Has anyone heard any credible speculation as to the destination of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was? The other three planes obviously had specific targets: the Pentagon and the two WTC buildings. The fourth crashed southeast of Pittsburgh. As nice of a city as Pittsburgh is, I'm sure, I can't recall any significant landmarks or financial centers that exist there.
A-fucking men. I'm a staunch liberal, but godDAMMIT this is a declaration of war againsst a country I happen to love very much. Fuck with us and I will *gladly* give my life to kill you dead.
I am so very, very angry right now.
I want blood. This is a situation when that is a justifiable reaction.
Y'know, I think that/. should set that up as a motto somewhere. "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. And we took down IBM's webservers, so watch it, bucko."
Jimi Hendrix is now a "quality product." So is Mozart, Zeppelin, NiN, Bill Hicks, Tool and every other artist happen you like. They're not musicians, they're not artists, they're "products." They make consumables.
These people drive me absolutely batshit. It's the skewed perspective that gets me. Fuck the art, they say, we just want to make money. Well, guess what: it ain't all about the money. When you focus on the money you lose site of important things like spiritual enlightenment and spiritual growth. Call me a vapid liberal, but I think those things are pretty important in life. If I have to choose between making a buck and becoming a wiser person, I'll choose wisdom every time, thanks.
Conspiracy theories? Like what? That corporations have more say in legislation than the general public? Is that a conspiracy theory? I thought conspiracy theories were generally backed up by a lack of proof. Color me silly.
Chuch of Chomsky though, I like that. I need to start going to church anyhoo, so what the hell. Beats the hell out of the ritualistic cannibalism that takes place Sunday's all across the country (and beyond!)
As a liberal, I would like to ask you to please shut the fuck up and use your brain, such as it is, before posting. I would also like to point out that your interpretation of these events you witnessed on TV, even if correct, doesn't matter in the slightest. The underlying wrongness of RMS's behaviors isn't negated just because RMS isn't as egregious as other parties. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Gads. Is there a spectrum of wrongness going from mildly naughty to diabolically evil? Certainly. Just because something lies closer the naughty end of that spectrum doesn't negate its underlying wrongness.
Well, everyone says that the Pres. Bush administration is married to big money interests. Now would be a perfect time to prove all those people wrong. If Pres. Bush can get the FCC and/or Congress to rework the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to reflect the current situation of the telecom market (namely that long distance is no longer an attractive market), he could prove himself to be an astute leader and someone who is truly dedicated to free market principles, not someone who is dedicated to campaign contributors.
I would just like to saybrag that I have had sex with five different women in my chair. I got the chair in 1986. It has a plush bottom and back, with metallic arm rests that are the perfect width & position for a lady to comfortably spread her legs for a nice bout of cunnilingus. It is wide, it is stained, is is comfortable, and it has many memories attached to it. It has seen me through DOS 3.0 on up to Mandrake 8.0.
My wife wants me to give it up but it just ain't gonna happen. I love you honey, but damn you just can't replace those memories.
In fact, one girl lost her virginity in that chair. Ain't no chair in the world that can make up for that, baby. Not an Aeron, not Python's Comfy Chair, not nothin.
Know what makes me feel old? My first box ran at 4.77MHz. Yeah. 4.77. Umm. And it had two floppies! RaH! No hard drive, just two floppies.
And later I got a 300 baud modem. Double RaH.
First off, let me say that I think it is undoubtably unjust that this man is in jail. The DMCA is a joke, and yet another argument for campaign finance reform, IMHO. The RIAA and MPAA are charlatans and crooks, and I'm hoping karma bites them in the ass realsoonnow.
Having said that, there are many, many other issues that are more deserving of attention. At the end of 1999, 1 in every 137 US residents were incarcerated. An estimated 30% of those are there for non-violent drug crimes. In 1999 alone there were over 1.5 million people arrested for drug related crimes. Sklyarov is an isolated case, whereas the imprisonment of otherwise peaceful citizens goes largely unreported because it is sadly so common. The abuses of personal freedoms in the name of the drug war are much more odious than those commited in the name of the DMCA. The United States has declared war against its own citizenry in the name of fighting drug abuse. Ask yourself which is more important.
