What is the value in a tradition? Why is it Good to do things a certain way just because that's the way it's done?
Especially after reading the article (you did read the article, right?) about how this "tradition" was FABRICATED by the people who profit from diamond sales, how can you POSSIBLY argue that the tradition has any value at all?
I tell you what. If I were dating a girl who read that article and didn't turn to me and say "Never buy me a diamond!" I'd have to evaluate that relationship/very/ closely.
Well, your psychology might work on statistically significant samples...but fortunately I'm not dating statistically significant samples. I'm dating ONE woman, who respects me, and I respect her. We listen to one another. We're a) not hung up on what other people think and b) hang out with people who would never countenance the sort of judgements you seem to think are so important to our continuation as a species.
In other words, have at it. You can do whatever you want with your relationship. But if you want to tell me that my relationship is doomed because of biology or our principles, well...you best not let my girl hear you. She'll whip your ass.
I'd take exactly the opposite tack. If either party in the relationship is REALLY that worried about what the Joneses think, to the point that they'll be psychologically scarred by not having what everybody else has, I'd say the relationship is doomed from the get-go. A lifetime commitment to honor and cherish another human being is infinitely more precious than a hunk of clear carbon.
Talk it over with your intended. Express your feelings. Come to a consensus. Then, spit in the eye of anybody who disparages your (collective) choice.
Glad that we're having a productive discussion now. The caliber of debate around here is not generally high enough for me to be so rigorous, but in this case I feel my time has been well spent.
You raise several points I am in total agreement with. I am shocked and appalled that We The People have tolerated the drug seizure laws as long as we have. This legislation is beyond awful. I also agree, in principle, with your discussion of what should be lawful and unlawful (if I interpreted it properly...there were several negatives in the first clause and I think one was extraneous. Check me on that.) However, I think the meat of our discussion really surrounds the point that you (understandably) avoided: What rights should corporations have?
You are right...all corps are not the same. However, I do believe that there are LOTS of corps that are totally out of control, and there is little in place to stop them. I do not believe that these corps are at all constrained (even as much as an individual is) to refrain from harming others. Just because many corporations have not done so does not remove the necessity of re-chartering those corporations with better "citizenship" (yeah, there's another broad word, but I believe by now you get the gist of what I mean by that).
I concur that government, by and large, does a rotten job of whatever it turns its hand to. However, I submit that there must be SOME organization empowered to regulate commerce to some degree, if only to mediate disputes. I do believe that there are some government agencies that do a creditable job of establishing and enforcing standards that, left to its own devices, industry would curtail in favor of higher profits. I have had a bit of direct experience with the FAA (being a prospective aerospace engineer, this is right where I live...) and I think that by and large their regulations about aircraft maintenance and operation are effective and fair. I would like to see a bit more in the way of teeth, but lately (since the last spate of maintenance-related crashes several years ago) they have acted in the public's interest with vigor and efficacy. I certainly wouldn't argue that they are perfect, but I believe there is a good case to be made for the FAA as a reasonable example of how things can be done right.
I think that the FDA has a slightly less stellar record, if only because of the fast-track approvals that the pharm corps have purchased from the legislature.
I believe that the government can and should establish standards and practices for any commerce that could directly affect the health of its citizenry. (Right now, we'll talk about "health" fairly narrowly as physiological well-being) I believe the government should also act to maintain free markets wherever possible, and to closely monitor state-granted monopolies when (as in the case of utilities) no other model is workable.
I feel that currently, the close coupling between government and industry has been fairly dysfunctional. By and large, the checks and balances system set up by the Founders did a good job of limiting government power. However, with corporations spending large amounts of money to inform and influence the government, it has become a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
I really do think you have me mis-pegged as a leftist. If I had to put on a label, it would be a lot closer to libertarian...the government that governs best certainly governs least, but I'm not willing to concede that the government does not have a responsibility to defend the welfare and freedom of its citizens.
