A single use of pot every now and then might is not that harmful, but active/heavy use does cause you to become more passive, self-centered and other psychological issues (I'm pretty sure I've seen studies about both but I would be perfectly fine making that claim just based on the anecdotal evidence). Now, you may say "Sure, but active/heavy use of alcohol... or indeed, any brain chemistry altering substance... causes just as bad issues!" and I'm not going to deny that. The big difference however is that with alcohol there is inbuilt protection mechanism.
If you are already somewhat productive member of a society (student, at least part-time work, whatever) it's a lot harder to get into the habit of drinking heavily several nights a week than it is into smoking pot several times a week. There is a significant amount of people affected by alcoholism so I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that if there wasn't hangover, the amount would be a lot larger.
This is actually not intended as arguing against the legalization. I do see potential for reducing organized crime (where I live, soft drugs are a major source of income for groups with far more nefarious activity), gaining some tax dollars/euros and the more philosophical aspect of not denying people the right to choose to do something that's harmful to them. (Though, I live in a nation with good public health care, social security, etc. and in a society like this, a point can be made that people have a duty towards society to not do stupid shit to themselves, from eating too much fastfood to using drugs) I'm just not confident that "The only real problem comes from intoxicated drivers" holds true or that pot is less dangerous than cigarettes/alcohol just because the risk of lung cancer is smaller.
I know that you had tongue in the cheek as you wrote that post but I believe that both you and other might still think that augmented reality games and imagination are somehow comparable... which they really aren't.
Think of reading a good book. You're enjoying a form of art where one talented individual (or group of such) carefully crafted something. Everyone gets the experience just as intended by the artist, but then each individual's personal views, life experience, etc. is combined with the artwork and everyone gets unique experience. The beauty of any artwork is exactly in the combination of being able to examine something just as it was designed and interpreting that based on your own personality.
Now, consider just coming up with a cool story inside your head. I'm not saying that's worse than reading a book, but it's entirely different thing, because you're no longer experiencing something as it was designed by the artist.
Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.
No two (relatively) liberal democracies have ever waged a war against each other.
There's a strong argument that it's easier today to move up the social ladder in Europe than the United States
I've always thought that this is very widely accepted fact. Where I live, higher education is free (and in fact, you get social security of 500 euros ($640) a month, lower rent, government-backed loans, etc. if you're a student) and university admissions are based on objective tests to select the best students (everyone who finishes Highschool will participate in national testing. Grades come from bell curve and graders don't know whose paper they're grading... or even the highschool of the student). It seems obvious to me that a system like this will result in more social justice and less inequality (Nearly everyone who has the will and skill can climb the social ladder regardless of who their parents where) but people in USA decided that the gain is simply not worth the price (=more taxes, less personal liberty, more nannystate...).
This is appalling.
Why so? Again, I assumed this had always been both well-known and intentional but if it isn't... is there something that makes Europe especially appalling in this regard or is it just so appalling to hear that USA isn't at the top?
I'm an engineer and been atheist my whole life, so I don't believe in horoscopes/crystals/palm reading/etc... However, I've found that I immensely enjoy occasional tarot sessions. I don't believe any of that outside those sessions but every once in a while, it's nice to meet someone more spiritual than I am, light a few candles, smoke a bit of tobacco from a bong, engage in the whole tarot ritual (sliding fingers on the deck, etc.), have her read the cards for me and then reflect on how to interpret that all based on my history and expectations for the future.
It's almost therapeutic to completely suspend your disbelief every once in a while and get in touch with the spiritual side (I think that there is a certain mental state that every human - no matter how skeptic, etc. - can achieve if they want to... and it's pretty pleasant, really). As long as you keep it at that and don't ever start to think that you could actually make important decisions based on all that, it's pretty much the most harmless source of enjoyment that there is.
So, if people want that and what they get is that someone wiretaps their phones, installs hidden cameras to their apartment, etc... it's not okay to say "Well, what did they expect? Of course they're going to get scammed!"
Magnetic field has different strength in different area so you could (assuming no major changes have occurred) approximate distance from the polar region in addition to knowing the direction. Add to that a landmark or two ("2 days from the shore" or something) and you might actually have relatively good knowledge of where you are. Of course it isn't the exact spot but while I know nothing about sea turtles, I doesn't sound impossible that erring a dozen miles is acceptable and then they just use sound or whatever to locate each other after days of searching.
The board realized that the strategy of trying to create another incompatible ecosystem and trying to attract developers was doomed to fail from the get go and installed Elop as the CEO to do what he did.
When Elop took over Nokia I was still a software engineering student and I currently work for a company that develops smartphone apps.
When Nokia was still developing Meego, there was a lot of buzz about it all around the world: Other students (who're now also developers) mentioned it quite often, considered installing it on their netbooks, etc... Nokia was making very good progress at creating the ecosystem. Whether or not it would have soared like an eagle or crashed to the ground will remain forever unseen but what we do know is that Nokia and MS have utterly failed in building ecosystem around what they decided to go with.
