Honestly? I think that's great. I may start doing that and just randomly flipping through the phone book. The worst thing that'll happen is the same thing that's happening now - nothing.
And maybe it'll make somebody think a little.
-Trillian
Would you all please stop arguing? Everyone knows that once you get outside of Chicago you're not going to find anything worthwhile anyway! (With the possible exception of Ikea, as noted above.)
I'm agnostic. And certainly don't have a dislike for abortion because of anyone or anything religious. But I believe that life starts at conception.
If you believe that life starts at conception, you have to believe that birth control (convenience) abortions are wrong. Even Libertarians would have to fight for the rights of the unborn. They wholly believe in the absolute rights of the individual, even those who can not defend their own. For what it's worth, I disagree with you that life begins at conception. But I think I do understand where you're coming from: if someone (you, for example) believes life does begin at conception, it logically follows that abortion is wrong.
The idea that any one person has the right to snuff a life just because it's wholly dependent on that person for survival, is lunacy. The government will charge you with two murders for killing a pregnant woman. Yet it's legal for her to have that child sucked into a sink. As I said, I understand where you're coming from but I think you're intentionally misrepresenting the pro-choice argument. See, I don't believe someone has the right to "snuff out a life just because it's wholly dependent on that person for survival," I believe women have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies near the beginning of the pregnancy. How late women should be legally allowed to terminate pregnancies is, I agree, something that can and should be up for debate. But you misrepresent myself (and other pro-choice individuals) by saying we're in favor of having the child "sucked into a sink."
Likewise, from the minimal Google research I had the energy to perform, "the government" will not charge you with two murders for killing a pregnant woman. Some state governments may, but I was unable to find evidence the federal government will do so. Even if they will, I (like most pro-choice individuals) agree that there's a difference between a near-to-term pregnancy and a first trimester pregnancy, and I would be open to debate on whether the murder of a pregnant woman in such condition should be treated differently. I know the old adage, "You can't be a little bit pregnant," is true but the pro-choice argument is that the development of a fetus is, nevertheless, not a binary thing ("not human"/"human").
The position by the administration is to not spend tax dollars on providing information to support these actions. ...in contradiction of Supreme Court rulings on what is legal in the United States. If they want to (try and) outlaw abortion, do so through the appropriate channels, not by denying people access to information on the subject!
If you think it's okay to deny rights to unborn children, wtf makes you think any of us deserve them? Again, you misrepresent the pro-choice argument. I don't paint pro-lifers such as yourself as misogynistic, women-hating fundamentalists because it's not true. I doubt you're going to find any pro-choicers who are in favor of legalized abortion because they hate babies, just as I doubt you're going to find any pro-lifers who are against legalized abortion because they hate women. Don't pretend the debate is black and white, because it's not.
Trillian
Re:Happy pi day everyone!!
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
Just as an aside, I teach three Bible classes to children most weeks, and I use science experiments to illustrate Biblical concepts
Out of curiosity, what sort of examples are you using or concepts are you illustrating? FWIW, I think you make a compelling argument about the 'whys' of teaching evolution, and this is sort of off-topic, I'm just interested to hear about how you structure your lessons.
Exchange isn't going to die anytime soon. No matter how good Google Aps is, no one with half a brain and a medium to large buisness.. is going to give Google power over their email severs. Too many sensitive documents go out and come in, through email. No one wants someone else to have power over their business by controlling access to those documents. Sure, we geeks can tout it as a triumph of innovation or whatever the buzz word is this week, but you'll never see google aps as a replacement for Exchange and Outlook. And those two products really should be called one product, because its not till you put them together that either really shines. Its a symbiotic relationship. You can't build a better open source exchange server and have it succeed without a better open source version of outlook. Want to see Exchange die? Lock the writers of Qmail and Thunderbird in a room for a few months, and keep delivering them beer and pizza through a mail slot.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I also don't think the small business market should be overlooked as a source for change. I'm the General Manager at a small arts organization (4 full time employees, a dozen or so part-time teachers) and am currently looking to migrate our email and calendaring to Google Aps for Domains (free for non-profit orgs). (Insert comment about someone posting to Slashdot from work.) (But, but, but, I'm doing research on calendaring solutions! I swear!)
Basically, we don't have the money or space (or energy) to manage an Exchange server in-house, and our email is already hosted off-site, through our website provider. So moving to Google realistically offers no drawbacks I've been able to think of (as I'm sure our web host would hand over our sensitive documents as readily, if not more so, than Google) and will finally let us do calendaring and simple document sharing (neither of which we're able to do particularly well right now). In addition, everyone is already using Thunderbird, from the previous GM's tech decisions, and I anticipate using the calendaring plugin for Thunderbird, coupled with GCalDaemon or a Thunderbird syncing plugin, to be a huge improvement over our current system. And, since I've already played with GCalDaemon on my home computer to sync with my personal Google account, I don't anticipate many transition pains. Likewise, I know the small non-profit down the hall is also using Google Apps for Domains for their email.
Again, I think you're right - from everything I've heard, Exchange and Outlook are a fantastic solution on a medium or large network, if you have the resources for them. But for small businesses with little or no IT staff, it's overkill and Google Apps for Domains seems to be a pretty great solution.
I'm atheist, and I'm anti-gay marriage. Not in the ceremonial sense of the word. I think you can do whatever you like as far as ceremonies are concerned. However, I do think that the gov't should encourage breeding amongst people who are productive as they tend to produce more productive people. (There is a bell curve here, the 2nd generation wealthy tend to be schleps.) Gay's have a particularly hard to cross threshold regarding the breeding thing. It's inconvenient and inefficient for them.