As far as the future goes, I am by nature an optimistic person. I believe that the founding of America was a big step forward in the well-being of humans, and I believe that we as a species can take yet another step forward. I do have high hopes for space colonies as sociological experiments, because I believe such colonies will attract the best and the brightest people to them. What's to keep it from turning to crap? Nothing. We've had a good 200 years or so here in America. No reason we can't re-establish the same ideals, refined by our collective experience, in another place and get another period of "advance". Nothing lasts forever...except hope for the future. Gee...maybe I should get that printed on a T-Shirt or something. : )
There's more in your post I'm not addressing, but I'm sleepy.
Social and economic justice (yes, in broad terms...if I could do this in detail sufficient to satisfy your demands, I'd be a PhD economist instead of an engineering student), in principle hinge on two points.
1) Those who have power must be responsible to those over whom the power is wielded.
Currently, the citizens whose liberties and finances are harmed by the power oligarchies have no recourse. Sure, the CEO of Worldcom might get hauled off in chains...but nobody is REALLY responsible for the actions of a corporation, since by its nature a corporation removes and absolves responsibility from its decision makers. I understand why this abstraction can be useful for growing an economy (risk protection for capital investments) but the pendulum has swung way too far. The corporate decision-makers can do essentially whatever they want to with impunity.
2) Legitimate power derives only from the will of the citizenry.
That means individual humans. You might argue that corporations are but accumulators for individual humans, but if that is true, why bother with the abstraction? Why have a different set of rules for corps than for citizens? Now, this point is a VERY idealistic one, I know. It makes the (pretty scary) assumption that the populace knows (and cares) what is going on in the decision making circles, and the current American populace has been well trained to think that politics (and, by extension, economic policy) are not relevant to their daily lives. I think this is an unfortunate turn of events, and I would like to explore ways to rectify this situation. I don't have any clever ideas at the moment. Mea culpa.
I see you refuting my position. I would be interested to see you take a position of your own.
It always interests me how much laissez-faire capitalists depend on the government to protect their little fiefdoms. I'd be totally happy with a government that did not involve itself in matters of commerce...but the corps would never accept that.
I guess I'm also wondering if you think there are ANY laws that should be applied to corporations? Is it OK for corps to pollute? (Gosh, there I go sounding like a wacko environmentalist. What HAS gotten into me?) Is it OK for corps to maintain and extend monopolies, destroying the free market? Is it OK for corps to defraud stockholders?
How will a society "charter itself toward this idea of "socio-economic justice"? Well, the Constitutional Convention did a damn good job, if you ask me. I would very much like to see a similar evaluation of the needs of our country...although I do not belive that it would be possible to accomplish today. Not on Earth, anyhow. I have high hopes for colonization of other places, as this process will provide the geographical and economic isolation required to really invent new ways of setting up societies, just as occurred in America over the last 300 years.
I concede that my debate coach would HATE me for presenting an argument I am not wise enough to nail down completely. I'm trying to have a discussion here, not dictate my terms.
The purpose of my post was to illustrate a central problem I see with current corporate charters: The corporation is not responsible to anybody. The laws are obviously not effective. The current system does not exercise sufficient sanction against a corporation that breaks the law.
You lump me in with authoritarian anti-capitalists. Well, you're entitled to your assumptions, but that has nothing to do with my position. I don't feel like any central authority has the flexibility or wisdom to dictate economic policy. However, that sort of system is exactly what we're seeing in various markets now. The most powerful player moves to dominate, not by providing superior products and technology, but by influencing legislation and excluding competition.
Do you think the status quo is optimal? Is your contention that nothing is wrong, and we should just keep going the way we are? Are you unwilling to consider the possibility that a society can charter itself to hew closer to a shared idea of "justice", both socially and economically?
You may consider mine to be a failure of intellect, but if that is your position I believe you have a failure of vision.
Yeah. You start with ideals, you proceed to policy. What order of operations do YOU suggest?
