more free then those who choose whatever the herd does.
I think you misunderstand my post entirely. Allow me to clarify:
The value of something (in this case, a piece of software, namely an OS) can be divided into both intrinsic and extrinsic values
Individuals deciding on an OS approximately (no one is perfect) choose the OS that has the lowest perceived cost/benefit ratio (of the OSes of which they know).
Even if the intrinsic value of an OS, like this Suse Enterprise Linux (things like stability, performance, reduced cost, ease of maintaince, security), far exceeds that of Windows, it is the total value of the software that is important. This is where interoperability becomes an issue - the more people that use Windows and windows-only software, the higher the penalty for being one of those that do not use windows becomes, hence the network effect.
As for me, I own computers that run several versions of Linux, Windows, and Mac OS 9 and X. Each has its place - my next computer will be a mac that runs all three, with and without virtualization. I use the best tool for each job - I stopped thinking using a mac to be different was cool in about 11th grade. For 95% of desktop needs, that's OS X, but occasionally I need a windows app (I never need linux for desktop). For servers, I use Linux (I wouldn't be caught dead running anything other than Linux/BSD for a server). Unfortunately I have only minimal interoperability constraints, and I have the requisite technical expertise which allows me to handle linux on the desktop when the need arises.
Finally, for Linux to a serious desktop option, your mom needs to be able to use it, write a word doc and e-mail her friends. That is not the case with Linux.
Actually that's not quite true... My girlfriend (damn, no one will believe this post now) used Vector Linux on her aging Windows box as a very effective alternative OS. She was able to do this because while using it was not that difficult, the administration was, and I handled that for her remotely (far better than I could have administered windows remotely, I might add). So linux is easily at the point where mom/grandma can use it - but they better have a good admin. Her experience was so good (mostly due to the ease of customization and the incredible speed boost over ME) that she wants it dual-booting on her new Intel Mac, despite how much she loves OS X.
Anyways, to summarize my point - you should definitely choose what software works for you, but you must keep in mind that no one lives in a vaccuum. The network effect is very strong, especially in businesses and educational settings, and that is the largest barrier to linux acceptance - not the ugliness and inconsistency of UIs, the extreme amount of diversity (a nightmare for support or getting help from others), or how many linux programs scratch itches of programmers rather than common users. Some day we might see Linux dominate, but until then I'll enjoy using it, just as I enjoy OS X and other OSes as well...
I hope Sony notices the significant demand for the missing functionality provided by these homebrew systems. Some people are willing to go through extraordinary lengths to get these additional features - likely many would pay for them if they were offered as a supported add-on that could increase Sony's revenue stream, and start to dust off their so very recently tarnished name.
Of course Sony doesn't seem to be reasoning rationally as of late, but one can dream...
I don't think there will be a Windows-killer until someone figures out a (legal or economic) way to get around Microsoft's network effect. It is an unfortunate fact that for many people (but not all), much of an OS's value is extrinsic - derived from the use of that same software/supported standards by others. Because MS intentionally destroys interoperability with others, and because it is the de facto standard for many things (but certainly not all), an alternative OS/software system (like OpenOffice) would have to have much higher intrinsic value to make up for the reduced extrinsic value.
Wake me up when this happens, I'll buy everyone a drink.
Yes, my friend who runs lylix.net uses VServer and absolutely loves it. He had far too many problems with UML and couldn't be happier with his upgrade. He has compiled a special VServer distro that apparently sells very well.
I've hosted many things on a VServer he runs for me, including a subversion repository, and some web-apps, and it's worked really well for me - it was invaluable during my masters degree, as the school-supplied servers were far too restricted.
I think you'll find that this situation affects a goodly portion of the human race at various given times. You also counter your own point, as in the situation described - despite racing adrenalin etc - you were able to counter and suppress your irrational feelings.
The point of the story was that I was scared later on, remembering that if it were any stronger, I would not have been able to suppress it. Also, being the ever-loving fuck out of someone who's messing with you, in stone age times, at least, was an excellent tactic for discouraging people from messing with you.
Humans will at some times be subject to strong, irrational feelings, but the point is that losing control of them is not justified by defining them as "illness." If one feels a strong sexual urge when seeing a woman in a tight dress, does that mean that one can flout responsibility and ravish her?