I wanted to respond to this, as I agree with another response stating it doesn't seem to be a fully thought-out argument.
For what it's worth, I applaud you for acknowledging that ceremonies are not the place of government. If a church (or synagogue or mosque or even a non-religious institution) wants to ceremonially marry two people - even if they're not a man and a woman - it's not the place of anyone else to say they can't or shouldn't.
That said, I'm somewhat confused by your assumptions that A) allowing marriage is solely (or primarily) to encourage breeding and B) breeding is the sole (or primary) means of determining productivity.
I readily acknowledge that marriage is, in modern American society, very linked to having children. Marriage provides legal protections and benefits for both partners, and for their children. However, it provides benefits to both partners above and beyond those concerning their children - inheritance rights, medical rights, tax benefits, and more. Likewise, following your line of thinking, heterosexual couples who can't reproduce should be discouraged from marrying (please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth - that's not my goal). Sterile individuals shouldn't be allowed to marry at all, as they're just as able to produce biological children as gay couples. So, all in all, I think your assertion that marriage is primarily about breeding is way off the mark.
As for breeding being how we determine productivity in modern America, I don't even know where to start. Going along the line of logic outlined above, is my post-menopausal mother no longer a productive member of society? Did family friends who adopted a child less 'productive' because they didn't pass on their genetic material? It just doesn't work that way.
I'd love to hear your response to any or all of what I've said. Again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I misinterpreted anything you wrote.
-Trillian
I also play piano and have been thinking about the 'zone' recently, where I can get when I'm playing songs I know well, and how the mind is used when doing something that's been practiced to the extent it can become 'second nature'. I feel like playing at that level is an odd balance of thinking and not thinking - if I think too hard about the chords or the fingering, I get tied up, but if I don't think about it enough, I don't remember what's coming next.
I've also noticed that for songs I know really well and have practiced a lot, I (no joke) get better when I'm a little drunk. At least, I'm looser and can play more smoothly which (if it's a song I know well) means it'll be better.
My friends tell one story of a night we'd had a party. We'd all been drinking pretty heavily, and it was about 2AM. Everyone else had gone up to bed by that point (we were all staying the night) but I was still at the piano. One of my friends came in to watch me play, and said I was playing absolutely beautifully, with no one else in the room. She watched as I played a few songs, not knowing I had an audience, and proceeded to finish. I turned off the lamp by the piano, stood up, and promptly walked into a wall.
I have memory of playing piano, but don't really remember how the evening ended, so I have to take her word. But I do think it plays (pun slightly intended) into the idea of having something you're good at or used to happen at a level that tricks your brain into thinking it's an extension of yourself. I could play piano just fine, but then thinking about where I was going got too complicated for my addled brain.
Or, for that matter, New Super Mario Bros (for DS). I believe it's only 2-player and no online play, but the multiplayer is surprisingly addictive. It's basically what the parent describes - Mario v Luigi, duking it out. In the case of DS Mario, it's for stars, but the point remains that you get to fireball, stomp, shell, etc your enemy. It's *great* fun. -Trillian
Did you realize that you can transfer all your virtual games into a memory card on the wii? if the console died you could replace it with a new one and just transfer the games back inside. Or just download them in the external sd card. that is what i did when i broke up with my previous gf and she decided to keep the console, so i transfered the games to an sd card and bought a new one... now i still can play my virtualconsole games.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but my impression was that the virtual console games loaded onto an external memory card are still linked to the console they were originally downloaded to. From Wikipedia's article on the Virtual Console, "Virtual Console games are locked to the Wii on which they were purchased -- they cannot be transferred to another Wii via an SD card."
Wikipedia does link to an article which has an interview with a Nintendo rep who claims, "Nintendo will offer support to help Wii owners with problems to recover their games [if your console breaks]," so it looks like the GP 'should' have went through Nintendo to replace their console if they wanted to keep their downloaded games. Not saying the should *have* to, just seems like that's Nintendo's policy. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=148658)
As I said, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. But from everything I've read, you shouldn't have been able to transfer your games off your girlfriend's console and back to a new console, and I suspect that's not actually what happened. -Trillian
I'm using Gimp 2.4 rc3 (on Ubuntu 7.10) and can't for the life of me find SIOX! I'd love to play with it, but am getting frustrated trying to figure out where the heck it is (or if it's included at all). Do you know where it's hiding? Thanks! -Trillian
school is only 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for most high school students. the rest of the time should be spent on homework, fun stuff, and hobbies. it's those hobbies that can get people ahead, like your computer hobbyist example.
Now, I know you said "most," so I'm not trying to pick on you. I just want to point out that the extremes can be, well, extreme. For example, my highschool (admitedly one of the longest if not the longest school days in the state of Illinois) was 8:05 - 3:35, or 7.5 hours a day. I don't even really want to disagree with your point, as I think free time is extremely important. I just wanted to chime in that, for some, it really isn't *that much* FREE time. At times in highschool, I had the equivilent time commitment of a fulltime job (school), plus working part time, plus being involed in theatre at school, plus outside activities, plus homework (totaling well over 60 hours a week).
I really don't have a point here. Again, I agree with what you and many others are saying, that parental involvement is super-important. I just wanted to comment on your assumption that most highschoolers are only in school for ~6 hours. (Although it looks like, at least in the early 1980s, you're right. This is the most recent thing I could find on school day length in 2 minutes of googling: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/findings.html) -Trillian
You are mistaken, PRE-op transsexuals are gods of compression utilities. Nobody else can disappear and re-appear entire appendages.