Mod me down if you wish. And again, I hope that Sklyarov goes free, and soon. But I think that on the balance his incarceration, while unjust, pales in significance when compared to other issues. And the drug war isn't the only one that can be deemed more important: poverty, AIDS, and environmental abuses all rank higher in importance, due to the fact that they affect so many more people.
And no, I'm not saying that/. shouldn't cover this. Their audience is interested in DMCA related issues. But I will continue to dedicate my efforts at raising awareness of the tragedy that is the drug war. I feel it is more worthwhile to do so.
Okay, so you're so gullible to believe a politican, and so sheltered to be actually shocked by it? Come on, pols lie for a living.
Do you really believe this? I can't help but be skeptical. Politicians attempt to pass (or oppose) legislation for a living. Lying politicians get voted out of office all the time. In fact, a strong argument can be made that part of the reason that Gore isn't in the White House is because of the apparent deceptions of former Pres. Clinton. In other words, the voters punished Gore for the lies of Clinton. Voters don't like their elected officials to lie to them, nor should they. I *do* expect my elected officials to tell the truth. This isn't being gullible, it is having standards.
So when Bush goes against an explicit campaign promise, it is noteworthy, at the very least. We should expect our elected officials to keep their promises. Otherwise, why elect them in the first place? If they all lie constantly, then we should just pick who we vote at random. After all, we can't base our vote on what they say. Perhaps you feel that we should always distrust politicians. I agree with that. But if you go further and say that we should expect and accept the lies of politicians, then my good man I must disagree with you. I do not and will not accept lies, especially if a promise is broken.
It sounds like you don't even need to know the facts to have an opinion. You've shown that you really have no clue what Smart Tags actually are, so before you make more of an idiot of yourself, here's some facts:
Dude, calm the fuck down. We're talking about smart tags ferchissakes. It's nothing to get your panties in a wad about. The guy disagrees with you. Play nice. People will be more apt to listen to you.
Smart tags were provided by filter DLLs which in turn could be provided by ANYONE, not just Microsoft.
This is exactly the problem: anyone (and everyone) can add smart tags. I have a problem with this on two fronts: a) smart tag spam, where some unscrupulous web page author throws in a smart tag header at the top of the page, and b) I don't want anyone changing the content of my page, and I have the law to back me up on this. The web page I made, hyperlinks and all, is my creation.
Users have the right to render web pages in whatever way they see fit. If they choose to parse and annotate them before rendering that is THEIR choice.
They certainly do. They could switch to Netscape 4.x, Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, or whatever. However, I am primarily a Microsoft customer. We do custom ActiveX component development for the financial industry. We do a lot of business with MS. As a customer and web developer, I have some problems with smart tag technology and am going to make that known. Other than smart tags, IE6 looks to be a pretty good browser.
If Microsoft's customers don't want it, don't you think they should at least listen?
There was nothing wrong with the technology itself (something most people don't seem to realize), just the potential for abuse by Microsoft (who doesn't have a great track record).
Actually, in this case it wasn't even Microsoft that people were worried about, it was unscrupulous web page authors. To add a smart tag entry on the client, all you have to do is add an <object> tag and some special XML to the top of your page, and voila the user has a new smart tag. There's nothing to stop someone from adding a smart tag entry for, say, "The Silmarillion" that will take you to some cheap-ass porn site (or worse yet, a Terry Brooks fan club [shudder].)
This is not the only objection, btw. I personally have a problem with MS's attempt to "embrace and extend" the anchor tag, especially when XLink is an official W3C recommendation and does the same thing.
A List Apart has a really excellent overview of Smart Tags (firewall is acting strange... can't get exact link right now...). It gives detailed explanations about why Smart Tags are dumb, both from a legal/copyright standpoint and from a technical standpoint.
Didja know that to add Smart Tags on someone's system you just have to put in some properly formattted XML at the beginning of your web page? So say you "accidentally" surf to some porn site with this crap in it, now everytime you type a document in Word XP the word "the" is underlined in purple with a link to the porn site only a click away.
This is an egregious example, but not *too* egregious. It's a good thing that MS is taking these out of IE6, which otherwise looks to be a fairly decent browser. (Still pulling for Mozilla, but increasingly skeptical... <sigh>.)
Guess what, if the Hague Convention is ratified, Freedon of Speech will no longer have Constitutional force.