When people are put under the influence of mind altering chemicals, they do exactly that type of thing. If someone injected you with a ton of cocaine (without you asking) do you think you should be held responsible for what happened afterwards? These kinds of internal chemical triggers are no different than that - you didn't ask for them, they are just there.
I know and have known quite a few people who could be described as having this so-called IED, hell I can myself think of many occasions where my temper has flared way to hot and way to sudden for a warranted occasion. However, the point is that the "mental illness" tag is being used as a "get out of jail free card." People are no longer held responsible for their actions.
Well if you go too far with the whole mental illness thing, yes that's a problem. I've known many people with bona-fide mental issues and while they are wonderful people, it has a crippling impact on their life. They are intelligent and successful, but not happy and often don't fit in socially because of it. One of my closest friends is obsessive compulsive, for instance, how is someone supposed to take responsibility for that. He didn't do anything (that we know of) to cause it, and doesnt' want to be that way, but there he is.
There are mitigating circumstances to any situation, but simply stating that you "get mad easily" is not a reason enough for destructive behavior. In knowing you have such a problem, you should also take steps to control said problem, and not flout responsibility be declaring that you are not responsible for your actions due to poor mental health. If you have a temper problem, a shrink may be a medically valid solution, that I don't argue, but it doesn't mean that with or without one this so-called IED is an excuse for the behavior it is being used to cover.
I think the problem with this discussion is that people like you trivialize the internal processes going on in these people. There's a difference between being simply angry "Wtf why did you eat my sandwich while I was gone" and being totally enraged "you just threatened my life and I'm going to defend myself, even if it means killing you". There's a complete spectrum there, and your choice of language shows that you are not appreciating this distinction. As my post said, who knows who actually has this IED thing, but I do know that rage can be a problem for some people, not because they dont' care, but because it's a natural part of being human that some people get too much of, and because our society expects everyone (no matter how different) to follow the same fucking rules.
I think maybe we need to re-evaluate what "serious" is? I remember reading that 90% of families are dysfunctional. Would it really be useful to say that all the people in those 90% of families have a mental illness of some sort? I don't think so.
I've never read any peer-reviewed material supporting that particular point, but is that actually so hard to believe? Consider that, for the first time in history (last 6000 years), human cultural evolution has far outstripped genetic evolution. The main difference between current humans and humans a few thousand years ago (other than nutritional factors, and some race mixing) is in the immune system (due to plagues and agriculture). Think about what that means for a few seconds:
Mankind evolved to be locally optimal for a situation that is radically different (caves, hunter/gathering) than we force ourselves to live in today. Mankind is violent to survive (now a dangerous problem for our long time survival). Humans are obsessed with sex and obtaining sexual gratification, and by nature very non-monogamous. Yet in many places in the world there are already too many people because of lower mortality rates, and the institution of marriage usually requires monogamy (60% of marriages end in divorce in the US... I'd call that dysfunctional). Our basic instincts worked great when we lived in caves and carried clubs, and while our education has gotten marvelously better, our base instincts have not. The same factors that make individuals eat enough to survive in the wild cause people to become obese in our modern age, and even contribute heavily to things like cocaine addiction.
Another part of the problem is that it is widely unnaceptable in modern society to deviate from the norms. People are taught (and pressured) to act similarly, despite their diversity of genetic and evironmental factors. People with wildly disparate personality types are made to obey the same rules of societal conduct, even when it goes against their most basic instincts.
I don't know what qualifies as "dysfunctional" but history has shown that pushing a square-shaped mankind into a round-shaped civilization creates all kinds of problems.
Human beings are biased, and governments are often under pressure from their people to be biased rather heavily in their favor. I dont' think there's anything wrong with protectionism, as long as a government is honest about it. It's the collective right of a people to levy taxes on incoming and/or outgoing products, just as it is for them not to.
As for the EU's policies on such things, I know that in England at least, there are some pretty crazy import taxes... I've been to the EU but honestly I do not fully understand the complex interactions between the EU and the countries that make it up... My cynicism is not EU specific, but for governments in general (yes, I'm a crazy anti-government, anti-corporate libertarian).
What was that one that was "discovered" last month? Intermittent Explosive Disorder, aka "a really short temper."
What about this is not a mental disorder? Society says you are not supposed to have a short temper, and typically having a short temper is not something that a person typically chooses.
