"Compromise" cannot be a mode of thinking or you never end up with a bottom line. Some things, like nuclear war and avoiding environmental catastrophe, are optional decisions. We need to get them right because the consequences are real and will be absolute. If we define maturity as an intention to "compromise" on important issues, I want no part of maturity.
Slashdot is *the* place for geek groupthink, no matter how insane.
This is interesting, since the history of science and geekdom in general has involved those who defied groupthink and went on to invent solutions based on the problem itself.
Then again, I have learned that the internet today accumulates the audience who were active with daytime television in the 1980s, not the ones who were calling bulletin boards. People who have a lot going on in their lives do not hover around internet sites and learn the ins and outs of geek culture. Those who have achieved almost nothing except attending a job and installing Linux on their TVs are going to spend a lot of time at those internet sites. With this mind, the problem may not be Slashdot, but the 2000s+ internet.
Very important to leave the dog whistle "this rock" in there.
Dog whistle is a new term for me, but I like it. It's very descriptive. Thank you.
The average soft drink contains something like 2 oz of sugar. This pseudo-cocaine...er....inhalable caffeine seems like a great solution for nerds. Now we can stay up all night, without the sugar (and without whatever flavored toxic waste they use in sugar-free drinks).
Santorum is a hypocrite! Not only does he believe in an imaginary god in the sky, but he hates gays and is probably secretly visiting gay bars on his off nights. He's the one that's anti-science!
Least popular response:
He's right! Global warming isn't proven, it's just simulated with computer models.
Middle road response:
Politics isn't about science. It's about who says the things that are most popular with the voters. The popularity of a statement has exactly zero bearing on its truthfulness. In fact, some evidence suggests that the most popular statements are lies, which is why they keep getting recycled every generation.
J.D. Power chronicles user-reported problems during the first three years of car ownership. That says nothing about whether the vehicle will be running after 10 or 20 years. To my mind, that's the real test of a car's engineering: how well does it stand up to use.
After the last unpopular comment, I've come to a conclusion. It doesn't matter if what I'm saying is true so long as it is popular.
For that reason my untruthful but popular advice is for you to man up, realize that people who aren't buying it wouldn't buy it anyway, and not put any copy protection on it. See if you can build rapport with your customers instead. They'll buy it just because they like you.
On a more practical note, if the software is $10K you're probably going to end up selling consulting services and licensing the software as a prerequisite to those.
I'm glad you asked. "The system" needs to stay out of this and leave it up to doctors and family members. I trust those more in general than government. For example, if we leave a loophole, assisted suicide will be legal. Some people will be murdered, no doubt. However, if we legislate away the possibility of covert assisted suicide, no one can have that privilege.
We can talk about how this might be 1984 or not, but the inevitable path of technology is such that soon all information will be easily available and stored whenever possible.
The reason for this is simple. If your child is kidnapped by an insane pedophile, you want the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) to use everything they can to find that guy. If a record of tweets, blogs, phone calls and IMs helps them do that, it could save your child.
I'm not enough of a hypocrite to say that I'm going to stand around talking about privacy issues if my kid has been stolen away by someone who is probably busy raping that kid in a panel van. I think my opinion at the time will be "Do whatever you want and get the kid back."
This is the eternal tension in law. Privacy is a great idea, but there are a lot of bad guys out there and we want to keep tabs on them. I think a better solution is to find a government we can trust.
Since our society currently does not allow assisted suicide, please leave a loophole so doctors can prescribe fatal overdoses of morphine or other painless life cures. Terminal patients, people in vegetative states and miserable suicide-prone Goths everywhere will thank you.
It is interesting to me how almost Goedelian any set of rules can be. We always need to leave exceptions, or we strap ourselves into a Catch-22 (mixed with Brave New World) maze of rules that eliminate the finer points of decision making.
No one likes the idea of dying, but I think we might be less traumatized by it if we felt our time on earth meant something. Let's face it, working a McJob, fighting with an unfaithful spouse, buying lots of crap on Amazon.com and cheering for corporate football teams just doesn't make us "feel alive."