That said, the article you linked was pretty interesting. I think that some parts were worse than others (I nearly laughed when I read how good Elop is at transparency) but it's still a nice point of view.
It's true that claiming that fertilized egg is a person doesn't have much to back it up from science and it's instead a claim that's based in religion. However, I think that if we built discussion around "What do we - as a society - want to base personhood on? Religion or something else?" and then - for those who want to base it on religion "Is that what [your holy text] actually says about this very subject?", it would be more reasonable than it's now.
Of course you might say "The other guys are so insane fundamentalist that they won't listen to any reasoning, no matter how we approach that!" in which you might be partially right... But of course, public discourse never aims to convert the evangelists of either side but rather to sway the general audience. Also, if we go with that claim, we might as well say "Okay, it's just ridiculous to talk about this in media/news/debates/congress/etc., as nobody will change their views... So let's never return to this subject again". I do see some appeal in that approach but I'm still too idealistic to completely accept it.:)
It's a conundrum, though. If abortion is legal, it has to be legal for everyone, for all reasons.
I can't wrap my head around that logic. Driving, smoking, drinking alcohol, gun ownership, voting, etc... there are plenty of examples where legal status is more than a boolean value.
That said, there is only one thing that should really matter in abortion discussions: Whether the fetus is a person or not. If it is a person, abortion is murder and you clearly can't murder someone just because you don't like their existence (or even if their existence is a health risk for you). If it's not a living person separate from the mother, abortion clearly isn't murder but more equivalent to a lot of other, already legal medical and cosmetic procedures (plastic surgery, cutting away the vermiform appendix, etc.).
I disagree with Ron Paul when he said that life begins at conception and that it's a scientific statement. It isn't scientific statement (there isn't any scientific consensus about that) but it most certainly is a factual claim, that is boolean and either true or false, depending on our definition of life/personhood. I personally don't consider a fetus in its early stages to be a person (it can't have feelings, etc.) but can see how a point could be made that it becomes a person before the moment of birth, so I think that the current system of "Abortion is legal for X weeks/months but not after that" is pretty optimal.
That's also what I hate on "our" side of the abortion debate: When pro-life ("the other guys") say "Fetus is a person/human/living being/etc. so you can't just kill it if you find it inconvenient", we call ourselves pro-choice and say "Sure we can. Women should have a right to choose to end its life!" instead of saying "That's fair, but it isn't really a person at that point".
I've been diagnosed with recurring depression and there is quite a lot of that in my family line (father is currently medicated after years long serious depression, etc.). There have been times I've been depressed and not went for treatment and there have been times I've went to a therapist... and there is a world of difference. Of course, depression affects individuals in different ways so everything I say might not apply to everyone but I'll try to speak on a relatively general level.
First of all... "Time, improving life circumstances, and new friends are what end depression"... Those aren't the kind of things that happen during a depression! When you can't force yourself to get into the job (a job you normally love, really want to keep, etc.) in time (or at all) for months and even if you get in, you can't concentrate enough to do anything complex (e.g., coding) efficiently... When you don't feel any interest to meet friends, girlfriend, etc... there's pretty high chance of getting fired, failing your classes, destroying your relationships, etc. which will make the depression deeper. Time might take care of it but if you allow that situation to go on for months first (untreated, my depression usually lasts about 4-5 months), you've probably nearly ruined your life first (been there, done that).
So, if you're depressed, not getting treatment is usually stupid. There are always medications but studies have shown that if you treat your depression with drugs, you're likely to get depressed again sooner and the next depression is likely to be deeper... until the medicines don't have enough effect anymore.
As for what happens in therapy... I've been to quite a few sessions and I've never had to talk about my childhood and whatnot. There are quite a few schools of therapy but Freudian, Jungian, etc. exist only in movies and as fashionable things to try out for the rich people. The therapist I usually go to helps me do damage control: Helps me take the steps that prevent me from ruining my life (Talk with my boss about my need to work at a reduced capacity for a while instead of me just not showing up for work half the time, etc.) at first and then helps me claw my way out of the pit (prioritize the massive bulk of tasks that seem impossible to handle, get small successes on which to build, etc.), helps me find the things that deepen my depression and find ways to solve them (Your home is filthy? You don't think you're going to lose your job immediately? Well, get a cleaner to visit it once a week until you're up and going again!... type of practical solutions)... Nothing magic but just things that you can't get done without help if you're depressed.
Do you mean "Highlight people who've been convicted of such crimes before"? If we, as a society, want that kind of ability, surely we don't need that kind of technology. Let's just brand all criminals with hot iron or a tattoo into their forehead and make sure that someone checks every 5 years or so that they've not gone through plastic surgery or such.
Of course, we don't want to do that (and for good reasons) so I can't help but think "WTF?" whenever I hear people think that new technology will "enable" that (as if it wasn't already possible) and that it'd be somehow desirable...