"Go from there" means "Have a debate in a public forum and refine the concepts". Unless you think, say, the Constitutional Convention was "arbitrarily making the rest up as we go along", your point doesn't have a lot of relevance.
You seem to be a lot more concerned about pointing out the fact that my statements were vague rather than discussing whether the principles are valid. I, on the other hand, wish to start with an internally consistent philosophy and develop a set of rules that by and large encourage a pre-defined set of morals. We've already established that my system is not yet complete.
With your last statement, you're being aggressively stupid. A "moral society" is one that attempts to hew to the moral codes espoused by its members. I would be willing to wager that if you picked a random ten dozen people from around the country and talked with them, you'd find a hell of a lot of moral statements that they'd agree with. If you were to sample a similar number of corporations, you would never ever find them (honestly) advocating the same behavior. They have only one imperative, and it is not conducive to behavior that the rest of the society terms "moral".
Too vague? Tough. Do some thinking on your own and see what YOU come up with, and then we might be able to have a productive converstation.
I was attempting to make a broad point. Defining "hurt" is a subject for law, once one has embraced the principles I've espoused.
What defines property? Something that can provide a unique benefit to a limited number of persons. What defines hurt? We'll start with deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and go from there.
My point was not to lay down a foundation for a moral society, only to demonstrate that corporations as they are currently chartered are hostile to any moral society.
Better the moral equivalent of a three-year old than an extraordinarily wealthy entity that can do whatever it wants to (as corporations demonstrably are today).
By what right does Enron get to stay in business? Why does Worldcom get to keep at it? Why is Microsoft still permitted to place strictures on how its customers do business? The system is obviously broken catastrophically.
The problem is that it's a NOT carefully constructed fiction. It enjoys all the legal benefits of personhood, but none of the responsibilities. Corporations are never punished for doing wrong, in any meaningful way.
When we start seeing corporate charters being revoked for breaking laws, then we'll be on the right track.
The issue is not so much what you desire, but what you are willing to do to get it. There's nothing wrong with working hard and getting "stuff" (where stuff is money or regard or political clout or whatever coin interests you). There IS something wrong with hurting other people in order to get "stuff", and that's what capitalism has so far failed to address.
Re:Why is this a Good Thing (tm)?
on
Penguin Airlines
·
· Score: 2
You understand that nobody's talking about having Linux run the flight control software, or even for secondary nav aids, right? I mean, Linux is going to be used on the business end. On the ground. In the part of the company that's not in an airplane. Feel better?
Having an unmarked police car with a salaried police officer following me around doesn't bother me as much as this system monitoring tens of thousands of motorists in job lots. Automated surveillance is ALWAYS going to be mis-used. Individual surveillance may also be mis-used, but it's also far more expensive to do in large quantities.
Wow. So how many jobs do you have to create in order to get your crime justified? What about, say, your local mob boss. He employs a couple dozen made guys...is he cool?
These people didn't just steal. They DESTROYED WEALTH. They took tens of billions of dollars of market capitalization, and turned it into tens of millions of dollars in their own pockets. They destroyed 99% of the wealth, and pocketed 1%. At least the mugger's going to turn around and spend the money he steals from me on crack, and then the crack dealer will go buy a new Benz. Yay. Money in economy good.
So, no, I'm not going to let the bastards who did this off the hook because they used a fountain pen instead of a gun.
The only problem with that is that supply and demand models (demonstrably) do not work in markets where the product is not scarce.
By example of the proliferation of music downloading, music is not a scarce quantity. The record companies want to legislate it into being a scarce quantity, so they can keep soaking the public and cheating the artists. In other words, they're trying to force their business model to continue by rule of law, not by its fitness. Anybody who's REALLY a laissez-faire capitalist should be hurling right now.
Paper's refresh rate? Umm, I know you're trying to be clever, but I've read more books than I can count on my fingers and toes, and I've never seen a single one of them refresh.