The theoretical/empirical distinction you draw above is nonsense. If something is theft, and we claim that we cannot show results of it, that does not change its status as theft. Furthermore, the empirical data you posted do not take into account most of the factors we must analyze here.
The movie industry as a whole is doing quite well thanks to its blockbusters; however, that does not measure the impact on independent films or smaller filmmakers. In fact, it measures the industry as a whole and does not tell us (a) if they would be doing better without piracy and (b) what individual parts of the industry are doing. Some might point to a consolidation of power in the industry around "blockbuster" films as a negative consequence of piracy.
Finally, you have only measured one industry out of several. I found this article on the music industry to be enlightening:
I spend two years of time in a lab, inventing a new drug that cures cancer. I can make it for cents a dose. However, this is the one big discovery of my life, and I'm hoping to retire on this, so I copyright it and sell the drug at a huge profit.
Scenario 2:
I spend two years of my life writing, improving and recording an album. Each individual CD or download costs me only pennies. However, this is the one big innovation of my life; popular bands don't improve over time but tend to get worse. I'm hoping to retire on this, so I copyright it and sell the music at a huge profit.
What's the difference?
Theft is theft. That it's easy should not make a difference.
I'll defend MP3 sharing in podcasts or low-bitrate samples as "the new radio" and "try before buying," but you probably only need a few samples or a couple songs on a radiocast to see that.
What people are doing here is taking the labor of other individuals and destroying their ability to profit from it.
Our solution to a broken bureaucracy: add more bureaucracy.
Each of these consumer advocates will entail hiring two more people to manage the paperwork at the home office.
You, the consumer, pay for it all in higher taxes.
Thank you, suckers, for working real jobs so many of our fellow citizens can get hired to these do-nothing positions and paid more than the minimum wage their incompetent performance deserves.
The battle has scrambled the usual Washington lines. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor unions, usually rivals, back the bills, while many activist groups on both the left and the right oppose them....It's a tougher call for some Democrats, thanks in part to the bill's strong union backing and the fact that Hollywood has opened its collective wallet wider for Democrats historically. The bill is a top priority of the Motion Picture Association of America, which hired veteran Democratic senator Chris Dodd as its chairman last year.
All the more reason to exclude all lobbyists from Washington, DC.
Nonsense. Online dating allows us to construct our personalities as we wish they would be. This lets people know who we are within, not who we are on the outside.
Sincerely,
M4W, 21, multi-millionaire, own several yachts, spend all my time on charity, have a 12" penis
If disease, global warming, nuclear proliferation or political catastrophes manage to destroy humanity, we will see what a sound investment space travel would have been.
Having only one planet for our species means we're only one disaster away from extinction. No other species (on earth) has this ability.
If our scientists agree that our best efforts will not stop global warming, only lessen it, we might consider transferring that money into space programs. That way even if we destroy our climate here, our species will persist.
These scanners improve on the American version, but are still an unacceptable method.
Why must we penalize all passengers, when what we need is to find those few who are likely to be actual threats?
Let's hire Google to do it. According to their new privacy policy, they'll have a record of everything those people ever did online. Just look for those with interest in explosives and politics.
Not much has really changed in the upper echelons of British society; it still comes as a shock to them when the British public turns out to be years ahead in their attitudes.
Years ahead toward the great Utopian goal?
I don't think history works the way you think it does. It's popular to think the way you do, however, and that's why you do it.
We should focus on logic and experimental proof instead.
Credible science requires definitive proof. Until we know every detail of how this universe works, we will not have ruled out religion. For this reason, it is best if science does not pass judgment on the matter or make itself an enemy of religion.
If we were to create a science-versus-religion dichotomy, we would be following the same path these religious fundamentalists in the article did by suggesting a religion-versus-science dichotomy. Both, which are one and the same, are false.