As a pre-op tranny going through a lot of really tough soul searching (not to mention hormones, therapy, hair removal, and the like) this little thread has really made my day. =D -Trillian
The official definition of a cult is an organization that rejects Jesus Christ, uses their own "scriptures" as superior to the King James Bible, discourages their members from reading the Bible, and then poses as a religion.
Doesn't your own link say "Biblically a cult may be defined as those that have changed, left out, or added to the fundamentals of Bible doctrine," (emphasis added) not the specific text of the Bible itself? That is, if a different word is used (for example, the King James version is not in the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/whatever) but the same "fundamental" meaning is present, wouldn't that still be OK by your (or biblestudyonline.org's) definition?
Please understand, I am not trying to have a semantic argument. I think I understand (although disagree) with your assertion that belief of Jesus as the savior is necisary for a "true" religion, but honestly don't understand why the King James version is the "superior" and/or "true" version. (I know those weren't your direct quotes, but I believe they're accurate to your sentiment. Apologies if they're not.)
I'm guessing you're joking, but I do actually have a friend with the last name 'Ucker.' It's actually pretty amusing - we joke his middle name is Jeff (Jeff Ucker...say it faster now...ah yes, now you have it). The only time I actually remember it being an issue was at a laser tag party - the guy behind the counter wouldn't let my friend use his last name in his tag, even after showing a drivers license. -Trillian
Heh cool. Was there a "Shakespeare ending" where everyone died?
Damn! I knew I missed something! We had the maid dying, the policeman dying, the pirate ghosts dying, the main characters dying, and various combinations of the above, but no path where everyone died! -Trillian
The only way to call it "bad" would be in reference to the lost opportunity to also include pirate moneys, pirate ninjas, ninja ghosts, and ninja monkey robot ghosts.
While there weren't any monkeys, ninjas, robots, or the combination thereof, there were some great (by which I mean, ridiculous, slow motion, drawn out) swordfights and every character had the possibility of dying on at least on path. =) -Trillian
So would a play which involved audience participation, and which was scripted such that according to said audience participation could result in one of several outcomes, then become a sport? I don't know if such a thing would offend the High Poobahs of theatre, but it sounds like a cool work of art to me.
I actually just finished up a senior (undergrad) project involving just that. It was, literally, a Choose Your Own Adventure-style play*, with the audience presented with multiple choices along the way. Everyone in the audience received a xylophone (so you know it's good theatre!) and at key points would hit one of the two notes, thus notifying the backend computer which choice had been made. There were seven possible endings, and each audience was able to see 3-4 (depending on time).
The show was extremely well received, with audiences having a great time. All were very responsive to the idea. Whether or not it was *good* art, I'd be quite offended if someone implied it was art at all. It was certainly as much art as Wrestlepocalypse (pretty much what it sounds like) which went up on campus the same weekend and was billed as a theatrical piece, or as some of the abysmally horrible Shakespeare interpretations in my four years in a theatre department.
Likewise, while a long argument can (and should) be had over whether specific games are examples of "good" art, to say it's impossible to make a game which is also art is foolish just as, one hundred years ago, saying movies could never be art would have been foolish.
-Trillian
*"Choose Your Own Adventure #178: The Pirate Ghosts of Bigley Manor." Not a real CYOA book, but with a lot of concepts taken from them. Again, I didn't say it was "good" art, but could you really call a show with pirate ghosts *bad*?
I'm getting tired of people comparing the Wii with the PS3/360. It's as apt a comparison as comparing the Nintendo DS to the PS3, or comparing the sales of decks of playing cards to the 360. It's sixth-generation hardware released at the same time as the seventh-generation consoles.
Well, yes and no. I agree with you that it is sixth-generation hardware (Wii) with a new control interface being released alongside seventh-generation hardware (PS3 and Wii). However, I don't think it's unfair to compare the three consoles.
For better or worse, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have released three home consoles within the same (basic) time period while retiring their previous consoles of the same (basic) time period. While I do believe there's enough room for multiple consoles to coexist without necessitating one 'winner,' as a consumer I can't help but compare what's being offered: three home consoles that I plug into my TV to play video games. Yes, it's completely possible that some people (with more money than I) will buy more than one and it's likewise possible that some people will buy a Wii or PS3/360 and never miss the other, but all three consoles are competing for similar (albeit not identical) entertainment dollars.
Likewise, while you and I can discuss console generations and the technology thereof, I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of people who walk into Target or EB or wherever could not. They're going to see three consoles, placed in the same area of the store, with similar advertisements, used in similar ways, and not care about console generations. Now, they may notice (or have been told) how the 360 and PS3 are so much more powerful than the Wii, which may affect their purchasing decision. But it's unrealistic to say that the Wii and 360/PS3 don't operate in at least somewhat overlapping markets.
Others have said it's like comparing cars (oh no! car analogy ahead) of vastly different makes. While an SUV may be operating in a market that only partially overlaps with a 2-seat sports car, they are both fundamentally cars and it's interesting to see which sells more. That doesn't mean you can extrapolate which is 'better' or the 'winner' from that information, just that it's silly to say it's useless or fundamentally flawed to even make the comparison at all.
For what it's worth, I'm sort of tired of people continuing to say that it's impossible to compare all three consoles and that the hardware gap somehow means the Wii is as far from the PS3/360 as a deck of cards - it's just not true.