I would postulate that given any person, there exists something you can do that will push them too far - something that will make them uncontrollably angry. For some it could be as simple as punching them in the face, or taunting them rudely for a while. For others it may take more. In either case, becoming angry is not a choice that the person is making - they may choose to try and suppress the emotion, but the human mind has only a very finite capability for handling aggression (as it is part of a very necessary fight-or-flight aggression system).
I was once injured on purpose in gym class back in high school (it was somewhat minor, but extremely painful), and I can still remember the incredible adrenaline rush and rage that followed - I was barely able to contain it (even thinking about it 8 years later affects me strongly), and if the person who had caused the injury had done anything more, such as taunting me, I would no longer have been able to restrain myself (likely resulting in significant injury to that jerk, as the human body can abuse itself temporarily to gain signifcant strength during an adrenaline rush). I, for one, do not think this makes me a bad person - it's something that mammals evolved a long time ago (and man extensively since becoming intensely social creatures). There does exist a point at which the rational mind simply cannot override it.
Back to mental illness... OED says that a mental illness is "a condition which causes serious abnormality in a person's thinking or behaviour." Some people simply have too short of a fuse - not because they felt like being an asshole, but because of a combination of genetic/environmental factors. It is probably good for these people to learn more about anger management to stretch their fuse a bit, but it is also probably wise for others to avoid provoking them. It's possible even that things that typically aren't a big deal to most people may be significant provokation for someone who has a serious temper issue - this makes it difficult for them to function well in society, and is thus a serious abnormality. There might not be a pill that makes it magically go away, but it doesn't make it any less serious of an issue.
Of course that does not mean that all people who think they have IED actually have it, or even if IED has been properly defined... mental health is a field which is still poorly understood on the whole, and sometimes wanders away from the realm of scientific fact, however if being diagnosed with a problem helps people seek treatment (and yes, mental health is a legitimate use of insurance money... it doesn't matter whether you have a cure for cancer or whatnot if a person's just going to kill themselves anyways due to a chemical imbalance).
I'm all for personal responsibility for the choices people make, but I do not think this is one of them. And for a rather small set of the population, it can be a socially crippling problem.
To me it's a sad day for America when we have to rely on other countries to police our corporations for us. Of course, I wonder if the EU would have been as hard on Microsoft if it were based in, say, France?
I would not use the Catholic Church or pro-life groups as the final answer, but more as a starting point of gathering information. Besides the occasional media article, such as the Canadian one, most of the info will be in medical journals, etc.
Yes, I take the same approach as wikipedia. There's always dangers in tainting your original viewpoint that way, but they probably do have a lot of good references (even if they are slightly "selective" in favor of their viewpoint).
That's a very interesting/insightful comment... is there anywhere I can read more about this? Are there any studies that show that adult stem cells are better suited?
If the private sector (I refuse to use the term "free market" - the US market is anything but unregulated!) is an adequate institution for making these kinds of decisions, and producing adequate research, then why do we even have any government funding of any kind?
The answer is that long ago people realized that the market tends to be rather risk averse, and often thinks in the short term. Also, no corporation in the US can match the amount of money the government throws around - what would be a staggering loss for a medium sized research company is very little for the government as a whole, allowing it to pursue very risky (but potentially beneficial) courses of research. Also, lack of shareholder pressure and legal liability allows the government to fund pure science that may never be "useful" (astrophysics, esoteric mathematics, etc).
Because tax money is being diverted from the private sector to the public sector to fund these things, the private sector has less to invest in potentially risky things as well, it is a self-perpetuating situation (which seems to be better than the alternative) and it is unlikely that we will see VCs stepping forward to work on embryonic stem cells in the US, especially if they must compete with government-funded research in the EU.
I'm against abortion however I think stem cells from aborted fetuses give that genetic entity (I'll let the reader decide if they are a person or not) a chance to continue on, maybe even saving others lives. I think that is the least we can do for those we deny life.
No, I knew this was not embroyonic stem cells. I'm just saying that stem cells work, and embryonic stem cells seem to have even more promise, so it's getting harder to argue against making them available for research. Even my fundamentalist Christian sister came to that conclusion after researching the project.
Suggesting that something is possible (terrorists could attack elementary schools with truckbed-launched automous micro-zepplins which attach time-bombs to roofs) is not the same as suggesting that it be implemented (please do not do that). As far as I'm concerned, the Chinese have chosen their government for themselves - in 60 years what have they done to get a different government? Basically nothing (save a guy in front of a tank). The approval rating for their government is probably higher than ours is in the US (and we're supposedly a democracy!).
