I think you are the one doing the hyperbole. Being "unsafe" doesn't mean a guaranty to crash. For example, leaving your front door unlocked while your not home is certainly "unsafe", but that doesn't mean 100% of people who forget to lock their door will immediately be robbed.
I have about 27 years of driving experience and my only accident was a drunk driver who rear-end the car behind me who, in turn, rear-end me while we were both stopped at a red light. I also never had a ticket for speeding or any other traffic law violation (except parking tickets). Yet, I know I'm not "safe". How about you?
Human drivers have proven to be unsafe, there's no doubt about it. Why do you think we are all required to have auto insurance?
It's true some people refuse to describe something they don't understand as a "disease", but I'd say a lot more people will categorize any difference from the norm as a "disease" instead of simply accepting it for what it is : a difference. Is ADHD a disease or a difference?
There are a lot of causes in this world which are worth fighting for. Graphic resolution of video games is absolutely not one of them. Some people should really get a life.
Bringing a single case where a particular brain tumor has caused "uncontrollable pedophilia" to justify the idea that pedophilia in general is just a disease is plain dumb. I also agree some laws are ridiculous, but that's a strawman. Don't use fallacies. It only makes you look like a fool.
Sex drive is one thing, but sex drive is not a justification to rape another person or a child. We all have this thing called empathy which makes us understand the idea that harming someone else is wrong, no matter what our basic instinct push us to to. If the sex drive of someone is so powerful that it makes this person lose his mind, then maybe the solution is to make sure he doesn't have any sex drive anymore. In those cases, castration or a lobotomy is an acceptable solution for me.
I don't want pedophiles who rape children or other serious criminals to go in jail for revenge, but simply because they have proven by their actions they are not fit to have a place in society. Also, I find the idea of rehabilitation morally wrong. We live in a world with a limited amount of resources. So each resources we offer to criminals are resources we don't offer to other people. Why a criminal should receive hundred of thousand of dollars in "help" while other people who, in my mind are much more worthy, don't have access to a basic quality life? Why reward criminals?
Don't get me wrong, I know an environment can create a criminal, so I agree some criminals deserves to be helped, but the majority are not a product of their environment, they are just who they are. Thinking they just need "help" is wishful thinking from someone who can't accept reality.
You choose to believe pedophiles suffers from a mental illness. Why? What is your real reason for that. You don't have any kind of scientific basis to proclaim that. So why believe that? Do you know your head enough to know the answer?
Saying a child molester needs help is far worse than saying he needs to be put out of society. You are basically saying we must manipulate and change people who do not conform to our ways against their will. You don't want kill or imprison Orwell's Winston, you want to destroy his personality so he becomes a "good" citizen of Oceania. You don't want to imprison Burgess's Alex, you want to "cure" him of his violent tendencies so he can become useful to society.
You think anyone who does not conform to your morale standard is "sick" and needs help? You're arrogant, egocentric and intrinsically extremely manipulative. You condescendingly show "sympathy", but you have absolutely no respect. You say child molesters suffer from a mental illness? Strange, isn't what some people are saying about gays?
You are right, we never choose who we are. We never choose to be a successful entrepreneur or a lazy bum. We never choose to be gay or straight. We never choose to be the epitome of society's morale values or a psychopath who just doesn't give a shit about anyone else. All the choice we think we make are only the result of who we are, no matter how we became who we are.
If someone realize one day he has a tendency to something he doesn't like and wants help, fine, let's do whatever we can to help him (before he commits crimes). Making that choice to be helped is who he is. But if he didn't want to be helped, you can at the very least respect his choice and let him be who he is (in jail).
All around the world, there are manifestations against Israel. I live in Quebec (Canada) and if I look at the what people post related to what's happening in Israel on our main newspapers' websites (mainly La Presse and Le Devoir...), I'd say a clear majority of native Quebecers (not Muslims) now have an anti-Israel sentiment. I guess the rest of Canada is a bit less anti-Israel, but I'd still say the general opinion is not pro-Israel. If the death toll were higher, the anti-Israel sentiment would probably become an anti-Jew sentiment, which would disrupt our society enough to force Harper to stop his blind support to Israel.