This is probably getting posted too late to be noticed, but I wanted to chime in with a few responses. Getting all possible disclaimers out of the way: I live in the US, identify as culturally but not religiously Jewish, and would consider myself a anti-Zionist but not particularly emphatic about it (which still probably makes me a 'bad' Jew). Finally, I was born after Israel was established.
One of those fictions are the `palestinian' people. They were invented in the 1964 time line. Not in 1948.
Well, Palestine was used as a geographic name for what's now Israel (and some of the surrounding area) for most of the 20th Century prior to Israel's creation. I would agree that its use as a cultural or ethnic title is rather new, but people living in the area under the British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1948 had some legitimate cause to call themselves Palestinians and to be less than thrilled that all these Jews were coming to the area following WWII. Note I'm not defending how many decided to express their displeasure (violence) just saying I can understand why they didn't want this population influx. (This is ignoring any antisemitism on top of that, an attitude I would obviously disagree with.)
You should note that in 1948 a new arab state was proposed, along side of, and slightly larger than Israel. Israelis accepted this. The arabs didn't. The arabs had demanded that arabs in Israel leave right before the 48 war started,
I also want to point out that the original UN partition plan split both the Jewish the Arab states into two parts (almost three). See the map and more info on the partion plan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Pla n
While I completely agree that sitting back down at the negotiating table would have been the better choice than launching a war, and it's entirely possible the Arab nations would have launched a war no matter what, Arabs did have good cause to be unhappy with the UN's decision. With the exception of keeping Jerusalem as a UN-controlled city, which I think would have been a fantastic decision, the original UN plan seems rather shortsighted in its devision of territory.
Some day, in the distant future, when the arabs finally understand that all israel wants is peace, they may sit down and finally do what they should have done 60 years ago.
There is something to that which I think we can both agree on. However, I would argue that Israel hasn't been completely without wrongdoing - I think nothing will get accomplished until A) the Arabs concede Israel does want peace (as you said) and B) the Israel concedes that Palestinians do have legitimate issues with how the creation of Israel was handled 60 years ago and how it has conducted itself since (which it sounds like you might disagree with).
I am not trying to say which side is 'worse' or excuse the suicide bombing (or any violent act). All I'm saying is that each side, from their point of view has solid reasons for saying the other side "started it first" and that neither of those points of view are completely without merit.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. -Trillian
I think making the connection between the pseudonym that he uses to express his views on IP and his real life identity is a benefit to society.
I'll buy that, to some extent, but how does that go so far as to posting his email address and phone number? I wouldn't have had a problem had you said something along the lines of 'Looking at his website, QuantumG works for an antivirus company and writes programs and writes software for a living. It seems hypocritical to, on the one hand, benefit from the copyright system and, on the other hand, blast that same system as being not in line with what society wants.' (Please correct me if that's not your opinion. I think it's in line with what you've been saying, but I could be wrong.) But you chose to post specifically personal information (email address and phone number) rather than generally personal information (area and focus of work and website). I still hold that this is potentially harassing behavior and moved into libelous when you said, as QuantumG, "I'm about the least creative human being on the planet as all my interests revolve around taking other people's work."
And to your claims that I am attacking him, don't be silly. I'm just letting him be accountable for his words and contrasting his actions with his words. Don't you weigh people's actions against their words when judging the person?
I don't think I'm being silly. You put words in his mouth, spoke as him, made assumptions about his opinions, and posted personal information on a site which he had chosen not to make that information available. I call that an attack. Not a heinous attack which will echo through the ages as an example of villainy, but an attack nonetheless. And I'm not interested in judging the person who said, "Society no longer sees restrictions on copying entertainment to be for its own benefit," I'm interested in judging the idea itself. That was what this thread - posting football clips on YouTube - was originally about, not QuantumG's personal life. I thought that would be clear, but I can't make it any more explicit than that.
As to my opinion on the idea that society doesn't want copyright law, I think the fact that there have been more unique posters responding that disagree with him than have agreed with him supports my evident position.
A whopping three replies (four, counting yourself) doesn't really make for overwhemling evidence either way. And I think the way you phrased that is telling. I'm saying your position on copyright was not evident from what you posted.
Additionally I would suggest that the continued existence of copyright laws would demonstrate that society wants them. Some might claim that the copyright lobby is buying legislation to keep laws around in the face of the will of society. That is a fallacy. Society has an option to elect someone who will ignore the financial incentives provided by the copyright lobby. Society has more money that the copyright lobby. So even if they couldn't elect representatives that would enact their will, they could pay more to enact their will. And yet we still have copyright laws.
How is that a fallacy? The perfect democracy (or republic, for that matter) is much like the perfect free market: it requires all parties to be informed and active in the process to achieve results which are beneficial for all parties involved. Awareness polls and voting turnout show that this is demonstrably not the case, at least in the United States (Google is a US company, and thus most immediately affected by US laws). Going the opposite direction, there are definite cases in US history where laws have been changed in direct contrast to "what society wants" for "its own good." (Civil rights being the primary case that comes to mind, but there are others.) Likewise, there are cases where the government bowed to private interest at the expe
I think you'd have a very hard time demonstrating that society sees copyright the way it is being asserted repeatedly in this thread
Fair enough. And, for what it's worth, I'm somewhere in between concerning the copyright extremes (as I think most of the Slashdot population is), meaning I think copyright should exist but not for the length or extent it currently does. But, in all honesty, I wasn't trying to argue copyright systems, I was trying to refute your use of personal information to conduct an ad hominem attack.