Lots of people complain about online books not "feeling" like real books. I have no aesthetic attachment whatsoever to books...especially pulp paper gum-bound break after I read them three times paperbacks that are the only ones I am willing to purchase in volume. (For the record, I average three hefty novels a week. Not huge, but after doing that for 15 years, you go through some books...)
I can not wait for a rugged, backlit, waterproof, reasonably high resolution portable bookreader. I'd gladly put all the paperbacks on my shelf through a shredder in order to get them into a portable format like this. I mean, my God! Who LIKES moving books from place to place? The information density of paper is just stupidly low, and I can't wait to get past it.
OK, OK, I acknowledge that paper is good for long-term archiving...but none of the books I actually own are printed with that requirement in mind. I have many books that are disintegrating from simple old age.
Hate to actually speak up for the Star Trek continuity, but it is/entirely/ possible that Khan met Chekhov during the voyage, but not during the on-screen action.
Well, you know what? I thought it was interesting. If you did not, I think your time would be much better spent doing something productive instead of whining about not getting to see ALL stories and ONLY stories you want to see.
Christ, it's not like Taco's sitting behind you with a gun to your head. It's the worst kind of sheeple that consume anything that's offered to them. Activate that meat pie in your skull and exhibit some discretion.
I have no issues whatsoever with a parent buying any sort of device they think is in their child's best interest. I may or may not agree with their estimation of the efficacy of that device, but their parenting techniques are none of my damn business.
I DO have issues when filtering software goes onto publically funded computers, because that limits the scope of public discourse and inquiry into a field whose bounds are (secretly) maintained by a private entity. That's bad.
Computers at home or in an office setting can and should have whatever software the purchaser wants to put on them. Computers funded by the public, on the other hand, have a different set of requirements. Makes sense?
Slashdot Mirror
Or, golly, you could, um, ask her for the ring. That's what I'm gonna do. : )
What is the value in a tradition? Why is it Good to do things a certain way just because that's the way it's done?
/very/ closely.
Especially after reading the article (you did read the article, right?) about how this "tradition" was FABRICATED by the people who profit from diamond sales, how can you POSSIBLY argue that the tradition has any value at all?
I tell you what. If I were dating a girl who read that article and didn't turn to me and say "Never buy me a diamond!" I'd have to evaluate that relationship
Works well for my parents. And my girlfriend's parents. And the parents of my best friends.
Maybe you're just associating with the wrong people.
Well, your psychology might work on statistically significant samples...but fortunately I'm not dating statistically significant samples. I'm dating ONE woman, who respects me, and I respect her. We listen to one another. We're a) not hung up on what other people think and b) hang out with people who would never countenance the sort of judgements you seem to think are so important to our continuation as a species.
In other words, have at it. You can do whatever you want with your relationship. But if you want to tell me that my relationship is doomed because of biology or our principles, well...you best not let my girl hear you. She'll whip your ass.
Can't lose treasured memories down the bathtub drain. Sounds like your priorities are a bit backwards.
My family always has gone on nice vacations instead of wearing expensive clothes. I've never for a moment thought that this was a bad idea.
I'd take exactly the opposite tack. If either party in the relationship is REALLY that worried about what the Joneses think, to the point that they'll be psychologically scarred by not having what everybody else has, I'd say the relationship is doomed from the get-go. A lifetime commitment to honor and cherish another human being is infinitely more precious than a hunk of clear carbon.
Talk it over with your intended. Express your feelings. Come to a consensus. Then, spit in the eye of anybody who disparages your (collective) choice.
Glad that we're having a productive discussion now. The caliber of debate around here is not generally high enough for me to be so rigorous, but in this case I feel my time has been well spent.
You raise several points I am in total agreement with. I am shocked and appalled that We The People have tolerated the drug seizure laws as long as we have. This legislation is beyond awful. I also agree, in principle, with your discussion of what should be lawful and unlawful (if I interpreted it properly...there were several negatives in the first clause and I think one was extraneous. Check me on that.) However, I think the meat of our discussion really surrounds the point that you (understandably) avoided: What rights should corporations have?