Israel have the military means to kill a lot of Palestinians, but if it did so, it would end up isolated. And without the rest of the world's support, Israel simply can't survive. So I guess the goal of Israel is simply to strike fear among Palestinians. And for that, all Palestinians must think there's no place safe.
Were the attacks on refugee centers voluntary? Did they deliberately targeted a few civilian to send a message? I'm guessing the answer is yes.
Nice try, and I'm sure you can impress a few kids who never experienced the Amiga era, but to me you only look like a fool. You know what was really cool at the time? Not a lame Macinstosh emulator board, but having four transputer boards.
Anyway, you just don't get it. Playing Speedball 1 with a joypad in an emulator is completely different than playing the same Speedball 1 with a Speedking on a real machine. Editing a program on a PC keyboard and having it run in an emulator is completely different than editing the same program with an A1000 keyboard and having it run in on a real machine.
It's a bit like the difference between seeing a picture of the Mona Lisa in a book and going to the Louvre to see the real painting.
Playing with old games using "vintage" joysticks? Seeing old programs we created in assembly run on a real hardware? Playing with old pieces of hardware toys that we created and which were using one of the amiga port? Basically, reliving old memories?
I can certainly understand why someone would want an old Amiga or an old Atari ST. I can even understand why someone would want an old Macintosh. But a Macintosh emulator in an Amiga? No, I can't see any reasons.
Since you're the one telling people they really want that Mac emulation board, can I ask you again why?
With "say controversial things" you mean trolling?
Don't you think life would be better for you if you could assume who you are and what you think instead of having to hide and having to be a hypocrite? Yes, you will lose some superficial friends, a tyrannic employer might even fire you, but not having to live a lie, not feeling shame or fear for what we think, does feel good. Anyway, don't you think you should find friends or an employer who can appreciate you for who you are and what you have to offer instead of trying to please intolerant people who don't really give a shit about you and are only searching for yes-men?
You can also look at it the other way. Do you like it when people lie to you in order to obtain some kind of friendship from you?
There are reasons which could justify anonymity. But my guess is you never posted anything which could justify it.
Restore the glory of the Internet? You mean to go back to a time when most people posted on Usenet with their real name and email address as their signature? The time when even political discussions were civilized?
From my point of view, anonymity was the worst thing that happened to the Internet.
When I was a kid, a "research" about a subject was limited to go to the school library and finding two or three books at most, reading the part I was interested with and making a small summary. There was absolutely no critical reading and no source evaluation.
I'm not sure how old your kids are, but critical reading and source evaluation is one of the most difficult thing to do. You can start to teach those to teens in high school, but not before. Also, I'm not sure parents would like their kids to develop critical reading and source evaluation as a skill. Most parents would not like their kids to say : "The Bible makes no sense and nothing gives authority to this book. Screw it!"
Oh, please. Leave the mysticism of "energy" out of this. Comparing "social problems" to "energy", in the sense of conservation of energy, is idiotic. I find totally appalling that your comment was moderated insightful.
It's easy to show that guns and alcohol are a direct cause of some social problems.
Imagine a person who is frustrated about is place in society. That's his problem and only his. Now imagine that person has a gun, decide to go on a rampage and kill several people. Suddenly, you don't have only one person with problems, but several others also with problems, simply because of a gun. And please, don't say that without a gun the same thing would happen with a knife. That's plain hypocrisy.
Same thing for alcohol. If someone is depressed for whatever reasons, that's that person problem alone. But if that person decides to get drunk, take his car and kill a father going back home, that suddenly creates a major social problem for all his family.
You may say I'm selfish for not caring for that poor frustrated person who can't deal with his problems (and saying it's all the fault of governments and institutions is another stupid idea), but you can't deny that access to guns and alcohol, create more social problems.
To use your idiotic idea of social problems as "energy", I'd say guns and alcohol amplify that "energy". They directly create more "energy". Remove them and you end up with less "energy".