Well, that would certainly be the strict constructionist view. The scary thing is that there is a possibility, however remote, that by ratifying a treaty our cherished Constitutional liberties could be obliterated. The fact that there is even a chance of this happening makes me shudder.
But, if it helps streamline world trade, it's good, right? Somebody is making money, so hey let's pass it right away!
Most of the people on/. seem to want to see Linux succeed in the business world. If they go, this will be a blow to the "Linux is good for your bottom line" reasoning that we try to push so heavily. They run Apache/mod_perl ferchrissakes! They're the good guys. If they go under I can't help but believe that this will be a blow to Linux advocates, because, after all, the proof is in the pudding.
Do you think that is is morally and ethically acceptable for you to toy with something before killing it?
Assuming you are not in danger, do you consider it more noble to kill something or not to kill something?
Imagine for a moment that God exists and has appeared before you at a young age and given you a choice to make for your future. You may either become a fisherman who kills sharks for their fins and becomes very wealthy, or you may become a low-paid doctor in a small urban community. Which would you chose?
The following is a quote from a well established nationally recognized synicated talkshow host.
Wait... You're using a talk radio host as a source? And I bet you think you're a free thinker, too! "You are all individuals!" "Yes, we are all individuals!"
Mooo, cow, mooooo. Follow the herd. Liberals: Bad. Conservatives: Good. Always. And they're not "environmentalists" they're "environmentalist weirdos." Use the right language, for Big Radio insists on it. Mooooo, cow.
Wow, I disagree with the Republican Party on some key issues! I must be a libruhl! Bwahahahahaa. Morons.
The thing about you Freeper clones is that you really are easy targets. I get this guilty kind of pleasure from fucking with you guys.
Now, for the info that will get me modded down as flamebait: I don't believe drilling for more energy is immoral. I believe that it is highly moral, as oil and every other natural resource is used to save our lives. The ambulance that saves a heart attack victim's life is gasoline powered...
This is very true, and a good point. However, the counterargument is that there is a chance that by continuing to use fossil fuels we will cause much greater harm in the long term, in the form of flooded coastal areas, more droughts and floods, and in general a biosphere that behaves very angrily.
do you think that by making energy a plethora of government regulation, of weaving generalities, of moral wrongness, that ANYONE would ever want to be innovative?
Very few are proposing anything like that, and those who do wield little (if any) political power. Careful with your straw men... However, energy is still a very profitable business to be in despite (or arguably because) of regulation. It can remain profitable while being nudged toward being environmentally friendly, as well. If incentives are put in for companines that bring clean technologies to market then there will be companies who will pursue. It's possible to encourage environment-friendly products while lowering the amount of regulation: if you do (a), you don't have to worry about regulations (b), (c), and (d).
If you're so all-fired up about saving the planet from the its destruction by the Evil Oil Companies (the dividends of whose stock is probably keeping your (or somebody else's) grandmother from eating Meow Mix), go to school, get a chemical/mechanical/electrical engineering degree and develop a better solution that's cheaper and safer. Hurling deprecations from the peanut gallery doesn't impress me one bit.
Are you completely fucking stupid? Let me see if we can get to the bottom of this: if someone has a problem with policy X, they should go get training in X and fix the problem themselves. So if I have a problem with, say, the AIDS epidemic, then the only way to "impress" you is to go to medical school and train myself, right?
Hmm. What if I'm a Sudanese orphan who has been conscripted at the age of 11 into the military? Do I have that option then? If I were to complain about the AIDS epidemic, would your ear be deaf?
Let's take another example: For the sake of argument, let's take global warming as a fact. Now, I live in a coastal area that is beginning to be affected by melting ice shelfs. (Again, this is for the sake of argument.) I'm a 49 year old farmer, and the encroaching sea is damaging my ability to make my livelihood. Dykes, windmills, and other such instruments are becoming less and less effective. According to you, I should go out and invent a better fuel technology, correct? Me, an aging farmer, should go back to school, get a degree in whatever, and just fix the problem myself, correct?
Or let's just take an example from the typical/.ers life: I just got done working on this really nifty program and released it under the license Y. Three months down the road, I find out that Pokersoft has snatched my wares and put them into their proprietary for-cost software, in the process violating some term of the license. According to your brilliant system, instead of hiring a lawyer, I should go to law school myself, right? No good bitching about it if I can't fix it myself, after all!