You are right...all corps are not the same. However, I do believe that there are LOTS of corps that are totally out of control, and there is little in place to stop them. I do not believe that these corps are at all constrained (even as much as an individual is) to refrain from harming others. Just because many corporations have not done so does not remove the necessity of re-chartering those corporations with better "citizenship" (yeah, there's another broad word, but I believe by now you get the gist of what I mean by that).
I concur that government, by and large, does a rotten job of whatever it turns its hand to. However, I submit that there must be SOME organization empowered to regulate commerce to some degree, if only to mediate disputes. I do believe that there are some government agencies that do a creditable job of establishing and enforcing standards that, left to its own devices, industry would curtail in favor of higher profits. I have had a bit of direct experience with the FAA (being a prospective aerospace engineer, this is right where I live...) and I think that by and large their regulations about aircraft maintenance and operation are effective and fair. I would like to see a bit more in the way of teeth, but lately (since the last spate of maintenance-related crashes several years ago) they have acted in the public's interest with vigor and efficacy. I certainly wouldn't argue that they are perfect, but I believe there is a good case to be made for the FAA as a reasonable example of how things can be done right.
I think that the FDA has a slightly less stellar record, if only because of the fast-track approvals that the pharm corps have purchased from the legislature.
I believe that the government can and should establish standards and practices for any commerce that could directly affect the health of its citizenry. (Right now, we'll talk about "health" fairly narrowly as physiological well-being) I believe the government should also act to maintain free markets wherever possible, and to closely monitor state-granted monopolies when (as in the case of utilities) no other model is workable.
I feel that currently, the close coupling between government and industry has been fairly dysfunctional. By and large, the checks and balances system set up by the Founders did a good job of limiting government power. However, with corporations spending large amounts of money to inform and influence the government, it has become a case of the fox guarding the henhouse.
I really do think you have me mis-pegged as a leftist. If I had to put on a label, it would be a lot closer to libertarian...the government that governs best certainly governs least, but I'm not willing to concede that the government does not have a responsibility to defend the welfare and freedom of its citizens.
As far as the future goes, I am by nature an optimistic person. I believe that the founding of America was a big step forward in the well-being of humans, and I believe that we as a species can take yet another step forward. I do have high hopes for space colonies as sociological experiments, because I believe such colonies will attract the best and the brightest people to them. What's to keep it from turning to crap? Nothing. We've had a good 200 years or so here in America. No reason we can't re-establish the same ideals, refined by our collective experience, in another place and get another period of "advance". Nothing lasts forever...except hope for the future. Gee...maybe I should get that printed on a T-Shirt or something. : )
There's more in your post I'm not addressing, but I'm sleepy.
Let's narrow our scope here.
Social and economic justice (yes, in broad terms...if I could do this in detail sufficient to satisfy your demands, I'd be a PhD economist instead of an engineering student), in principle hinge on two points.
1) Those who have power must be responsible to those over whom the power is wielded.
Currently, the citizens whose liberties and finances are harmed by the power oligarchies have no recourse. Sure, the CEO of Worldcom might get hauled off in chains...but nobody is REALLY responsible for the actions of a corporation, since by its nature a corporation removes and absolves responsibility from its decision makers. I understand why this abstraction can be useful for growing an economy (risk protection for capital investments) but the pendulum has swung way too far. The corporate decision-makers can do essentially whatever they want to with impunity.
2) Legitimate power derives only from the will of the citizenry.
That means individual humans. You might argue that corporations are but accumulators for individual humans, but if that is true, why bother with the abstraction? Why have a different set of rules for corps than for citizens? Now, this point is a VERY idealistic one, I know. It makes the (pretty scary) assumption that the populace knows (and cares) what is going on in the decision making circles, and the current American populace has been well trained to think that politics (and, by extension, economic policy) are not relevant to their daily lives. I think this is an unfortunate turn of events, and I would like to explore ways to rectify this situation. I don't have any clever ideas at the moment. Mea culpa.