Or someone in that poor family could, once in a while, take a bike and go to a decent grocery store to buy potatoes, carrots, onions, rice, all kind of peas, lentils and beans (mainly for proteins since there is no meat), some cans of tomato paste, some spices, maybe some cheese and butter, some apples (I mean the fruit, not iPhones and iPads), some bananas, as well as some oatmeal and milk for the morning. To compensate for the lack of fruit and green vegetables, you can add some vitamins supplements. So for about 70 to 80$ a week you can feed a family of four.
For a family which is not that poor (and anyone who can afford a car is obviously not that poor), you can add all kind of frozen vegetables, add flour, eggs, cocoa and sugar to make pastries, fruit juice for breakfast, twice a week you can buy some beef, pork or frozen fish fillets, and finally you can buy some bread from time to time. Basically, for 110 or 120$ a week you can feed a family of four quite nicely.
I know there is no bacon and egg with pancakes and corn syrup in the morning, no 12 ounces steak in the evening, nothing but water to drink, but that's precisely the point.
Privacy is about hiding what we do and who we really are. I guess there are two main reasons we may want to do that. The first is to avoid being a victim, which I think is fair enough. The second is to avoid punishment after doing something reprehensible, from a simple lie in order to obtain something we don't deserve to a serious crime, which I find hard to justify.
What's interesting is the reason we need privacy in order to not be a victim is because there are people who will use their privacy in order to avoid punishment after making us their victim. Privacy looks to me like an arms race.
I wonder... What would it be like if we stopped this arms race and lived in a world where there was absolutely no privacy? On the plus side, it would be a world with no (unpunished) crime and no (unpunished) abuse of power. There would be absolutely no reward to commit a crime or abuse one's power. No more bullies in school, no more abusive managers at work, no more cheaters, thieves, crooks or corrupt politicians. No more lies. Everyone would be judged exactly for who they are and what they do. It would be a world perfectly fair.
What would be the negative side of a society without privacy?
And even in if we can't totally suppress privacy, wouldn't it be a good thing to live in a world where there was less bullies, less abusive managers, less cheaters, less crooks and less corrupt politicians? Wouldn't it be a good thing to live in a fairer world?
I'm 44 years old. I drive quite a lot. The number of situations while driving which required "human intelligence" and which a computer could not solve in my 25 years+ of driving? I can't think of any. Some would require communication possibilities between vehicles, for example to give priorities to an ambulance, but that can easily be achieved with current technology.
A car can't do a lot of things and driving doesn't require a lot of intelligence. The only difficult thing is pathfinding and that's a thing computer are able to do. Walking is more difficult to master as the environment is less structure than roads. Are you saying no robot will ever be able to walk anywhere? That's idiotic.
The only market it destroys is an illegal market. The law grants copyright owners exclusive distribution rights. It's their products, so it's their rules. Unless the copyright owners specifically grant you the right to create an alternative way to distribute their contents, it is illegal for you to make one. I can understand you don't like the law and would like it to be changed, but I don't think you can blame Firefox for not promoting your personal political agenda.
Does it damages the interests of users? I guess, but in the end it's of little interest. We're talking about superficial entertainment here, not some kind of fundamental human rights.
My personal pet peeve is against Steam. I find they're one of the most abusive company and I view their EULA as totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, most video games now require Steam. So what did I do? Well, I just moved on and stop playing video games. It is as simple as that.
There are a lot of things bad in this world and a lot of political fights to choose from. I'm sorry if I'm blunt, but I find fighting for "entertainment rights" to be quite shallow.
I remember the 80s, when not having a cell phone made travelling so dangerous that very few ever left their house. I also remember about all those daily horror stories of people who died in a horrible ways because they couldn't call 911.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are the one doing the hyperbole. Being "unsafe" doesn't mean a guaranty to crash. For example, leaving your front door unlocked while your not home is certainly "unsafe", but that doesn't mean 100% of people who forget to lock their door will immediately be robbed.