(Of course, if you just mean "Highlight people who're hiding in a bush, for example", ignore this response)
First of all, he is supposed to point out *real* trade barriers. When Australian government provides information about the numerous problems of using USA based cloud services from Australia (connection problems, lag, ability of USA government to snoop on it, etc.), he's not obligated to complain...
That said, if it was coming from any other country, I could go "Just some government official overstepping a bit. It happens. Nobody will listen. Why is this newsworthy?" but USA has *very* strong track-record about massive behind-the-scenes lobbying in issues similar to this one (see: USA influence on other countries' copyright legislation, etc.) and whenever something actually gets out, it's probably just the tip of the iceberg.
Seriously, what is the obsession here with people wanting everything for free? You want to do your taxes for free, sit down with the paper form and do them.
Where I live, the process goes like this:
AT THE START OF EACH YEAR: The government send you your tax card. It tells you your tax percentage, etc. (based on assumption that you earn as much as you did the previous year). You take that to your employer, he pays the taxes directly from your wage and there is nothing more you NEED to do. If your income is very different than it was the previous year, you get taxed the wrong amount and the government sends you either returns or a bill at the end of the year. If you know your income has changed and don't want a large bill/can't give the government any money temporarily, you can fill out a simple 1 page (2 sides) form that they sent you with the card (or submit it online) and then they'll send you a recalculated tax card.
DURING THE YEAR: Most people don't need to do anything. If your income changes a lot and you don't want to pay the government any extra (which they would, of course, return at the end of the year) or don't want a large bill, you can call them, visit an office or fill out the info online and they'll send you a recalculated tax card.
AT THE END OF THE YEAR: They tell you that they want to either return some money (and ask you to inform them if your bank account number has changed) or they send you a bill. Again, you get a simple 1 page (two-sided) form (or can fill it out online) to tell them about anything that might affect the decision (such as having earned/lost a lot of money by trading stock or any similar things).
For example, I got a bit better paying job last year but was too lazy to inform them so they now sent me a letter "You've earned more than we thought you would, so you've paid 790 euros too little taxes. Here are two bills of 395 euros, you have six months to pay the first and twelve months to pay the second. Here is a form you can use to complain if we've made any incorrect decisions." I might fill out the form because I've spent quite a few euros to buying stuff that indirectly helps me earn income (books to get certifications, etc.) and that sort of stuff is tax deductible. I don't expect to reduce the bill by a lot but it's going to take just 3 minutes or so, so why not.
I've never understood why does USA have such a complex system that the government doesn't know how much they should pay taxes...
I've been using HMA! for at least half a year now and I've got very few complaints. Both the Linux and the Windows client work pretty well and the connection is (assuming you choose a proper server location) good enough to stream Netflix pretty decently. I was satisfied enough to buy half a year of the service as a gift for my friend and she has also been satisfied with it, from what I hear. At times the connection doesn't seem to be good enough to comfortably stream HD video but that's somewhat compensated by the fact that there are servers all around the world, so you can also stream UK only content, etc.
So yeah. I'll give the service four stars out of five.
I agree with all those statements....so, am I a racist?
If you think that white parents should instruct their children to avoid events that might attract a lot of black people and, when choosing a point of time to visit amusement parks, avoid days when there are a lot of blacks visiting... Yes, I think that pretty much makes you a racist and/or very xenophobic. Even if there is statistical correlation with blacks and crime rates, I don't think that you can make a reasonable argument that "Avoid blacks whenever possible" is a proper and rational response.
Also, I can't help but notice this
I am fiercely independent... I'm not going to apologize however for wanting to be comfortably surrounded by people who think and act like me...
There is two levels of warnings that parents can give. One is "Don't go to the poor (=black) neighborhoods alone at night" which might be at times unjust generalization but I wouldn't try to crucify anyone for giving that kind of advice. The other level is what this guy wrote... None of the quotes are taken out of context here:
Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date
Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
etc...
Those aren't necessarily even the most outrageous instructions but there were just so many to choose from...
I guess I'm replying to a troll but this "How can there be gays if we evolved?" is so common (and so wrong) way for people to think that it's worth an answer.
Evolution works on the level of a community, not on that of an individual. Let's say that there are two communities of 100 people. In community A, there is a gene that increases your likelihood to be homosexual and in community B there is no such gene. In A, one of every 10 children is gay and in B, everyone is straight. So the claim is that "A produces 10% less children in each generation and as time goes on, the community (and with that, the gene) will disappear".
That holds true only assuming that the homosexuals have no positive effect on the community. If the presence of (statistically) more effeminate/less threatening men in the community A increases the survival rate of the reproducing people in any way by enough to offset the 10% slowed down reproduction, the community that has this gene stays competitive. I can think of some ways through which that could happen but I'm not an anthropologist and the exact mechanic isn't that important for this argument so I won't give it a shot at this time.