Slashdot Mirror
"Compromise" cannot be a mode of thinking or you never end up with a bottom line. Some things, like nuclear war and avoiding environmental catastrophe, are optional decisions. We need to get them right because the consequences are real and will be absolute. If we define maturity as an intention to "compromise" on important issues, I want no part of maturity.
This is interesting, since the history of science and geekdom in general has involved those who defied groupthink and went on to invent solutions based on the problem itself.
Then again, I have learned that the internet today accumulates the audience who were active with daytime television in the 1980s, not the ones who were calling bulletin boards. People who have a lot going on in their lives do not hover around internet sites and learn the ins and outs of geek culture. Those who have achieved almost nothing except attending a job and installing Linux on their TVs are going to spend a lot of time at those internet sites. With this mind, the problem may not be Slashdot, but the 2000s+ internet.
Dog whistle is a new term for me, but I like it. It's very descriptive. Thank you.
The average soft drink contains something like 2 oz of sugar. This pseudo-cocaine...er....inhalable caffeine seems like a great solution for nerds. Now we can stay up all night, without the sugar (and without whatever flavored toxic waste they use in sugar-free drinks).
Most popular response:
Least popular response:
Middle road response:
At least it's carbon neutral.
J.D. Power chronicles user-reported problems during the first three years of car ownership. That says nothing about whether the vehicle will be running after 10 or 20 years. To my mind, that's the real test of a car's engineering: how well does it stand up to use.
After the last unpopular comment, I've come to a conclusion. It doesn't matter if what I'm saying is true so long as it is popular.
For that reason my untruthful but popular advice is for you to man up, realize that people who aren't buying it wouldn't buy it anyway, and not put any copy protection on it. See if you can build rapport with your customers instead. They'll buy it just because they like you.
On a more practical note, if the software is $10K you're probably going to end up selling consulting services and licensing the software as a prerequisite to those.
I'm glad you asked. "The system" needs to stay out of this and leave it up to doctors and family members. I trust those more in general than government. For example, if we leave a loophole, assisted suicide will be legal. Some people will be murdered, no doubt. However, if we legislate away the possibility of covert assisted suicide, no one can have that privilege.
We can talk about how this might be 1984 or not, but the inevitable path of technology is such that soon all information will be easily available and stored whenever possible.
The reason for this is simple. If your child is kidnapped by an insane pedophile, you want the Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) to use everything they can to find that guy. If a record of tweets, blogs, phone calls and IMs helps them do that, it could save your child.
I'm not enough of a hypocrite to say that I'm going to stand around talking about privacy issues if my kid has been stolen away by someone who is probably busy raping that kid in a panel van. I think my opinion at the time will be "Do whatever you want and get the kid back."
This is the eternal tension in law. Privacy is a great idea, but there are a lot of bad guys out there and we want to keep tabs on them. I think a better solution is to find a government we can trust.
Since our society currently does not allow assisted suicide, please leave a loophole so doctors can prescribe fatal overdoses of morphine or other painless life cures. Terminal patients, people in vegetative states and miserable suicide-prone Goths everywhere will thank you.
It is interesting to me how almost Goedelian any set of rules can be. We always need to leave exceptions, or we strap ourselves into a Catch-22 (mixed with Brave New World) maze of rules that eliminate the finer points of decision making.
No one likes the idea of dying, but I think we might be less traumatized by it if we felt our time on earth meant something. Let's face it, working a McJob, fighting with an unfaithful spouse, buying lots of crap on Amazon.com and cheering for corporate football teams just doesn't make us "feel alive."
The theoretical/empirical distinction you draw above is nonsense. If something is theft, and we claim that we cannot show results of it, that does not change its status as theft. Furthermore, the empirical data you posted do not take into account most of the factors we must analyze here.
The movie industry as a whole is doing quite well thanks to its blockbusters; however, that does not measure the impact on independent films or smaller filmmakers. In fact, it measures the industry as a whole and does not tell us (a) if they would be doing better without piracy and (b) what individual parts of the industry are doing. Some might point to a consolidation of power in the industry around "blockbuster" films as a negative consequence of piracy.