I have about 27 years of driving experience and my only accident was a drunk driver who rear-end the car behind me who, in turn, rear-end me while we were both stopped at a red light. I also never had a ticket for speeding or any other traffic law violation (except parking tickets). Yet, I know I'm not "safe". How about you?
Human drivers have proven to be unsafe, there's no doubt about it. Why do you think we are all required to have auto insurance?
It's true some people refuse to describe something they don't understand as a "disease", but I'd say a lot more people will categorize any difference from the norm as a "disease" instead of simply accepting it for what it is : a difference. Is ADHD a disease or a difference?
The only reason for local libraries is copyright laws.
There are a lot of causes in this world which are worth fighting for. Graphic resolution of video games is absolutely not one of them. Some people should really get a life.
Bringing a single case where a particular brain tumor has caused "uncontrollable pedophilia" to justify the idea that pedophilia in general is just a disease is plain dumb. I also agree some laws are ridiculous, but that's a strawman. Don't use fallacies. It only makes you look like a fool.
Sex drive is one thing, but sex drive is not a justification to rape another person or a child. We all have this thing called empathy which makes us understand the idea that harming someone else is wrong, no matter what our basic instinct push us to to. If the sex drive of someone is so powerful that it makes this person lose his mind, then maybe the solution is to make sure he doesn't have any sex drive anymore. In those cases, castration or a lobotomy is an acceptable solution for me.
I don't want pedophiles who rape children or other serious criminals to go in jail for revenge, but simply because they have proven by their actions they are not fit to have a place in society. Also, I find the idea of rehabilitation morally wrong. We live in a world with a limited amount of resources. So each resources we offer to criminals are resources we don't offer to other people. Why a criminal should receive hundred of thousand of dollars in "help" while other people who, in my mind are much more worthy, don't have access to a basic quality life? Why reward criminals?
Don't get me wrong, I know an environment can create a criminal, so I agree some criminals deserves to be helped, but the majority are not a product of their environment, they are just who they are. Thinking they just need "help" is wishful thinking from someone who can't accept reality.
You choose to believe pedophiles suffers from a mental illness. Why? What is your real reason for that. You don't have any kind of scientific basis to proclaim that. So why believe that? Do you know your head enough to know the answer?
Saying a child molester needs help is far worse than saying he needs to be put out of society. You are basically saying we must manipulate and change people who do not conform to our ways against their will. You don't want kill or imprison Orwell's Winston, you want to destroy his personality so he becomes a "good" citizen of Oceania. You don't want to imprison Burgess's Alex, you want to "cure" him of his violent tendencies so he can become useful to society.
You think anyone who does not conform to your morale standard is "sick" and needs help? You're arrogant, egocentric and intrinsically extremely manipulative. You condescendingly show "sympathy", but you have absolutely no respect. You say child molesters suffer from a mental illness? Strange, isn't what some people are saying about gays?
You are right, we never choose who we are. We never choose to be a successful entrepreneur or a lazy bum. We never choose to be gay or straight. We never choose to be the epitome of society's morale values or a psychopath who just doesn't give a shit about anyone else. All the choice we think we make are only the result of who we are, no matter how we became who we are.
If someone realize one day he has a tendency to something he doesn't like and wants help, fine, let's do whatever we can to help him (before he commits crimes). Making that choice to be helped is who he is. But if he didn't want to be helped, you can at the very least respect his choice and let him be who he is (in jail).
All around the world, there are manifestations against Israel. I live in Quebec (Canada) and if I look at the what people post related to what's happening in Israel on our main newspapers' websites (mainly La Presse and Le Devoir...), I'd say a clear majority of native Quebecers (not Muslims) now have an anti-Israel sentiment. I guess the rest of Canada is a bit less anti-Israel, but I'd still say the general opinion is not pro-Israel. If the death toll were higher, the anti-Israel sentiment would probably become an anti-Jew sentiment, which would disrupt our society enough to force Harper to stop his blind support to Israel.
Israel have the military means to kill a lot of Palestinians, but if it did so, it would end up isolated. And without the rest of the world's support, Israel simply can't survive. So I guess the goal of Israel is simply to strike fear among Palestinians. And for that, all Palestinians must think there's no place safe.