Of course that's oversimplification: It assumes that homosexuals never breed (which certainly isn't the case), that sexual orientation is constant (whether you can choose it or not, it's pretty common for especially bisexuals to have mostly-straight and mostly-gay phases in their life), doesn't take into account the fact that it could be a defect and still survive (if communities that kill everyone who is different have less chances to survive than those who tolerate differences - even defects - to some degree), etc. etc... But the point is this: Evolution and homosexuality don't conflict in any way
You seem to think that the only way to reduce ridiculous lawsuits is through raising the fees or creating punishments. However, there is also another way: Cultural change. People aren't forced to do everything they're allowed to do. A political party could actually choose not to file frivolous lawsuits even if they're allowed to do so... And if they do, people should be able to complain about that without someone coming up with the silly straw man of "What? You want to abolish the legal system?!"...
Granted that English isn't my first language but it really seems to be "It is unlawful for any person with intent to (LIST OF INTENTS), to (LIST OF THINGS YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO WITH THE SAID INTENT)".
Note that they're just amending this by essentially search-and-replacing "phonecall" with "communication".
If we read it like you suggest, that old law has already meant that using profane words in a phone call has been illegal for ages... which I find extremely unlikely if that hasn't been challenged in a court.
It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.
So this law doesn't criminalize everything that might offend someone. It criminalizes certain behavior when the primary motivation is to threaten, harass, intimidate, terrify, annoy or offend someone.
The courts in USA have already ruled that your right to free speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater just for the lulz... this is just clarifying that it's true even if you're online.
This doesn't mean that I support the law. Listing "annoy" as one of the words motivations is just asking for trouble (I would be fine with this if there were just "harass, threaten" and perhaps a couple other words) and we also get to very muddy waters when you can no longer suggest "lascivious or lewd" stuff... So there are plenty of reasons to oppose this law. The one you (and many others) have pointed out- that no matter what you write, someone might be offended - isn't one though.
Just today I was thinking "I feel like coding something but can't think of anything that would be reasonably novel, fun and - most importantly - effortless to implement".
If I implement that and become a multimillionaire, I will find out where you live, fly there and buy you a beer... Are we OK, IP-rights-wise?
Warranties on *all* electrical goods in Europe are two years by law.
This isn't the first time I hear that claim on/. but I don't think it's true. The consumer agency in my country states the following on their website:
Service life
Consumers have the right to expect that an appliance will last in normal use for its realistic service life. It is possible that during the service life the appliance will require maintenance and even repairs for which the consumer is liable to pay. However, the seller has considerable liability during the early part of the service life and in the time immediately after the expiration of warranty. Liability diminishes as the appliance gets older.
The warranty provided for home appliances is often 1-2 years. Their expected service life - depending on the appliance - is, however, often much longer. If an appliance breaks down immediately after the warranty has expired, the cost of repairs is substantial and the consumer has not operated the appliance contrary to the operating instructions, he may appeal to the appliance's service life.
Now, while the quoted paragraphs state that you may be able to demand compensation even after the warranty has expired, it says nothing about EU-wide 2 year warranty... which seems odd if such a thing exists.
If there really is that kind of law, could some kind soul tell me where to find it?
In order to maintain democracy, the electorate needs to be familiar with the current issues. They include more and more issues that relate to computers and networks: Your privacy online (requires that you understand basic datamining concepts), electronic voting, political buzzwords such as "cyber warfare", to what extent can companies be held responsible when they're hacked and your data is stolen, should unmanned cars be allowed in traffic, etc. etc... These are all completely new issues that didn't exist a while ago. Most people simply aren't able to make educated decisions about them and my argument is essentially "These are important issues that people should understand".
I don't oppose schools adding basic electrical work or plumbing to their curriculum and in fact I need to call a plumber tomorrow... But these are more isolated issues. The fact that I don't know much about plumbing doesn't (as far as I know, at least) interfere with me being an educated voter, for example. I think that plumbing is more analogous to knowing how to create excel macros: It's useful skill but if you don't know it, you can hire someone to do the job for you.
A "basic understanding" of computers, i.e. an understanding which takes them beyond thinking in terms of a black box and instead in terms of mathematical and physical concepts, requires a couple of afternoons of attention from a smart, well-prepared schoolkid.
I think you're greatly underestimating how long it will take to teach/grasp everything from the basic understanding "ok, so it's these 'logic gate' thingies that use electricity..." to the basic understanding of concepts such as databases (no matter how you try to compare them to excel), network topology, encryption (not that they needed to learn the algorithms but the basic understanding of concepts such as public keys would be pretty great), etc. etc. takes if the student has never herd of them before.
Of course, we might just greatly disagree about how much everyone in modern world should understand about computers.
Why teach science? Surely you can only teach math and well-trained minds can pick up science on their spare time or later years?