I see you refuting my position. I would be interested to see you take a position of your own.
It always interests me how much laissez-faire capitalists depend on the government to protect their little fiefdoms. I'd be totally happy with a government that did not involve itself in matters of commerce...but the corps would never accept that.
I guess I'm also wondering if you think there are ANY laws that should be applied to corporations? Is it OK for corps to pollute? (Gosh, there I go sounding like a wacko environmentalist. What HAS gotten into me?) Is it OK for corps to maintain and extend monopolies, destroying the free market? Is it OK for corps to defraud stockholders?
How will a society "charter itself toward this idea of "socio-economic justice"? Well, the Constitutional Convention did a damn good job, if you ask me. I would very much like to see a similar evaluation of the needs of our country...although I do not belive that it would be possible to accomplish today. Not on Earth, anyhow. I have high hopes for colonization of other places, as this process will provide the geographical and economic isolation required to really invent new ways of setting up societies, just as occurred in America over the last 300 years.
I concede that my debate coach would HATE me for presenting an argument I am not wise enough to nail down completely. I'm trying to have a discussion here, not dictate my terms.
The purpose of my post was to illustrate a central problem I see with current corporate charters: The corporation is not responsible to anybody. The laws are obviously not effective. The current system does not exercise sufficient sanction against a corporation that breaks the law.
You lump me in with authoritarian anti-capitalists. Well, you're entitled to your assumptions, but that has nothing to do with my position. I don't feel like any central authority has the flexibility or wisdom to dictate economic policy. However, that sort of system is exactly what we're seeing in various markets now. The most powerful player moves to dominate, not by providing superior products and technology, but by influencing legislation and excluding competition.
Do you think the status quo is optimal? Is your contention that nothing is wrong, and we should just keep going the way we are? Are you unwilling to consider the possibility that a society can charter itself to hew closer to a shared idea of "justice", both socially and economically?
You may consider mine to be a failure of intellect, but if that is your position I believe you have a failure of vision.
Yeah. You start with ideals, you proceed to policy. What order of operations do YOU suggest?
"Go from there" means "Have a debate in a public forum and refine the concepts". Unless you think, say, the Constitutional Convention was "arbitrarily making the rest up as we go along", your point doesn't have a lot of relevance.
You seem to be a lot more concerned about pointing out the fact that my statements were vague rather than discussing whether the principles are valid. I, on the other hand, wish to start with an internally consistent philosophy and develop a set of rules that by and large encourage a pre-defined set of morals. We've already established that my system is not yet complete.
With your last statement, you're being aggressively stupid. A "moral society" is one that attempts to hew to the moral codes espoused by its members. I would be willing to wager that if you picked a random ten dozen people from around the country and talked with them, you'd find a hell of a lot of moral statements that they'd agree with. If you were to sample a similar number of corporations, you would never ever find them (honestly) advocating the same behavior. They have only one imperative, and it is not conducive to behavior that the rest of the society terms "moral".
Too vague? Tough. Do some thinking on your own and see what YOU come up with, and then we might be able to have a productive converstation.
I was attempting to make a broad point. Defining "hurt" is a subject for law, once one has embraced the principles I've espoused.
What defines property? Something that can provide a unique benefit to a limited number of persons. What defines hurt? We'll start with deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and go from there.
My point was not to lay down a foundation for a moral society, only to demonstrate that corporations as they are currently chartered are hostile to any moral society.
Better the moral equivalent of a three-year old than an extraordinarily wealthy entity that can do whatever it wants to (as corporations demonstrably are today).
By what right does Enron get to stay in business? Why does Worldcom get to keep at it? Why is Microsoft still permitted to place strictures on how its customers do business? The system is obviously broken catastrophically.
The problem is that it's a NOT carefully constructed fiction. It enjoys all the legal benefits of personhood, but none of the responsibilities. Corporations are never punished for doing wrong, in any meaningful way.
When we start seeing corporate charters being revoked for breaking laws, then we'll be on the right track.