Finally, you have only measured one industry out of several. I found this article on the music industry to be enlightening:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-18/tech/30052663_1_riaa-music-industry-cd-era
We should also look at software and book publishing as they are also affected.
Theft is theft.
Scenario 1:
I spend two years of time in a lab, inventing a new drug that cures cancer. I can make it for cents a dose. However, this is the one big discovery of my life, and I'm hoping to retire on this, so I copyright it and sell the drug at a huge profit.
Scenario 2:
I spend two years of my life writing, improving and recording an album. Each individual CD or download costs me only pennies. However, this is the one big innovation of my life; popular bands don't improve over time but tend to get worse. I'm hoping to retire on this, so I copyright it and sell the music at a huge profit.
What's the difference?
Theft is theft. That it's easy should not make a difference.
I'll defend MP3 sharing in podcasts or low-bitrate samples as "the new radio" and "try before buying," but you probably only need a few samples or a couple songs on a radiocast to see that.
What people are doing here is taking the labor of other individuals and destroying their ability to profit from it.
Our solution to a broken bureaucracy: add more bureaucracy.
Each of these consumer advocates will entail hiring two more people to manage the paperwork at the home office.
You, the consumer, pay for it all in higher taxes.
Thank you, suckers, for working real jobs so many of our fellow citizens can get hired to these do-nothing positions and paid more than the minimum wage their incompetent performance deserves.
China, Russia, or the USA: which is the next great superpower?
The EU is sitting this one out.
There can be only one superpower, or we're in a state of global cold war like in the 1980s.
So who will it be?
This time around, it's Democrats who have a strong pro-Hollywood lobby, labor unions and the Chamber of Commerce.
All the more reason to exclude all lobbyists from Washington, DC.
Nonsense. Online dating allows us to construct our personalities as we wish they would be. This lets people know who we are within, not who we are on the outside.
Sincerely,
M4W, 21, multi-millionaire, own several yachts, spend all my time on charity, have a 12" penis
If disease, global warming, nuclear proliferation or political catastrophes manage to destroy humanity, we will see what a sound investment space travel would have been.
Having only one planet for our species means we're only one disaster away from extinction. No other species (on earth) has this ability.
If our scientists agree that our best efforts will not stop global warming, only lessen it, we might consider transferring that money into space programs. That way even if we destroy our climate here, our species will persist.
Then ban Facebook.
Sounds like a fair trade to me.
Also please get rid of these excessive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. If I'm going to kill myself, at least leave me some money for medical care.
The radiation used in the scanners might also sterilize us.
That way not only does the world learn that you have a miniscule penis, but they also know it's no longer a working one.
These scanners improve on the American version, but are still an unacceptable method.
Why must we penalize all passengers, when what we need is to find those few who are likely to be actual threats?
Let's hire Google to do it. According to their new privacy policy, they'll have a record of everything those people ever did online. Just look for those with interest in explosives and politics.
Years ahead toward the great Utopian goal?
I don't think history works the way you think it does. It's popular to think the way you do, however, and that's why you do it.
We should focus on logic and experimental proof instead.
This topic is an obvious cheerleading piece for political correctness.
We all know what we're "supposed" to say.
As a result, it is not only boring, but works as a form of oppression to exclude any opinion which does not agree with the "correct" one.
This is in contrast to science, where we explore experimental results, make tentative conclusions, and explore those through a heuristic process.
All I can do is click like. I think all these neat technologies train us as much as we use them.
If you spend too much time on the computer, you're not having a full life.
Reproduction should belong to those who can balance their interests.
Credible science requires definitive proof. Until we know every detail of how this universe works, we will not have ruled out religion. For this reason, it is best if science does not pass judgment on the matter or make itself an enemy of religion.
If we were to create a science-versus-religion dichotomy, we would be following the same path these religious fundamentalists in the article did by suggesting a religion-versus-science dichotomy. Both, which are one and the same, are false.