From TFM (the fine manifesto):
We believe every child should have the opportunity to learn computer science, from primary school up to and including further education. We teach elementary physics to every child, not primarily to train physicists but because each of them lives in a world governed by physical systems. In the same way, every child should learn some computer science from an early age because they live in a world in which computation is ubiquitous.
Everything from banking to communications to public transport relies on computers these days so it seems obvious to me that everyone should have at least basic understanding of computer science concepts / how computers work, instead of viewing them just as magic boxes. I honestly can't see why that shouldn't be taught in schools...
Slashdot Mirror
A single use of pot every now and then might is not that harmful, but active/heavy use does cause you to become more passive, self-centered and other psychological issues (I'm pretty sure I've seen studies about both but I would be perfectly fine making that claim just based on the anecdotal evidence). Now, you may say "Sure, but active/heavy use of alcohol... or indeed, any brain chemistry altering substance... causes just as bad issues!" and I'm not going to deny that. The big difference however is that with alcohol there is inbuilt protection mechanism.
If you are already somewhat productive member of a society (student, at least part-time work, whatever) it's a lot harder to get into the habit of drinking heavily several nights a week than it is into smoking pot several times a week. There is a significant amount of people affected by alcoholism so I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that if there wasn't hangover, the amount would be a lot larger.
This is actually not intended as arguing against the legalization. I do see potential for reducing organized crime (where I live, soft drugs are a major source of income for groups with far more nefarious activity), gaining some tax dollars/euros and the more philosophical aspect of not denying people the right to choose to do something that's harmful to them. (Though, I live in a nation with good public health care, social security, etc. and in a society like this, a point can be made that people have a duty towards society to not do stupid shit to themselves, from eating too much fastfood to using drugs) I'm just not confident that "The only real problem comes from intoxicated drivers" holds true or that pot is less dangerous than cigarettes/alcohol just because the risk of lung cancer is smaller.
I know that you had tongue in the cheek as you wrote that post but I believe that both you and other might still think that augmented reality games and imagination are somehow comparable... which they really aren't.
Think of reading a good book. You're enjoying a form of art where one talented individual (or group of such) carefully crafted something. Everyone gets the experience just as intended by the artist, but then each individual's personal views, life experience, etc. is combined with the artwork and everyone gets unique experience. The beauty of any artwork is exactly in the combination of being able to examine something just as it was designed and interpreting that based on your own personality.
Now, consider just coming up with a cool story inside your head. I'm not saying that's worse than reading a book, but it's entirely different thing, because you're no longer experiencing something as it was designed by the artist.
Steven Pinker on the Myth of Violence
Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.
No two (relatively) liberal democracies have ever waged a war against each other.
There's a strong argument that it's easier today to move up the social ladder in Europe than the United States
I've always thought that this is very widely accepted fact. Where I live, higher education is free (and in fact, you get social security of 500 euros ($640) a month, lower rent, government-backed loans, etc. if you're a student) and university admissions are based on objective tests to select the best students (everyone who finishes Highschool will participate in national testing. Grades come from bell curve and graders don't know whose paper they're grading... or even the highschool of the student). It seems obvious to me that a system like this will result in more social justice and less inequality (Nearly everyone who has the will and skill can climb the social ladder regardless of who their parents where) but people in USA decided that the gain is simply not worth the price (=more taxes, less personal liberty, more nannystate...).
This is appalling.
Why so? Again, I assumed this had always been both well-known and intentional but if it isn't... is there something that makes Europe especially appalling in this regard or is it just so appalling to hear that USA isn't at the top?
I'm an engineer and been atheist my whole life, so I don't believe in horoscopes/crystals/palm reading/etc... However, I've found that I immensely enjoy occasional tarot sessions. I don't believe any of that outside those sessions but every once in a while, it's nice to meet someone more spiritual than I am, light a few candles, smoke a bit of tobacco from a bong, engage in the whole tarot ritual (sliding fingers on the deck, etc.), have her read the cards for me and then reflect on how to interpret that all based on my history and expectations for the future.
It's almost therapeutic to completely suspend your disbelief every once in a while and get in touch with the spiritual side (I think that there is a certain mental state that every human - no matter how skeptic, etc. - can achieve if they want to... and it's pretty pleasant, really). As long as you keep it at that and don't ever start to think that you could actually make important decisions based on all that, it's pretty much the most harmless source of enjoyment that there is.
So, if people want that and what they get is that someone wiretaps their phones, installs hidden cameras to their apartment, etc... it's not okay to say "Well, what did they expect? Of course they're going to get scammed!"
Magnetic field has different strength in different area so you could (assuming no major changes have occurred) approximate distance from the polar region in addition to knowing the direction. Add to that a landmark or two ("2 days from the shore" or something) and you might actually have relatively good knowledge of where you are. Of course it isn't the exact spot but while I know nothing about sea turtles, I doesn't sound impossible that erring a dozen miles is acceptable and then they just use sound or whatever to locate each other after days of searching.