Freedom isn't free - it is bought and paid for by the blood of patriots.
Mob based power has existed throughout history, and it usually has not been pretty. Furthermore, if you're an individual (in the true sense of the term) who does not enjoy associating with the mob, you tend to be screwed over by those who do. Food for thought.
That's precisely my problem with the US democracy. The mob/corporation driven Republicrats screw over anyone like myself (a registered Libertarian) that wants some kind of representation. Winston Churchill said it best: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
This kind of breakthrough is exactly why we need decreased regulations on stem cell research in the United States, as that too could aid in areas such like this. We also need increased government funding - people talk about how many lives are lost in Iraq, but few mention how many could be saved with the same resources. Heck, if the US developed a cure for cancer or AIDS and shared it with the world, maybe they would hate us less and stop killing our civilians.
Well, protesting is one way to show that you "do not accept" something - that doesn't seem to work well in China. However, it's clear that the people in charge of China want the population to go along with their edicts, and furthermore think that it is a good thing. The PRC spends a lot of money on propaganda, etc, so that the population is kept under control. With 1.3 billion people, I'd say that's a good investment. Screwing up their internet connection to the "outside world" (or at least whatever isn't offensive) would set back those efforts significantly, especially in the growing middle class.
Slashdot Mirror
Latitude, longitude, altitude.
:)
This is Slashdot - all we really need is their IP address
I do believe Dante mentioned these people. The were suposed to have a place reserved on the lowest ring.
We can dream, at least... or maybe if we are even luckier, they will be stuck in a crowded elevator for all of eternity, listening to "It's a small world after all."
And for every truth, there's a way to simplify it to the point of idiocy.
/., or otherwise on the net is going to capture the subtle nuances, complex sets of laws and traditions, and the many an varied moral issues dealing with people who could perhaps be considered "mass vandals." So far they haven't put any lives in danger (typically one of the prerequisites for capital punishment, though it varies by state) - they merely cause inconvenience / reversable "damage" to a large number of improperly secured computers. I feel this is reasonably generalized in my previous statement, and stand by my assertion.
/.), it's better to deal with more general arguments that require less amounts of specific information. Without this generalization/simplificaiton, no discussion on Slashdot would be remotely possible.
No discussion on
Sometimes if you're not going to delve into significant depth (and we are not, this is
I think the word achievement is very apropos in this context (as, like many other english words, it has multiple possible meanings/connotations) - they developed a considerable amount of technology, both to disable other spyware, and to prevent their spyware from being likewise removed. This is a signficant achievement, one which was in no small part a reason for their success. It can be recognized as such when readers isolate their analytical mind from their moral repugnance.
Also do remember that they are in the business of making money, not of causing problems for the user (that, to them, is merely an unfortunate side effect) - likely some people at that job slept easier knowing at least their software did one useful thing.
PMITA prison for 20 years should chill some of these guys out... Considering what a big impact this kind of behavior has on our economy, I'm surprised there isn't more action to stop it by our law enforcement officials.
How to stop them in three easy steps:
find executives
kill them (or pay a crackhead to do it)
rejoice
Thus illustrating the old saying "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." When it becomes OK to kill anyone that does something you don't like, it also becomes equally possible that others will kill you when you do something they don't care for. But of course you're a good enough troll to know that already.
I think you misunderstand my post entirely. Allow me to clarify:
As for me, I own computers that run several versions of Linux, Windows, and Mac OS 9 and X. Each has its place - my next computer will be a mac that runs all three, with and without virtualization. I use the best tool for each job - I stopped thinking using a mac to be different was cool in about 11th grade. For 95% of desktop needs, that's OS X, but occasionally I need a windows app (I never need linux for desktop). For servers, I use Linux (I wouldn't be caught dead running anything other than Linux/BSD for a server). Unfortunately I have only minimal interoperability constraints, and I have the requisite technical expertise which allows me to handle linux on the desktop when the need arises.
Finally, for Linux to a serious desktop option, your mom needs to be able to use it, write a word doc and e-mail her friends. That is not the case with Linux.