Additionally, while you could argue that copying (and distributing) information about a specific individual does not benefit society, I would say that there is a very significant number of people who would disagree. Landlords, bankers, employers, investors, girlfriends/boyfriends, neighbors, etc. would all gain from knowing extended biographical and historical information.
A couple of things. First, you're not responding to what I said. I wrote, "Thus, I bet as a society we agree that posting someone's email addresses and (more importantly) their phone number to a web page while imitating them in fashion which is potentially both harassment and libelous is behavior outside the scope of what should be allowed, for the benefit of society" (emphasis added). I did not say "copying (and distributing) information about a specific individual does not benefit society," merely that the way you copied and distributed that information was not beneficial to society. If you'd like to discuss the larger issue, I'd be happy to.
The rest of your post isn't worth quoting, as it's just more personal attacks against QuantumG. You still haven't made an argument for or against the original point: "We have laws which restrict your rights for the benefit of society. Society no longer sees restrictions on copying entertainment to be for its own benefit."
So, I'll ask again: what is your opinion on the restrictions on the copying of information/entertainment in a manner contrary to how much of society currently acts?
I dunno. But I'd love to take this conversation private. My email address is [removed] Why don't you sign me up for your newsletter? Or call me at [removed]. I'm about the least creative human being on the planet as all my interests revolve around taking other people's work.
Well, first, as someone who seems to be arguing against unlimited copying, I'd imagine you can make a distinction between copying and distribution. The arguments about YouTube likewise falls under the latter category (although in this case it may also fall under the former, depending on who is technically/legally performing the actual copying).
That aside, however, you actually seem to be making the parent's point, "We have laws which restrict your rights for the benefit of society." Thus, I bet as a society we agree that posting someone's email addresses and (more importantly) their phone number to a web page while imitating them in fashion which is potentially both harassment and libelous is behavior outside the scope of what should be allowed, for the benefit of society. More in the vein of this thread, the parent said "Society no longer sees restrictions on copying entertainment to be for its own benefit." This is in contrast to how you copied information which, I would argue, does not benefit society.
All leading to my point, which is you made a (very immature) point about your ability to find information while commenting not at all on whether you have a right (natural or otherwise) to do so and whether or not society should or should not restrict you in said pursuit.
-Trillian
PS - Although I suppose in spite of yourself you made a point that society should restrict copying at some level. You were just an ass about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly? I think that's great. I may start doing that and just randomly flipping through the phone book. The worst thing that'll happen is the same thing that's happening now - nothing.
And maybe it'll make somebody think a little.
-Trillian
Would you all please stop arguing? Everyone knows that once you get outside of Chicago you're not going to find anything worthwhile anyway! (With the possible exception of Ikea, as noted above.)
If you believe that life starts at conception, you have to believe that birth control (convenience) abortions are wrong. Even Libertarians would have to fight for the rights of the unborn. They wholly believe in the absolute rights of the individual, even those who can not defend their own. For what it's worth, I disagree with you that life begins at conception. But I think I do understand where you're coming from: if someone (you, for example) believes life does begin at conception, it logically follows that abortion is wrong. The idea that any one person has the right to snuff a life just because it's wholly dependent on that person for survival, is lunacy. The government will charge you with two murders for killing a pregnant woman. Yet it's legal for her to have that child sucked into a sink. As I said, I understand where you're coming from but I think you're intentionally misrepresenting the pro-choice argument. See, I don't believe someone has the right to "snuff out a life just because it's wholly dependent on that person for survival," I believe women have the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies near the beginning of the pregnancy. How late women should be legally allowed to terminate pregnancies is, I agree, something that can and should be up for debate. But you misrepresent myself (and other pro-choice individuals) by saying we're in favor of having the child "sucked into a sink."
Likewise, from the minimal Google research I had the energy to perform, "the government" will not charge you with two murders for killing a pregnant woman. Some state governments may, but I was unable to find evidence the federal government will do so. Even if they will, I (like most pro-choice individuals) agree that there's a difference between a near-to-term pregnancy and a first trimester pregnancy, and I would be open to debate on whether the murder of a pregnant woman in such condition should be treated differently. I know the old adage, "You can't be a little bit pregnant," is true but the pro-choice argument is that the development of a fetus is, nevertheless, not a binary thing ("not human"/"human"). The position by the administration is to not spend tax dollars on providing information to support these actions. ...in contradiction of Supreme Court rulings on what is legal in the United States. If they want to (try and) outlaw abortion, do so through the appropriate channels, not by denying people access to information on the subject! If you think it's okay to deny rights to unborn children, wtf makes you think any of us deserve them? Again, you misrepresent the pro-choice argument. I don't paint pro-lifers such as yourself as misogynistic, women-hating fundamentalists because it's not true. I doubt you're going to find any pro-choicers who are in favor of legalized abortion because they hate babies, just as I doubt you're going to find any pro-lifers who are against legalized abortion because they hate women. Don't pretend the debate is black and white, because it's not.
Trillian
Steak-and-BJ? How 2003. This year it's Cupcake and Shut The Hell Up Day!
-Trillian
Thanks!