The board realized that the strategy of trying to create another incompatible ecosystem and trying to attract developers was doomed to fail from the get go and installed Elop as the CEO to do what he did.
When Elop took over Nokia I was still a software engineering student and I currently work for a company that develops smartphone apps.
When Nokia was still developing Meego, there was a lot of buzz about it all around the world: Other students (who're now also developers) mentioned it quite often, considered installing it on their netbooks, etc... Nokia was making very good progress at creating the ecosystem. Whether or not it would have soared like an eagle or crashed to the ground will remain forever unseen but what we do know is that Nokia and MS have utterly failed in building ecosystem around what they decided to go with.
That said, the article you linked was pretty interesting. I think that some parts were worse than others (I nearly laughed when I read how good Elop is at transparency) but it's still a nice point of view.
It's true that claiming that fertilized egg is a person doesn't have much to back it up from science and it's instead a claim that's based in religion. However, I think that if we built discussion around "What do we - as a society - want to base personhood on? Religion or something else?" and then - for those who want to base it on religion "Is that what [your holy text] actually says about this very subject?", it would be more reasonable than it's now.
Of course you might say "The other guys are so insane fundamentalist that they won't listen to any reasoning, no matter how we approach that!" in which you might be partially right... But of course, public discourse never aims to convert the evangelists of either side but rather to sway the general audience. Also, if we go with that claim, we might as well say "Okay, it's just ridiculous to talk about this in media/news/debates/congress/etc., as nobody will change their views... So let's never return to this subject again". I do see some appeal in that approach but I'm still too idealistic to completely accept it. :)
It's a conundrum, though. If abortion is legal, it has to be legal for everyone, for all reasons.
I can't wrap my head around that logic. Driving, smoking, drinking alcohol, gun ownership, voting, etc... there are plenty of examples where legal status is more than a boolean value.
That said, there is only one thing that should really matter in abortion discussions: Whether the fetus is a person or not. If it is a person, abortion is murder and you clearly can't murder someone just because you don't like their existence (or even if their existence is a health risk for you). If it's not a living person separate from the mother, abortion clearly isn't murder but more equivalent to a lot of other, already legal medical and cosmetic procedures (plastic surgery, cutting away the vermiform appendix, etc.).
I disagree with Ron Paul when he said that life begins at conception and that it's a scientific statement. It isn't scientific statement (there isn't any scientific consensus about that) but it most certainly is a factual claim, that is boolean and either true or false, depending on our definition of life/personhood. I personally don't consider a fetus in its early stages to be a person (it can't have feelings, etc.) but can see how a point could be made that it becomes a person before the moment of birth, so I think that the current system of "Abortion is legal for X weeks/months but not after that" is pretty optimal.
That's also what I hate on "our" side of the abortion debate: When pro-life ("the other guys") say "Fetus is a person/human/living being/etc. so you can't just kill it if you find it inconvenient", we call ourselves pro-choice and say "Sure we can. Women should have a right to choose to end its life!" instead of saying "That's fair, but it isn't really a person at that point".
I've been diagnosed with recurring depression and there is quite a lot of that in my family line (father is currently medicated after years long serious depression, etc.). There have been times I've been depressed and not went for treatment and there have been times I've went to a therapist... and there is a world of difference. Of course, depression affects individuals in different ways so everything I say might not apply to everyone but I'll try to speak on a relatively general level.
First of all... "Time, improving life circumstances, and new friends are what end depression"... Those aren't the kind of things that happen during a depression! When you can't force yourself to get into the job (a job you normally love, really want to keep, etc.) in time (or at all) for months and even if you get in, you can't concentrate enough to do anything complex (e.g., coding) efficiently... When you don't feel any interest to meet friends, girlfriend, etc... there's pretty high chance of getting fired, failing your classes, destroying your relationships, etc. which will make the depression deeper. Time might take care of it but if you allow that situation to go on for months first (untreated, my depression usually lasts about 4-5 months), you've probably nearly ruined your life first (been there, done that).
So, if you're depressed, not getting treatment is usually stupid. There are always medications but studies have shown that if you treat your depression with drugs, you're likely to get depressed again sooner and the next depression is likely to be deeper... until the medicines don't have enough effect anymore.
As for what happens in therapy... I've been to quite a few sessions and I've never had to talk about my childhood and whatnot. There are quite a few schools of therapy but Freudian, Jungian, etc. exist only in movies and as fashionable things to try out for the rich people. The therapist I usually go to helps me do damage control: Helps me take the steps that prevent me from ruining my life (Talk with my boss about my need to work at a reduced capacity for a while instead of me just not showing up for work half the time, etc.) at first and then helps me claw my way out of the pit (prioritize the massive bulk of tasks that seem impossible to handle, get small successes on which to build, etc.), helps me find the things that deepen my depression and find ways to solve them (Your home is filthy? You don't think you're going to lose your job immediately? Well, get a cleaner to visit it once a week until you're up and going again!... type of practical solutions)... Nothing magic but just things that you can't get done without help if you're depressed.