Moronic. Absolutely moronic. Fact of life, dumbass: Not everyone can solve their own problems. That's the "sevices" part of "goods & services." Sometimes it takes others to do it, whether out of goodwill or a profit motive. And sometimes the marketplace fucks people over, requiring government to step in and nudge things in the right direction.
as a parent of two, let me fill you in on a little secret: the only way you're going to know what your kids are up to is to spend time with them. in other words, get off your lazy ass and spend time with them. especially if you only have her 2 days a week. sheesh.
Ah yes, the easy route: flaming. How about instead of just shooting from the hip you come up with something workable? This guy is obviously concerned about his kid, and the only suggetion you can give is "spend more time with them"? Christ, man, that's a given considering the tone of the orginal message.
Oh yeah, and I'm a parent.
Here's my suggestion to the original question: Don't worry about censorware. Just occasionally scan her history, cache, etc., & talk to her in a non-confrontational way about anything you that gives you pause. Censorware usually just pisses kids off and makes them become much better with circumvention than they otherwise would have been.
I'd have to say there is a difference between drugs.
My wife and I have come to a realization about our arguments. Whenever someone says "That's different", then 90% of the time it's not different. I think this applies here. If it is a victimless crime, then it's a law based on morality. With laws against theft or physical violence, you have a party who raises a complaint about certain behvior. If there is no one complaining, then a law is, by definition, a consensual crime (or, as we're calling them in this conversation, a "moral law.")
The production and distribution of cocaine, heroin and crank have serious geo-political, criminal, social and in the case of crank, environmental side effects that pot, alcohol
and tobacco do not have.
Hey man, you know what? If drugs were legalized many of those problems could be brought under control. Think about it: they're criminal because they're against the law, so legalizing would take care of the black market aspect as well as the problems of corrupt government officials. Legalizing would also allow them to be regulated, so that production facilities could be inspected and safe measures taken for workers and the environment. It'd fall under the same regulations as the pharmaceutical industries.
And remember: alcohol and tobacco kill more people per year than all other drugs *combined*. Let me repeat myself: alcohol and tobacco kill more people than heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines put together.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone heard any credible speculation as to the destination of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was? The other three planes obviously had specific targets: the Pentagon and the two WTC buildings. The fourth crashed southeast of Pittsburgh. As nice of a city as Pittsburgh is, I'm sure, I can't recall any significant landmarks or financial centers that exist there.
- Rev.A-fucking men. I'm a staunch liberal, but godDAMMIT this is a declaration of war againsst a country I happen to love very much. Fuck with us and I will *gladly* give my life to kill you dead.
I am so very, very angry right now.
I want blood. This is a situation when that is a justifiable reaction.
Y'know, I think that /. should set that up as a motto somewhere. "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. And we took down IBM's webservers, so watch it, bucko."
Link is giving me a 500. Mirror?
Jimi Hendrix is now a "quality product." So is Mozart, Zeppelin, NiN, Bill Hicks, Tool and every other artist happen you like. They're not musicians, they're not artists, they're "products." They make consumables.
These people drive me absolutely batshit. It's the skewed perspective that gets me. Fuck the art, they say, we just want to make money. Well, guess what: it ain't all about the money. When you focus on the money you lose site of important things like spiritual enlightenment and spiritual growth. Call me a vapid liberal, but I think those things are pretty important in life. If I have to choose between making a buck and becoming a wiser person, I'll choose wisdom every time, thanks.
Conspiracy theories? Like what? That corporations have more say in legislation than the general public? Is that a conspiracy theory? I thought conspiracy theories were generally backed up by a lack of proof. Color me silly.
Chuch of Chomsky though, I like that. I need to start going to church anyhoo, so what the hell. Beats the hell out of the ritualistic cannibalism that takes place Sunday's all across the country (and beyond!)
Y'know, people might actually take you seriously if you could at least spell simple words like "disease."
As a liberal, I would like to ask you to please shut the fuck up and use your brain, such as it is, before posting. I would also like to point out that your interpretation of these events you witnessed on TV, even if correct, doesn't matter in the slightest. The underlying wrongness of RMS's behaviors isn't negated just because RMS isn't as egregious as other parties. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Gads. Is there a spectrum of wrongness going from mildly naughty to diabolically evil? Certainly. Just because something lies closer the naughty end of that spectrum doesn't negate its underlying wrongness.