-Trillian
Basically, we don't have the money or space (or energy) to manage an Exchange server in-house, and our email is already hosted off-site, through our website provider. So moving to Google realistically offers no drawbacks I've been able to think of (as I'm sure our web host would hand over our sensitive documents as readily, if not more so, than Google) and will finally let us do calendaring and simple document sharing (neither of which we're able to do particularly well right now). In addition, everyone is already using Thunderbird, from the previous GM's tech decisions, and I anticipate using the calendaring plugin for Thunderbird, coupled with GCalDaemon or a Thunderbird syncing plugin, to be a huge improvement over our current system. And, since I've already played with GCalDaemon on my home computer to sync with my personal Google account, I don't anticipate many transition pains. Likewise, I know the small non-profit down the hall is also using Google Apps for Domains for their email.
Again, I think you're right - from everything I've heard, Exchange and Outlook are a fantastic solution on a medium or large network, if you have the resources for them. But for small businesses with little or no IT staff, it's overkill and Google Apps for Domains seems to be a pretty great solution.
-Trillian
I wanted to respond to this, as I agree with another response stating it doesn't seem to be a fully thought-out argument.
For what it's worth, I applaud you for acknowledging that ceremonies are not the place of government. If a church (or synagogue or mosque or even a non-religious institution) wants to ceremonially marry two people - even if they're not a man and a woman - it's not the place of anyone else to say they can't or shouldn't.
That said, I'm somewhat confused by your assumptions that A) allowing marriage is solely (or primarily) to encourage breeding and B) breeding is the sole (or primary) means of determining productivity.
I readily acknowledge that marriage is, in modern American society, very linked to having children. Marriage provides legal protections and benefits for both partners, and for their children. However, it provides benefits to both partners above and beyond those concerning their children - inheritance rights, medical rights, tax benefits, and more. Likewise, following your line of thinking, heterosexual couples who can't reproduce should be discouraged from marrying (please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth - that's not my goal). Sterile individuals shouldn't be allowed to marry at all, as they're just as able to produce biological children as gay couples. So, all in all, I think your assertion that marriage is primarily about breeding is way off the mark.
As for breeding being how we determine productivity in modern America, I don't even know where to start. Going along the line of logic outlined above, is my post-menopausal mother no longer a productive member of society? Did family friends who adopted a child less 'productive' because they didn't pass on their genetic material? It just doesn't work that way.
I'd love to hear your response to any or all of what I've said. Again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I misinterpreted anything you wrote.
-Trillian
I also play piano and have been thinking about the 'zone' recently, where I can get when I'm playing songs I know well, and how the mind is used when doing something that's been practiced to the extent it can become 'second nature'. I feel like playing at that level is an odd balance of thinking and not thinking - if I think too hard about the chords or the fingering, I get tied up, but if I don't think about it enough, I don't remember what's coming next.
I've also noticed that for songs I know really well and have practiced a lot, I (no joke) get better when I'm a little drunk. At least, I'm looser and can play more smoothly which (if it's a song I know well) means it'll be better.
My friends tell one story of a night we'd had a party. We'd all been drinking pretty heavily, and it was about 2AM. Everyone else had gone up to bed by that point (we were all staying the night) but I was still at the piano. One of my friends came in to watch me play, and said I was playing absolutely beautifully, with no one else in the room. She watched as I played a few songs, not knowing I had an audience, and proceeded to finish. I turned off the lamp by the piano, stood up, and promptly walked into a wall.
I have memory of playing piano, but don't really remember how the evening ended, so I have to take her word. But I do think it plays (pun slightly intended) into the idea of having something you're good at or used to happen at a level that tricks your brain into thinking it's an extension of yourself. I could play piano just fine, but then thinking about where I was going got too complicated for my addled brain.
-Trillian
Or, for that matter, New Super Mario Bros (for DS). I believe it's only 2-player and no online play, but the multiplayer is surprisingly addictive. It's basically what the parent describes - Mario v Luigi, duking it out. In the case of DS Mario, it's for stars, but the point remains that you get to fireball, stomp, shell, etc your enemy. It's *great* fun.
-Trillian
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but my impression was that the virtual console games loaded onto an external memory card are still linked to the console they were originally downloaded to. From Wikipedia's article on the Virtual Console, "Virtual Console games are locked to the Wii on which they were purchased -- they cannot be transferred to another Wii via an SD card."
Wikipedia does link to an article which has an interview with a Nintendo rep who claims, "Nintendo will offer support to help Wii owners with problems to recover their games [if your console breaks]," so it looks like the GP 'should' have went through Nintendo to replace their console if they wanted to keep their downloaded games. Not saying the should *have* to, just seems like that's Nintendo's policy. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=148658)
As I said, maybe I'm misunderstanding you. But from everything I've read, you shouldn't have been able to transfer your games off your girlfriend's console and back to a new console, and I suspect that's not actually what happened.
-Trillian
Nevermind! It's in as Foreground Select.
-Trillian
I'm using Gimp 2.4 rc3 (on Ubuntu 7.10) and can't for the life of me find SIOX! I'd love to play with it, but am getting frustrated trying to figure out where the heck it is (or if it's included at all). Do you know where it's hiding?
Thanks!
-Trillian
Now, I know you said "most," so I'm not trying to pick on you. I just want to point out that the extremes can be, well, extreme. For example, my highschool (admitedly one of the longest if not the longest school days in the state of Illinois) was 8:05 - 3:35, or 7.5 hours a day. I don't even really want to disagree with your point, as I think free time is extremely important. I just wanted to chime in that, for some, it really isn't *that much* FREE time. At times in highschool, I had the equivilent time commitment of a fulltime job (school), plus working part time, plus being involed in theatre at school, plus outside activities, plus homework (totaling well over 60 hours a week).