Do you mean "Highlight people who've been convicted of such crimes before"? If we, as a society, want that kind of ability, surely we don't need that kind of technology. Let's just brand all criminals with hot iron or a tattoo into their forehead and make sure that someone checks every 5 years or so that they've not gone through plastic surgery or such.
Of course, we don't want to do that (and for good reasons) so I can't help but think "WTF?" whenever I hear people think that new technology will "enable" that (as if it wasn't already possible) and that it'd be somehow desirable...
(Of course, if you just mean "Highlight people who're hiding in a bush, for example", ignore this response)
First of all, he is supposed to point out *real* trade barriers. When Australian government provides information about the numerous problems of using USA based cloud services from Australia (connection problems, lag, ability of USA government to snoop on it, etc.), he's not obligated to complain...
That said, if it was coming from any other country, I could go "Just some government official overstepping a bit. It happens. Nobody will listen. Why is this newsworthy?" but USA has *very* strong track-record about massive behind-the-scenes lobbying in issues similar to this one (see: USA influence on other countries' copyright legislation, etc.) and whenever something actually gets out, it's probably just the tip of the iceberg.
Seriously, what is the obsession here with people wanting everything for free? You want to do your taxes for free, sit down with the paper form and do them.
Where I live, the process goes like this:
AT THE START OF EACH YEAR: The government send you your tax card. It tells you your tax percentage, etc. (based on assumption that you earn as much as you did the previous year). You take that to your employer, he pays the taxes directly from your wage and there is nothing more you NEED to do. If your income is very different than it was the previous year, you get taxed the wrong amount and the government sends you either returns or a bill at the end of the year. If you know your income has changed and don't want a large bill/can't give the government any money temporarily, you can fill out a simple 1 page (2 sides) form that they sent you with the card (or submit it online) and then they'll send you a recalculated tax card.
DURING THE YEAR: Most people don't need to do anything. If your income changes a lot and you don't want to pay the government any extra (which they would, of course, return at the end of the year) or don't want a large bill, you can call them, visit an office or fill out the info online and they'll send you a recalculated tax card.
AT THE END OF THE YEAR: They tell you that they want to either return some money (and ask you to inform them if your bank account number has changed) or they send you a bill. Again, you get a simple 1 page (two-sided) form (or can fill it out online) to tell them about anything that might affect the decision (such as having earned/lost a lot of money by trading stock or any similar things).
For example, I got a bit better paying job last year but was too lazy to inform them so they now sent me a letter "You've earned more than we thought you would, so you've paid 790 euros too little taxes. Here are two bills of 395 euros, you have six months to pay the first and twelve months to pay the second. Here is a form you can use to complain if we've made any incorrect decisions." I might fill out the form because I've spent quite a few euros to buying stuff that indirectly helps me earn income (books to get certifications, etc.) and that sort of stuff is tax deductible. I don't expect to reduce the bill by a lot but it's going to take just 3 minutes or so, so why not.
I've never understood why does USA have such a complex system that the government doesn't know how much they should pay taxes...
I've been using HMA! for at least half a year now and I've got very few complaints. Both the Linux and the Windows client work pretty well and the connection is (assuming you choose a proper server location) good enough to stream Netflix pretty decently. I was satisfied enough to buy half a year of the service as a gift for my friend and she has also been satisfied with it, from what I hear. At times the connection doesn't seem to be good enough to comfortably stream HD video but that's somewhat compensated by the fact that there are servers all around the world, so you can also stream UK only content, etc.
So yeah. I'll give the service four stars out of five.
I agree with all those statements....so, am I a racist?
If you think that white parents should instruct their children to avoid events that might attract a lot of black people and, when choosing a point of time to visit amusement parks, avoid days when there are a lot of blacks visiting... Yes, I think that pretty much makes you a racist and/or very xenophobic. Even if there is statistical correlation with blacks and crime rates, I don't think that you can make a reasonable argument that "Avoid blacks whenever possible" is a proper and rational response.
Also, I can't help but notice this
I am fiercely independent ... I'm not going to apologize however for wanting to be comfortably surrounded by people who think and act like me ...
There is two levels of warnings that parents can give. One is "Don't go to the poor (=black) neighborhoods alone at night" which might be at times unjust generalization but I wouldn't try to crucify anyone for giving that kind of advice. The other level is what this guy wrote... None of the quotes are taken out of context here:
Those aren't necessarily even the most outrageous instructions but there were just so many to choose from...
I guess I'm replying to a troll but this "How can there be gays if we evolved?" is so common (and so wrong) way for people to think that it's worth an answer.
Evolution works on the level of a community, not on that of an individual. Let's say that there are two communities of 100 people. In community A, there is a gene that increases your likelihood to be homosexual and in community B there is no such gene. In A, one of every 10 children is gay and in B, everyone is straight. So the claim is that "A produces 10% less children in each generation and as time goes on, the community (and with that, the gene) will disappear".