Actually that's not quite true... My girlfriend (damn, no one will believe this post now) used Vector Linux on her aging Windows box as a very effective alternative OS. She was able to do this because while using it was not that difficult, the administration was, and I handled that for her remotely (far better than I could have administered windows remotely, I might add). So linux is easily at the point where mom/grandma can use it - but they better have a good admin. Her experience was so good (mostly due to the ease of customization and the incredible speed boost over ME) that she wants it dual-booting on her new Intel Mac, despite how much she loves OS X.
Anyways, to summarize my point - you should definitely choose what software works for you, but you must keep in mind that no one lives in a vaccuum. The network effect is very strong, especially in businesses and educational settings, and that is the largest barrier to linux acceptance - not the ugliness and inconsistency of UIs, the extreme amount of diversity (a nightmare for support or getting help from others), or how many linux programs scratch itches of programmers rather than common users. Some day we might see Linux dominate, but until then I'll enjoy using it, just as I enjoy OS X and other OSes as well...
I hope Sony notices the significant demand for the missing functionality provided by these homebrew systems. Some people are willing to go through extraordinary lengths to get these additional features - likely many would pay for them if they were offered as a supported add-on that could increase Sony's revenue stream, and start to dust off their so very recently tarnished name.
Of course Sony doesn't seem to be reasoning rationally as of late, but one can dream...
I don't think there will be a Windows-killer until someone figures out a (legal or economic) way to get around Microsoft's network effect. It is an unfortunate fact that for many people (but not all), much of an OS's value is extrinsic - derived from the use of that same software/supported standards by others. Because MS intentionally destroys interoperability with others, and because it is the de facto standard for many things (but certainly not all), an alternative OS/software system (like OpenOffice) would have to have much higher intrinsic value to make up for the reduced extrinsic value.
Wake me up when this happens, I'll buy everyone a drink.
Yes, my friend who runs lylix.net uses VServer and absolutely loves it. He had far too many problems with UML and couldn't be happier with his upgrade. He has compiled a special VServer distro that apparently sells very well.
I've hosted many things on a VServer he runs for me, including a subversion repository, and some web-apps, and it's worked really well for me - it was invaluable during my masters degree, as the school-supplied servers were far too restricted.
Now that's what I call a Submarine Patent!
*ducks*
I think you'll find that this situation affects a goodly portion of the human race at various given times. You also counter your own point, as in the situation described - despite racing adrenalin etc - you were able to counter and suppress your irrational feelings.
The point of the story was that I was scared later on, remembering that if it were any stronger, I would not have been able to suppress it. Also, being the ever-loving fuck out of someone who's messing with you, in stone age times, at least, was an excellent tactic for discouraging people from messing with you.
Humans will at some times be subject to strong, irrational feelings, but the point is that losing control of them is not justified by defining them as "illness." If one feels a strong sexual urge when seeing a woman in a tight dress, does that mean that one can flout responsibility and ravish her?
When people are put under the influence of mind altering chemicals, they do exactly that type of thing. If someone injected you with a ton of cocaine (without you asking) do you think you should be held responsible for what happened afterwards? These kinds of internal chemical triggers are no different than that - you didn't ask for them, they are just there.
I know and have known quite a few people who could be described as having this so-called IED, hell I can myself think of many occasions where my temper has flared way to hot and way to sudden for a warranted occasion. However, the point is that the "mental illness" tag is being used as a "get out of jail free card." People are no longer held responsible for their actions.
Well if you go too far with the whole mental illness thing, yes that's a problem. I've known many people with bona-fide mental issues and while they are wonderful people, it has a crippling impact on their life. They are intelligent and successful, but not happy and often don't fit in socially because of it. One of my closest friends is obsessive compulsive, for instance, how is someone supposed to take responsibility for that. He didn't do anything (that we know of) to cause it, and doesnt' want to be that way, but there he is.
There are mitigating circumstances to any situation, but simply stating that you "get mad easily" is not a reason enough for destructive behavior. In knowing you have such a problem, you should also take steps to control said problem, and not flout responsibility be declaring that you are not responsible for your actions due to poor mental health. If you have a temper problem, a shrink may be a medically valid solution, that I don't argue, but it doesn't mean that with or without one this so-called IED is an excuse for the behavior it is being used to cover.