Were the attacks on refugee centers voluntary? Did they deliberately targeted a few civilian to send a message? I'm guessing the answer is yes.
Nice try, and I'm sure you can impress a few kids who never experienced the Amiga era, but to me you only look like a fool. You know what was really cool at the time? Not a lame Macinstosh emulator board, but having four transputer boards.
Anyway, you just don't get it. Playing Speedball 1 with a joypad in an emulator is completely different than playing the same Speedball 1 with a Speedking on a real machine. Editing a program on a PC keyboard and having it run in an emulator is completely different than editing the same program with an A1000 keyboard and having it run in on a real machine.
It's a bit like the difference between seeing a picture of the Mona Lisa in a book and going to the Louvre to see the real painting.
Playing with old games using "vintage" joysticks? Seeing old programs we created in assembly run on a real hardware? Playing with old pieces of hardware toys that we created and which were using one of the amiga port? Basically, reliving old memories?
I can certainly understand why someone would want an old Amiga or an old Atari ST. I can even understand why someone would want an old Macintosh. But a Macintosh emulator in an Amiga? No, I can't see any reasons.
Since you're the one telling people they really want that Mac emulation board, can I ask you again why?
Why would I really want a Mac emulator in an old Amiga? What would be the point?
With "say controversial things" you mean trolling?
Don't you think life would be better for you if you could assume who you are and what you think instead of having to hide and having to be a hypocrite? Yes, you will lose some superficial friends, a tyrannic employer might even fire you, but not having to live a lie, not feeling shame or fear for what we think, does feel good. Anyway, don't you think you should find friends or an employer who can appreciate you for who you are and what you have to offer instead of trying to please intolerant people who don't really give a shit about you and are only searching for yes-men?
You can also look at it the other way. Do you like it when people lie to you in order to obtain some kind of friendship from you?
There are reasons which could justify anonymity. But my guess is you never posted anything which could justify it.
Restore the glory of the Internet? You mean to go back to a time when most people posted on Usenet with their real name and email address as their signature? The time when even political discussions were civilized?
From my point of view, anonymity was the worst thing that happened to the Internet.
When I was a kid, a "research" about a subject was limited to go to the school library and finding two or three books at most, reading the part I was interested with and making a small summary. There was absolutely no critical reading and no source evaluation.
I'm not sure how old your kids are, but critical reading and source evaluation is one of the most difficult thing to do. You can start to teach those to teens in high school, but not before. Also, I'm not sure parents would like their kids to develop critical reading and source evaluation as a skill. Most parents would not like their kids to say : "The Bible makes no sense and nothing gives authority to this book. Screw it!"
Oh, please. Leave the mysticism of "energy" out of this. Comparing "social problems" to "energy", in the sense of conservation of energy, is idiotic. I find totally appalling that your comment was moderated insightful.
It's easy to show that guns and alcohol are a direct cause of some social problems.
Imagine a person who is frustrated about is place in society. That's his problem and only his. Now imagine that person has a gun, decide to go on a rampage and kill several people. Suddenly, you don't have only one person with problems, but several others also with problems, simply because of a gun. And please, don't say that without a gun the same thing would happen with a knife. That's plain hypocrisy.
Same thing for alcohol. If someone is depressed for whatever reasons, that's that person problem alone. But if that person decides to get drunk, take his car and kill a father going back home, that suddenly creates a major social problem for all his family.
You may say I'm selfish for not caring for that poor frustrated person who can't deal with his problems (and saying it's all the fault of governments and institutions is another stupid idea), but you can't deny that access to guns and alcohol, create more social problems.
To use your idiotic idea of social problems as "energy", I'd say guns and alcohol amplify that "energy". They directly create more "energy". Remove them and you end up with less "energy".
Or someone in that poor family could, once in a while, take a bike and go to a decent grocery store to buy potatoes, carrots, onions, rice, all kind of peas, lentils and beans (mainly for proteins since there is no meat), some cans of tomato paste, some spices, maybe some cheese and butter, some apples (I mean the fruit, not iPhones and iPads), some bananas, as well as some oatmeal and milk for the morning. To compensate for the lack of fruit and green vegetables, you can add some vitamins supplements. So for about 70 to 80$ a week you can feed a family of four.