I really don't have a point here. Again, I agree with what you and many others are saying, that parental involvement is super-important. I just wanted to comment on your assumption that most highschoolers are only in school for ~6 hours. (Although it looks like, at least in the early 1980s, you're right. This is the most recent thing I could find on school day length in 2 minutes of googling: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/findings.html)
-Trillian
As a pre-op tranny going through a lot of really tough soul searching (not to mention hormones, therapy, hair removal, and the like) this little thread has really made my day. =D
-Trillian
Doesn't your own link say "Biblically a cult may be defined as those that have changed, left out, or added to the fundamentals of Bible doctrine," (emphasis added) not the specific text of the Bible itself? That is, if a different word is used (for example, the King James version is not in the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/whatever) but the same "fundamental" meaning is present, wouldn't that still be OK by your (or biblestudyonline.org's) definition?
Please understand, I am not trying to have a semantic argument. I think I understand (although disagree) with your assertion that belief of Jesus as the savior is necisary for a "true" religion, but honestly don't understand why the King James version is the "superior" and/or "true" version. (I know those weren't your direct quotes, but I believe they're accurate to your sentiment. Apologies if they're not.)
-Trillian
I'm guessing you're joking, but I do actually have a friend with the last name 'Ucker.' It's actually pretty amusing - we joke his middle name is Jeff (Jeff Ucker...say it faster now...ah yes, now you have it). The only time I actually remember it being an issue was at a laser tag party - the guy behind the counter wouldn't let my friend use his last name in his tag, even after showing a drivers license.
-Trillian
According to the script, they (Lucas) knew it and knew Solo was wrong. From http://www.blueharvest.net/scoops/anh-script.shtm
HAN: Fast ship? You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?
BEN: Should I have?
HAN: It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve
parsecs!
Ben reacts to Solo's stupid attempt to impress them with
obvious misinformation.
Emphasis added...
-Trillian
Damn! I knew I missed something! We had the maid dying, the policeman dying, the pirate ghosts dying, the main characters dying, and various combinations of the above, but no path where everyone died!
-Trillian
While there weren't any monkeys, ninjas, robots, or the combination thereof, there were some great (by which I mean, ridiculous, slow motion, drawn out) swordfights and every character had the possibility of dying on at least on path. =)
-Trillian
I actually just finished up a senior (undergrad) project involving just that. It was, literally, a Choose Your Own Adventure-style play*, with the audience presented with multiple choices along the way. Everyone in the audience received a xylophone (so you know it's good theatre!) and at key points would hit one of the two notes, thus notifying the backend computer which choice had been made. There were seven possible endings, and each audience was able to see 3-4 (depending on time).
The show was extremely well received, with audiences having a great time. All were very responsive to the idea. Whether or not it was *good* art, I'd be quite offended if someone implied it was art at all. It was certainly as much art as Wrestlepocalypse (pretty much what it sounds like) which went up on campus the same weekend and was billed as a theatrical piece, or as some of the abysmally horrible Shakespeare interpretations in my four years in a theatre department.
Likewise, while a long argument can (and should) be had over whether specific games are examples of "good" art, to say it's impossible to make a game which is also art is foolish just as, one hundred years ago, saying movies could never be art would have been foolish.
-Trillian
*"Choose Your Own Adventure #178: The Pirate Ghosts of Bigley Manor." Not a real CYOA book, but with a lot of concepts taken from them. Again, I didn't say it was "good" art, but could you really call a show with pirate ghosts *bad*?
Well, yes and no. I agree with you that it is sixth-generation hardware (Wii) with a new control interface being released alongside seventh-generation hardware (PS3 and Wii). However, I don't think it's unfair to compare the three consoles.
For better or worse, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have released three home consoles within the same (basic) time period while retiring their previous consoles of the same (basic) time period. While I do believe there's enough room for multiple consoles to coexist without necessitating one 'winner,' as a consumer I can't help but compare what's being offered: three home consoles that I plug into my TV to play video games. Yes, it's completely possible that some people (with more money than I) will buy more than one and it's likewise possible that some people will buy a Wii or PS3/360 and never miss the other, but all three consoles are competing for similar (albeit not identical) entertainment dollars.
Likewise, while you and I can discuss console generations and the technology thereof, I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of people who walk into Target or EB or wherever could not. They're going to see three consoles, placed in the same area of the store, with similar advertisements, used in similar ways, and not care about console generations. Now, they may notice (or have been told) how the 360 and PS3 are so much more powerful than the Wii, which may affect their purchasing decision. But it's unrealistic to say that the Wii and 360/PS3 don't operate in at least somewhat overlapping markets.
Others have said it's like comparing cars (oh no! car analogy ahead) of vastly different makes. While an SUV may be operating in a market that only partially overlaps with a 2-seat sports car, they are both fundamentally cars and it's interesting to see which sells more. That doesn't mean you can extrapolate which is 'better' or the 'winner' from that information, just that it's silly to say it's useless or fundamentally flawed to even make the comparison at all.
For what it's worth, I'm sort of tired of people continuing to say that it's impossible to compare all three consoles and that the hardware gap somehow means the Wii is as far from the PS3/360 as a deck of cards - it's just not true.
-Trillian
Well, Palestine was used as a geographic name for what's now Israel (and some of the surrounding area) for most of the 20th Century prior to Israel's creation. I would agree that its use as a cultural or ethnic title is rather new, but people living in the area under the British Mandate of Palestine prior to 1948 had some legitimate cause to call themselves Palestinians and to be less than thrilled that all these Jews were coming to the area following WWII. Note I'm not defending how many decided to express their displeasure (violence) just saying I can understand why they didn't want this population influx. (This is ignoring any antisemitism on top of that, an attitude I would obviously disagree with.)