Argh!
Well, everyone says that the Pres. Bush administration is married to big money interests. Now would be a perfect time to prove all those people wrong. If Pres. Bush can get the FCC and/or Congress to rework the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to reflect the current situation of the telecom market (namely that long distance is no longer an attractive market), he could prove himself to be an astute leader and someone who is truly dedicated to free market principles, not someone who is dedicated to campaign contributors.
I doubt it will happen, but I'm hopeful.
I would just like to saybrag that I have had sex with five different women in my chair. I got the chair in 1986. It has a plush bottom and back, with metallic arm rests that are the perfect width & position for a lady to comfortably spread her legs for a nice bout of cunnilingus. It is wide, it is stained, is is comfortable, and it has many memories attached to it. It has seen me through DOS 3.0 on up to Mandrake 8.0.
My wife wants me to give it up but it just ain't gonna happen. I love you honey, but damn you just can't replace those memories.
In fact, one girl lost her virginity in that chair. Ain't no chair in the world that can make up for that, baby. Not an Aeron, not Python's Comfy Chair, not nothin.
Just wanted to share.
Know what makes me feel old? My first box ran at 4.77MHz. Yeah. 4.77. Umm. And it had two floppies! RaH! No hard drive, just two floppies.
And later I got a 300 baud modem. Double RaH.
Later,
daWiz
The Wizard's Realm - Telegard 2.0 - 686-0235
First off, let me say that I think it is undoubtably unjust that this man is in jail. The DMCA is a joke, and yet another argument for campaign finance reform, IMHO. The RIAA and MPAA are charlatans and crooks, and I'm hoping karma bites them in the ass realsoonnow.
Having said that, there are many, many other issues that are more deserving of attention. At the end of 1999, 1 in every 137 US residents were incarcerated. An estimated 30% of those are there for non-violent drug crimes. In 1999 alone there were over 1.5 million people arrested for drug related crimes. Sklyarov is an isolated case, whereas the imprisonment of otherwise peaceful citizens goes largely unreported because it is sadly so common. The abuses of personal freedoms in the name of the drug war are much more odious than those commited in the name of the DMCA. The United States has declared war against its own citizenry in the name of fighting drug abuse. Ask yourself which is more important.
Mod me down if you wish. And again, I hope that Sklyarov goes free, and soon. But I think that on the balance his incarceration, while unjust, pales in significance when compared to other issues. And the drug war isn't the only one that can be deemed more important: poverty, AIDS, and environmental abuses all rank higher in importance, due to the fact that they affect so many more people.
And no, I'm not saying that /. shouldn't cover this. Their audience is interested in DMCA related issues. But I will continue to dedicate my efforts at raising awareness of the tragedy that is the drug war. I feel it is more worthwhile to do so.
How about this. "Adobe should go on our blacklist. User #102921 can go fuck themselves."
Thank you.
Okay, so you're so gullible to believe a politican, and so sheltered to be actually shocked by it? Come on, pols lie for a living.
Do you really believe this? I can't help but be skeptical. Politicians attempt to pass (or oppose) legislation for a living. Lying politicians get voted out of office all the time. In fact, a strong argument can be made that part of the reason that Gore isn't in the White House is because of the apparent deceptions of former Pres. Clinton. In other words, the voters punished Gore for the lies of Clinton. Voters don't like their elected officials to lie to them, nor should they. I *do* expect my elected officials to tell the truth. This isn't being gullible, it is having standards.
So when Bush goes against an explicit campaign promise, it is noteworthy, at the very least. We should expect our elected officials to keep their promises. Otherwise, why elect them in the first place? If they all lie constantly, then we should just pick who we vote at random. After all, we can't base our vote on what they say. Perhaps you feel that we should always distrust politicians. I agree with that. But if you go further and say that we should expect and accept the lies of politicians, then my good man I must disagree with you. I do not and will not accept lies, especially if a promise is broken.
- Rev.It sounds like you don't even need to know the facts to have an opinion. You've shown that you really have no clue what Smart Tags actually are, so before you make more of an idiot of yourself, here's some facts:
Dude, calm the fuck down. We're talking about smart tags ferchissakes. It's nothing to get your panties in a wad about. The guy disagrees with you. Play nice. People will be more apt to listen to you.