The issue is not so much what you desire, but what you are willing to do to get it. There's nothing wrong with working hard and getting "stuff" (where stuff is money or regard or political clout or whatever coin interests you). There IS something wrong with hurting other people in order to get "stuff", and that's what capitalism has so far failed to address.
You understand that nobody's talking about having Linux run the flight control software, or even for secondary nav aids, right? I mean, Linux is going to be used on the business end. On the ground. In the part of the company that's not in an airplane. Feel better?
Having an unmarked police car with a salaried police officer following me around doesn't bother me as much as this system monitoring tens of thousands of motorists in job lots. Automated surveillance is ALWAYS going to be mis-used. Individual surveillance may also be mis-used, but it's also far more expensive to do in large quantities.
Wow. So how many jobs do you have to create in order to get your crime justified? What about, say, your local mob boss. He employs a couple dozen made guys...is he cool?
These people didn't just steal. They DESTROYED WEALTH. They took tens of billions of dollars of market capitalization, and turned it into tens of millions of dollars in their own pockets. They destroyed 99% of the wealth, and pocketed 1%. At least the mugger's going to turn around and spend the money he steals from me on crack, and then the crack dealer will go buy a new Benz. Yay. Money in economy good.
So, no, I'm not going to let the bastards who did this off the hook because they used a fountain pen instead of a gun.
If I could get paid the way those worldcom execs do, I'd be DELIGHTED to be a "slave".
Wow. Where the heck did you get all that straw to stuff in that man?
The only problem with that is that supply and demand models (demonstrably) do not work in markets where the product is not scarce.
By example of the proliferation of music downloading, music is not a scarce quantity. The record companies want to legislate it into being a scarce quantity, so they can keep soaking the public and cheating the artists. In other words, they're trying to force their business model to continue by rule of law, not by its fitness. Anybody who's REALLY a laissez-faire capitalist should be hurling right now.
Paper's refresh rate? Umm, I know you're trying to be clever, but I've read more books than I can count on my fingers and toes, and I've never seen a single one of them refresh.
Lots of people complain about online books not "feeling" like real books. I have no aesthetic attachment whatsoever to books...especially pulp paper gum-bound break after I read them three times paperbacks that are the only ones I am willing to purchase in volume. (For the record, I average three hefty novels a week. Not huge, but after doing that for 15 years, you go through some books...)
I can not wait for a rugged, backlit, waterproof, reasonably high resolution portable bookreader. I'd gladly put all the paperbacks on my shelf through a shredder in order to get them into a portable format like this. I mean, my God! Who LIKES moving books from place to place? The information density of paper is just stupidly low, and I can't wait to get past it.
OK, OK, I acknowledge that paper is good for long-term archiving...but none of the books I actually own are printed with that requirement in mind. I have many books that are disintegrating from simple old age.
Hate to actually speak up for the Star Trek continuity, but it is /entirely/ possible that Khan met Chekhov during the voyage, but not during the on-screen action.
I feel dirty for replying here...: )
Well, you know what? I thought it was interesting. If you did not, I think your time would be much better spent doing something productive instead of whining about not getting to see ALL stories and ONLY stories you want to see.
Christ, it's not like Taco's sitting behind you with a gun to your head. It's the worst kind of sheeple that consume anything that's offered to them. Activate that meat pie in your skull and exhibit some discretion.
Or don't. I'll flame you next time, too.
Canada...it's like a whole 'nother country!
I have no issues whatsoever with a parent buying any sort of device they think is in their child's best interest. I may or may not agree with their estimation of the efficacy of that device, but their parenting techniques are none of my damn business.
I DO have issues when filtering software goes onto publically funded computers, because that limits the scope of public discourse and inquiry into a field whose bounds are (secretly) maintained by a private entity. That's bad.
Computers at home or in an office setting can and should have whatever software the purchaser wants to put on them. Computers funded by the public, on the other hand, have a different set of requirements. Makes sense?