I also want to point out that the original UN partition plan split both the Jewish the Arab states into two parts (almost three). See the map and more info on the partion plan at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Pl
While I completely agree that sitting back down at the negotiating table would have been the better choice than launching a war, and it's entirely possible the Arab nations would have launched a war no matter what, Arabs did have good cause to be unhappy with the UN's decision. With the exception of keeping Jerusalem as a UN-controlled city, which I think would have been a fantastic decision, the original UN plan seems rather shortsighted in its devision of territory.
There is something to that which I think we can both agree on. However, I would argue that Israel hasn't been completely without wrongdoing - I think nothing will get accomplished until A) the Arabs concede Israel does want peace (as you said) and B) the Israel concedes that Palestinians do have legitimate issues with how the creation of Israel was handled 60 years ago and how it has conducted itself since (which it sounds like you might disagree with).
I am not trying to say which side is 'worse' or excuse the suicide bombing (or any violent act). All I'm saying is that each side, from their point of view has solid reasons for saying the other side "started it first" and that neither of those points of view are completely without merit.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
-Trillian
I'll buy that, to some extent, but how does that go so far as to posting his email address and phone number? I wouldn't have had a problem had you said something along the lines of 'Looking at his website, QuantumG works for an antivirus company and writes programs and writes software for a living. It seems hypocritical to, on the one hand, benefit from the copyright system and, on the other hand, blast that same system as being not in line with what society wants.' (Please correct me if that's not your opinion. I think it's in line with what you've been saying, but I could be wrong.) But you chose to post specifically personal information (email address and phone number) rather than generally personal information (area and focus of work and website). I still hold that this is potentially harassing behavior and moved into libelous when you said, as QuantumG, "I'm about the least creative human being on the planet as all my interests revolve around taking other people's work."
I don't think I'm being silly. You put words in his mouth, spoke as him, made assumptions about his opinions, and posted personal information on a site which he had chosen not to make that information available. I call that an attack. Not a heinous attack which will echo through the ages as an example of villainy, but an attack nonetheless. And I'm not interested in judging the person who said, "Society no longer sees restrictions on copying entertainment to be for its own benefit," I'm interested in judging the idea itself. That was what this thread - posting football clips on YouTube - was originally about, not QuantumG's personal life. I thought that would be clear, but I can't make it any more explicit than that.
A whopping three replies (four, counting yourself) doesn't really make for overwhemling evidence either way. And I think the way you phrased that is telling. I'm saying your position on copyright was not evident from what you posted.
How is that a fallacy? The perfect democracy (or republic, for that matter) is much like the perfect free market: it requires all parties to be informed and active in the process to achieve results which are beneficial for all parties involved. Awareness polls and voting turnout show that this is demonstrably not the case, at least in the United States (Google is a US company, and thus most immediately affected by US laws). Going the opposite direction, there are definite cases in US history where laws have been changed in direct contrast to "what society wants" for "its own good." (Civil rights being the primary case that comes to mind, but there are others.) Likewise, there are cases where the government bowed to private interest at the expe
Fair enough. And, for what it's worth, I'm somewhere in between concerning the copyright extremes (as I think most of the Slashdot population is), meaning I think copyright should exist but not for the length or extent it currently does. But, in all honesty, I wasn't trying to argue copyright systems, I was trying to refute your use of personal information to conduct an ad hominem attack.
A couple of things. First, you're not responding to what I said. I wrote, "Thus, I bet as a society we agree that posting someone's email addresses and (more importantly) their phone number to a web page while imitating them in fashion which is potentially both harassment and libelous is behavior outside the scope of what should be allowed, for the benefit of society" (emphasis added). I did not say "copying (and distributing) information about a specific individual does not benefit society," merely that the way you copied and distributed that information was not beneficial to society. If you'd like to discuss the larger issue, I'd be happy to.
The rest of your post isn't worth quoting, as it's just more personal attacks against QuantumG. You still haven't made an argument for or against the original point: "We have laws which restrict your rights for the benefit of society. Society no longer sees restrictions on copying entertainment to be for its own benefit."
So, I'll ask again: what is your opinion on the restrictions on the copying of information/entertainment in a manner contrary to how much of society currently acts?
-Trillian
Well, first, as someone who seems to be arguing against unlimited copying, I'd imagine you can make a distinction between copying and distribution. The arguments about YouTube likewise falls under the latter category (although in this case it may also fall under the former, depending on who is technically/legally performing the actual copying).
That aside, however, you actually seem to be making the parent's point, "We have laws which restrict your rights for the benefit of society." Thus, I bet as a society we agree that posting someone's email addresses and (more importantly) their phone number to a web page while imitating them in fashion which is potentially both harassment and libelous is behavior outside the scope of what should be allowed, for the benefit of society. More in the vein of this thread, the parent said "Society no longer sees restrictions on copying entertainment to be for its own benefit." This is in contrast to how you copied information which, I would argue, does not benefit society.
All leading to my point, which is you made a (very immature) point about your ability to find information while commenting not at all on whether you have a right (natural or otherwise) to do so and whether or not society should or should not restrict you in said pursuit.
-Trillian
PS - Although I suppose in spite of yourself you made a point that society should restrict copying at some level. You were just an ass about it.