Smart tags were provided by filter DLLs which in turn could be provided by ANYONE, not just Microsoft.
This is exactly the problem: anyone (and everyone) can add smart tags. I have a problem with this on two fronts: a) smart tag spam, where some unscrupulous web page author throws in a smart tag header at the top of the page, and b) I don't want anyone changing the content of my page, and I have the law to back me up on this. The web page I made, hyperlinks and all, is my creation.
Users have the right to render web pages in whatever way they see fit. If they choose to parse and annotate them before rendering that is THEIR choice.
They certainly do. They could switch to Netscape 4.x, Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, or whatever. However, I am primarily a Microsoft customer. We do custom ActiveX component development for the financial industry. We do a lot of business with MS. As a customer and web developer, I have some problems with smart tag technology and am going to make that known. Other than smart tags, IE6 looks to be a pretty good browser.
If Microsoft's customers don't want it, don't you think they should at least listen?
- Rev.There was nothing wrong with the technology itself (something most people don't seem to realize), just the potential for abuse by Microsoft (who doesn't have a great track record).
Actually, in this case it wasn't even Microsoft that people were worried about, it was unscrupulous web page authors. To add a smart tag entry on the client, all you have to do is add an <object> tag and some special XML to the top of your page, and voila the user has a new smart tag. There's nothing to stop someone from adding a smart tag entry for, say, "The Silmarillion" that will take you to some cheap-ass porn site (or worse yet, a Terry Brooks fan club [shudder].)
This is not the only objection, btw. I personally have a problem with MS's attempt to "embrace and extend" the anchor tag, especially when XLink is an official W3C recommendation and does the same thing.
- Rev.Didja know that to add Smart Tags on someone's system you just have to put in some properly formattted XML at the beginning of your web page? So say you "accidentally" surf to some porn site with this crap in it, now everytime you type a document in Word XP the word "the" is underlined in purple with a link to the porn site only a click away.
This is an egregious example, but not *too* egregious. It's a good thing that MS is taking these out of IE6, which otherwise looks to be a fairly decent browser. (Still pulling for Mozilla, but increasingly skeptical... <sigh>.)
- Rev.Guess what, if the Hague Convention is ratified, Freedon of Speech will no longer have Constitutional force.
Well, that would certainly be the strict constructionist view. The scary thing is that there is a possibility, however remote, that by ratifying a treaty our cherished Constitutional liberties could be obliterated. The fact that there is even a chance of this happening makes me shudder.
But, if it helps streamline world trade, it's good, right? Somebody is making money, so hey let's pass it right away!
- Rev.Most of the people on /. seem to want to see Linux succeed in the business world. If they go, this will be a blow to the "Linux is good for your bottom line" reasoning that we try to push so heavily. They run Apache/mod_perl ferchrissakes! They're the good guys. If they go under I can't help but believe that this will be a blow to Linux advocates, because, after all, the proof is in the pudding.
Check this for more.
- Rev.Let me ask you a couple of questions:
Do you think that is is morally and ethically acceptable for you to toy with something before killing it?
Assuming you are not in danger, do you consider it more noble to kill something or not to kill something?
Imagine for a moment that God exists and has appeared before you at a young age and given you a choice to make for your future. You may either become a fisherman who kills sharks for their fins and becomes very wealthy, or you may become a low-paid doctor in a small urban community. Which would you chose?
The following is a quote from a well established nationally recognized synicated talkshow host.
Wait... You're using a talk radio host as a source? And I bet you think you're a free thinker, too! "You are all individuals!" "Yes, we are all individuals!"
Mooo, cow, mooooo. Follow the herd. Liberals: Bad. Conservatives: Good. Always. And they're not "environmentalists" they're "environmentalist weirdos." Use the right language, for Big Radio insists on it. Mooooo, cow.
Wow, I disagree with the Republican Party on some key issues! I must be a libruhl! Bwahahahahaa. Morons.
The thing about you Freeper clones is that you really are easy targets. I get this guilty kind of pleasure from fucking with you guys.
- Rev.Now, for the info that will get me modded down as flamebait: I don't believe drilling for more energy is immoral. I believe that it is highly moral, as oil and every other natural resource is used to save our lives. The ambulance that saves a heart attack victim's life is gasoline powered...