I think the problem with this discussion is that people like you trivialize the internal processes going on in these people. There's a difference between being simply angry "Wtf why did you eat my sandwich while I was gone" and being totally enraged "you just threatened my life and I'm going to defend myself, even if it means killing you". There's a complete spectrum there, and your choice of language shows that you are not appreciating this distinction. As my post said, who knows who actually has this IED thing, but I do know that rage can be a problem for some people, not because they dont' care, but because it's a natural part of being human that some people get too much of, and because our society expects everyone (no matter how different) to follow the same fucking rules.
I think maybe we need to re-evaluate what "serious" is? I remember reading that 90% of families are dysfunctional. Would it really be useful to say that all the people in those 90% of families have a mental illness of some sort? I don't think so.
I've never read any peer-reviewed material supporting that particular point, but is that actually so hard to believe? Consider that, for the first time in history (last 6000 years), human cultural evolution has far outstripped genetic evolution. The main difference between current humans and humans a few thousand years ago (other than nutritional factors, and some race mixing) is in the immune system (due to plagues and agriculture). Think about what that means for a few seconds:
Mankind evolved to be locally optimal for a situation that is radically different (caves, hunter/gathering) than we force ourselves to live in today. Mankind is violent to survive (now a dangerous problem for our long time survival). Humans are obsessed with sex and obtaining sexual gratification, and by nature very non-monogamous. Yet in many places in the world there are already too many people because of lower mortality rates, and the institution of marriage usually requires monogamy (60% of marriages end in divorce in the US... I'd call that dysfunctional). Our basic instincts worked great when we lived in caves and carried clubs, and while our education has gotten marvelously better, our base instincts have not. The same factors that make individuals eat enough to survive in the wild cause people to become obese in our modern age, and even contribute heavily to things like cocaine addiction.
Another part of the problem is that it is widely unnaceptable in modern society to deviate from the norms. People are taught (and pressured) to act similarly, despite their diversity of genetic and evironmental factors. People with wildly disparate personality types are made to obey the same rules of societal conduct, even when it goes against their most basic instincts.
I don't know what qualifies as "dysfunctional" but history has shown that pushing a square-shaped mankind into a round-shaped civilization creates all kinds of problems.
Human beings are biased, and governments are often under pressure from their people to be biased rather heavily in their favor. I dont' think there's anything wrong with protectionism, as long as a government is honest about it. It's the collective right of a people to levy taxes on incoming and/or outgoing products, just as it is for them not to.
As for the EU's policies on such things, I know that in England at least, there are some pretty crazy import taxes... I've been to the EU but honestly I do not fully understand the complex interactions between the EU and the countries that make it up... My cynicism is not EU specific, but for governments in general (yes, I'm a crazy anti-government, anti-corporate libertarian).
What was that one that was "discovered" last month? Intermittent Explosive Disorder, aka "a really short temper."
What about this is not a mental disorder? Society says you are not supposed to have a short temper, and typically having a short temper is not something that a person typically chooses.
I would postulate that given any person, there exists something you can do that will push them too far - something that will make them uncontrollably angry. For some it could be as simple as punching them in the face, or taunting them rudely for a while. For others it may take more. In either case, becoming angry is not a choice that the person is making - they may choose to try and suppress the emotion, but the human mind has only a very finite capability for handling aggression (as it is part of a very necessary fight-or-flight aggression system).
I was once injured on purpose in gym class back in high school (it was somewhat minor, but extremely painful), and I can still remember the incredible adrenaline rush and rage that followed - I was barely able to contain it (even thinking about it 8 years later affects me strongly), and if the person who had caused the injury had done anything more, such as taunting me, I would no longer have been able to restrain myself (likely resulting in significant injury to that jerk, as the human body can abuse itself temporarily to gain signifcant strength during an adrenaline rush). I, for one, do not think this makes me a bad person - it's something that mammals evolved a long time ago (and man extensively since becoming intensely social creatures). There does exist a point at which the rational mind simply cannot override it.
Back to mental illness... OED says that a mental illness is "a condition which causes serious abnormality in a person's thinking or behaviour." Some people simply have too short of a fuse - not because they felt like being an asshole, but because of a combination of genetic/environmental factors. It is probably good for these people to learn more about anger management to stretch their fuse a bit, but it is also probably wise for others to avoid provoking them. It's possible even that things that typically aren't a big deal to most people may be significant provokation for someone who has a serious temper issue - this makes it difficult for them to function well in society, and is thus a serious abnormality. There might not be a pill that makes it magically go away, but it doesn't make it any less serious of an issue.