For a family which is not that poor (and anyone who can afford a car is obviously not that poor), you can add all kind of frozen vegetables, add flour, eggs, cocoa and sugar to make pastries, fruit juice for breakfast, twice a week you can buy some beef, pork or frozen fish fillets, and finally you can buy some bread from time to time. Basically, for 110 or 120$ a week you can feed a family of four quite nicely.
I know there is no bacon and egg with pancakes and corn syrup in the morning, no 12 ounces steak in the evening, nothing but water to drink, but that's precisely the point.
I agree healthy food doesn't cost much more than junk food (only luxury food cost more), but... you consider peanut butter as healthy food?
ONE really intelligent species
There is one really intelligent species on this planet? Where?
> only a fool would criticize privacy
Privacy is about hiding what we do and who we really are. I guess there are two main reasons we may want to do that. The first is to avoid being a victim, which I think is fair enough. The second is to avoid punishment after doing something reprehensible, from a simple lie in order to obtain something we don't deserve to a serious crime, which I find hard to justify.
What's interesting is the reason we need privacy in order to not be a victim is because there are people who will use their privacy in order to avoid punishment after making us their victim. Privacy looks to me like an arms race.
I wonder... What would it be like if we stopped this arms race and lived in a world where there was absolutely no privacy? On the plus side, it would be a world with no (unpunished) crime and no (unpunished) abuse of power. There would be absolutely no reward to commit a crime or abuse one's power. No more bullies in school, no more abusive managers at work, no more cheaters, thieves, crooks or corrupt politicians. No more lies. Everyone would be judged exactly for who they are and what they do. It would be a world perfectly fair.
What would be the negative side of a society without privacy?
And even in if we can't totally suppress privacy, wouldn't it be a good thing to live in a world where there was less bullies, less abusive managers, less cheaters, less crooks and less corrupt politicians? Wouldn't it be a good thing to live in a fairer world?
Why do you want privacy so much?
I'm 44 years old. I drive quite a lot. The number of situations while driving which required "human intelligence" and which a computer could not solve in my 25 years+ of driving? I can't think of any. Some would require communication possibilities between vehicles, for example to give priorities to an ambulance, but that can easily be achieved with current technology.
A car can't do a lot of things and driving doesn't require a lot of intelligence. The only difficult thing is pathfinding and that's a thing computer are able to do. Walking is more difficult to master as the environment is less structure than roads. Are you saying no robot will ever be able to walk anywhere? That's idiotic.
This video (the first part) is a great demonstration of rhetoric, but in the end, it's just that : rhetoric.
Of course, if you're guilty, don't talk. That's obvious. Otherwise, I'll ask you again, why I should help a criminal get away?
Can you give me one reason why I shouldn't help the police catch a criminal?
Cosmic irony. Look it up.
The only market it destroys is an illegal market. The law grants copyright owners exclusive distribution rights. It's their products, so it's their rules. Unless the copyright owners specifically grant you the right to create an alternative way to distribute their contents, it is illegal for you to make one. I can understand you don't like the law and would like it to be changed, but I don't think you can blame Firefox for not promoting your personal political agenda.
Does it damages the interests of users? I guess, but in the end it's of little interest. We're talking about superficial entertainment here, not some kind of fundamental human rights.
My personal pet peeve is against Steam. I find they're one of the most abusive company and I view their EULA as totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, most video games now require Steam. So what did I do? Well, I just moved on and stop playing video games. It is as simple as that.
There are a lot of things bad in this world and a lot of political fights to choose from. I'm sorry if I'm blunt, but I find fighting for "entertainment rights" to be quite shallow.
I remember the 80s, when not having a cell phone made travelling so dangerous that very few ever left their house. I also remember about all those daily horror stories of people who died in a horrible ways because they couldn't call 911.
Idiot.