That holds true only assuming that the homosexuals have no positive effect on the community. If the presence of (statistically) more effeminate/less threatening men in the community A increases the survival rate of the reproducing people in any way by enough to offset the 10% slowed down reproduction, the community that has this gene stays competitive. I can think of some ways through which that could happen but I'm not an anthropologist and the exact mechanic isn't that important for this argument so I won't give it a shot at this time.
Of course that's oversimplification: It assumes that homosexuals never breed (which certainly isn't the case), that sexual orientation is constant (whether you can choose it or not, it's pretty common for especially bisexuals to have mostly-straight and mostly-gay phases in their life), doesn't take into account the fact that it could be a defect and still survive (if communities that kill everyone who is different have less chances to survive than those who tolerate differences - even defects - to some degree), etc. etc... But the point is this: Evolution and homosexuality don't conflict in any way
You seem to think that the only way to reduce ridiculous lawsuits is through raising the fees or creating punishments. However, there is also another way: Cultural change. People aren't forced to do everything they're allowed to do. A political party could actually choose not to file frivolous lawsuits even if they're allowed to do so... And if they do, people should be able to complain about that without someone coming up with the silly straw man of "What? You want to abolish the legal system?!"...
Granted that English isn't my first language but it really seems to be "It is unlawful for any person with intent to (LIST OF INTENTS), to (LIST OF THINGS YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO WITH THE SAID INTENT)".
Note that they're just amending this by essentially search-and-replacing "phonecall" with "communication".
If we read it like you suggest, that old law has already meant that using profane words in a phone call has been illegal for ages... which I find extremely unlikely if that hasn't been challenged in a court.
It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.
So this law doesn't criminalize everything that might offend someone. It criminalizes certain behavior when the primary motivation is to threaten, harass, intimidate, terrify, annoy or offend someone.
The courts in USA have already ruled that your right to free speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater just for the lulz... this is just clarifying that it's true even if you're online.
This doesn't mean that I support the law. Listing "annoy" as one of the words motivations is just asking for trouble (I would be fine with this if there were just "harass, threaten" and perhaps a couple other words) and we also get to very muddy waters when you can no longer suggest "lascivious or lewd" stuff... So there are plenty of reasons to oppose this law. The one you (and many others) have pointed out- that no matter what you write, someone might be offended - isn't one though.
Just today I was thinking "I feel like coding something but can't think of anything that would be reasonably novel, fun and - most importantly - effortless to implement".
If I implement that and become a multimillionaire, I will find out where you live, fly there and buy you a beer... Are we OK, IP-rights-wise?
Warranties on *all* electrical goods in Europe are two years by law.
This isn't the first time I hear that claim on /. but I don't think it's true. The consumer agency in my country states the following on their website:
Now, while the quoted paragraphs state that you may be able to demand compensation even after the warranty has expired, it says nothing about EU-wide 2 year warranty... which seems odd if such a thing exists.
If there really is that kind of law, could some kind soul tell me where to find it?
In order to maintain democracy, the electorate needs to be familiar with the current issues. They include more and more issues that relate to computers and networks: Your privacy online (requires that you understand basic datamining concepts), electronic voting, political buzzwords such as "cyber warfare", to what extent can companies be held responsible when they're hacked and your data is stolen, should unmanned cars be allowed in traffic, etc. etc... These are all completely new issues that didn't exist a while ago. Most people simply aren't able to make educated decisions about them and my argument is essentially "These are important issues that people should understand".
I don't oppose schools adding basic electrical work or plumbing to their curriculum and in fact I need to call a plumber tomorrow... But these are more isolated issues. The fact that I don't know much about plumbing doesn't (as far as I know, at least) interfere with me being an educated voter, for example. I think that plumbing is more analogous to knowing how to create excel macros: It's useful skill but if you don't know it, you can hire someone to do the job for you.
A "basic understanding" of computers, i.e. an understanding which takes them beyond thinking in terms of a black box and instead in terms of mathematical and physical concepts, requires a couple of afternoons of attention from a smart, well-prepared schoolkid.
I think you're greatly underestimating how long it will take to teach/grasp everything from the basic understanding "ok, so it's these 'logic gate' thingies that use electricity..." to the basic understanding of concepts such as databases (no matter how you try to compare them to excel), network topology, encryption (not that they needed to learn the algorithms but the basic understanding of concepts such as public keys would be pretty great), etc. etc. takes if the student has never herd of them before.
Of course, we might just greatly disagree about how much everyone in modern world should understand about computers.
Why teach science? Surely you can only teach math and well-trained minds can pick up science on their spare time or later years?
From TFM (the fine manifesto):
Everything from banking to communications to public transport relies on computers these days so it seems obvious to me that everyone should have at least basic understanding of computer science concepts / how computers work, instead of viewing them just as magic boxes. I honestly can't see why that shouldn't be taught in schools...