Of course that does not mean that all people who think they have IED actually have it, or even if IED has been properly defined... mental health is a field which is still poorly understood on the whole, and sometimes wanders away from the realm of scientific fact, however if being diagnosed with a problem helps people seek treatment (and yes, mental health is a legitimate use of insurance money... it doesn't matter whether you have a cure for cancer or whatnot if a person's just going to kill themselves anyways due to a chemical imbalance).
I'm all for personal responsibility for the choices people make, but I do not think this is one of them. And for a rather small set of the population, it can be a socially crippling problem.
To me it's a sad day for America when we have to rely on other countries to police our corporations for us. Of course, I wonder if the EU would have been as hard on Microsoft if it were based in, say, France?
I would not use the Catholic Church or pro-life groups as the final answer, but more as a starting point of gathering information. Besides the occasional media article, such as the Canadian one, most of the info will be in medical journals, etc.
Yes, I take the same approach as wikipedia. There's always dangers in tainting your original viewpoint that way, but they probably do have a lot of good references (even if they are slightly "selective" in favor of their viewpoint).
That's a very interesting/insightful comment... is there anywhere I can read more about this? Are there any studies that show that adult stem cells are better suited?
If the private sector (I refuse to use the term "free market" - the US market is anything but unregulated!) is an adequate institution for making these kinds of decisions, and producing adequate research, then why do we even have any government funding of any kind?
The answer is that long ago people realized that the market tends to be rather risk averse, and often thinks in the short term. Also, no corporation in the US can match the amount of money the government throws around - what would be a staggering loss for a medium sized research company is very little for the government as a whole, allowing it to pursue very risky (but potentially beneficial) courses of research. Also, lack of shareholder pressure and legal liability allows the government to fund pure science that may never be "useful" (astrophysics, esoteric mathematics, etc).
Because tax money is being diverted from the private sector to the public sector to fund these things, the private sector has less to invest in potentially risky things as well, it is a self-perpetuating situation (which seems to be better than the alternative) and it is unlikely that we will see VCs stepping forward to work on embryonic stem cells in the US, especially if they must compete with government-funded research in the EU.
I'm against abortion however I think stem cells from aborted fetuses give that genetic entity (I'll let the reader decide if they are a person or not) a chance to continue on, maybe even saving others lives. I think that is the least we can do for those we deny life.
No, I knew this was not embroyonic stem cells. I'm just saying that stem cells work, and embryonic stem cells seem to have even more promise, so it's getting harder to argue against making them available for research. Even my fundamentalist Christian sister came to that conclusion after researching the project.
Suggesting that something is possible (terrorists could attack elementary schools with truckbed-launched automous micro-zepplins which attach time-bombs to roofs) is not the same as suggesting that it be implemented (please do not do that). As far as I'm concerned, the Chinese have chosen their government for themselves - in 60 years what have they done to get a different government? Basically nothing (save a guy in front of a tank). The approval rating for their government is probably higher than ours is in the US (and we're supposedly a democracy!).
Freedom isn't free - it is bought and paid for by the blood of patriots.
Mob based power has existed throughout history, and it usually has not been pretty. Furthermore, if you're an individual (in the true sense of the term) who does not enjoy associating with the mob, you tend to be screwed over by those who do. Food for thought.
That's precisely my problem with the US democracy. The mob/corporation driven Republicrats screw over anyone like myself (a registered Libertarian) that wants some kind of representation. Winston Churchill said it best: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
This kind of breakthrough is exactly why we need decreased regulations on stem cell research in the United States, as that too could aid in areas such like this. We also need increased government funding - people talk about how many lives are lost in Iraq, but few mention how many could be saved with the same resources. Heck, if the US developed a cure for cancer or AIDS and shared it with the world, maybe they would hate us less and stop killing our civilians.
Well, protesting is one way to show that you "do not accept" something - that doesn't seem to work well in China. However, it's clear that the people in charge of China want the population to go along with their edicts, and furthermore think that it is a good thing. The PRC spends a lot of money on propaganda, etc, so that the population is kept under control. With 1.3 billion people, I'd say that's a good investment. Screwing up their internet connection to the "outside world" (or at least whatever isn't offensive) would set back those efforts significantly, especially in the growing middle class.