This is very true, and a good point. However, the counterargument is that there is a chance that by continuing to use fossil fuels we will cause much greater harm in the long term, in the form of flooded coastal areas, more droughts and floods, and in general a biosphere that behaves very angrily.
do you think that by making energy a plethora of government regulation, of weaving generalities, of moral wrongness, that ANYONE would ever want to be innovative?
Very few are proposing anything like that, and those who do wield little (if any) political power. Careful with your straw men... However, energy is still a very profitable business to be in despite (or arguably because) of regulation. It can remain profitable while being nudged toward being environmentally friendly, as well. If incentives are put in for companines that bring clean technologies to market then there will be companies who will pursue. It's possible to encourage environment-friendly products while lowering the amount of regulation: if you do (a), you don't have to worry about regulations (b), (c), and (d).
- Rev.If you're so all-fired up about saving the planet from the its destruction by the Evil Oil Companies (the dividends of whose stock is probably keeping your (or somebody else's) grandmother from eating Meow Mix), go to school, get a chemical/mechanical/electrical engineering degree and develop a better solution that's cheaper and safer. Hurling deprecations from the peanut gallery doesn't impress me one bit.
Are you completely fucking stupid? Let me see if we can get to the bottom of this: if someone has a problem with policy X, they should go get training in X and fix the problem themselves. So if I have a problem with, say, the AIDS epidemic, then the only way to "impress" you is to go to medical school and train myself, right?
Hmm. What if I'm a Sudanese orphan who has been conscripted at the age of 11 into the military? Do I have that option then? If I were to complain about the AIDS epidemic, would your ear be deaf?
Let's take another example: For the sake of argument, let's take global warming as a fact. Now, I live in a coastal area that is beginning to be affected by melting ice shelfs. (Again, this is for the sake of argument.) I'm a 49 year old farmer, and the encroaching sea is damaging my ability to make my livelihood. Dykes, windmills, and other such instruments are becoming less and less effective. According to you, I should go out and invent a better fuel technology, correct? Me, an aging farmer, should go back to school, get a degree in whatever, and just fix the problem myself, correct?
Or let's just take an example from the typical /.ers life: I just got done working on this really nifty program and released it under the license Y. Three months down the road, I find out that Pokersoft has snatched my wares and put them into their proprietary for-cost software, in the process violating some term of the license. According to your brilliant system, instead of hiring a lawyer, I should go to law school myself, right? No good bitching about it if I can't fix it myself, after all!
Moronic. Absolutely moronic. Fact of life, dumbass: Not everyone can solve their own problems. That's the "sevices" part of "goods & services." Sometimes it takes others to do it, whether out of goodwill or a profit motive. And sometimes the marketplace fucks people over, requiring government to step in and nudge things in the right direction.
Christ. Go back to the Freeper that spawned you.
- Rev.as a parent of two, let me fill you in on a little secret: the only way you're going to know what your kids are up to is to spend time with them. in other words, get off your lazy ass and spend time with them. especially if you only have her 2 days a week. sheesh.
Ah yes, the easy route: flaming. How about instead of just shooting from the hip you come up with something workable? This guy is obviously concerned about his kid, and the only suggetion you can give is "spend more time with them"? Christ, man, that's a given considering the tone of the orginal message.
Oh yeah, and I'm a parent.
Here's my suggestion to the original question: Don't worry about censorware. Just occasionally scan her history, cache, etc., & talk to her in a non-confrontational way about anything you that gives you pause. Censorware usually just pisses kids off and makes them become much better with circumvention than they otherwise would have been.
- Rev.I'd have to say there is a difference between drugs.
My wife and I have come to a realization about our arguments. Whenever someone says "That's different", then 90% of the time it's not different. I think this applies here. If it is a victimless crime, then it's a law based on morality. With laws against theft or physical violence, you have a party who raises a complaint about certain behvior. If there is no one complaining, then a law is, by definition, a consensual crime (or, as we're calling them in this conversation, a "moral law.")
The production and distribution of cocaine, heroin and crank have serious geo-political, criminal, social and in the case of crank, environmental side effects that pot, alcohol and tobacco do not have.
Hey man, you know what? If drugs were legalized many of those problems could be brought under control. Think about it: they're criminal because they're against the law, so legalizing would take care of the black market aspect as well as the problems of corrupt government officials. Legalizing would also allow them to be regulated, so that production facilities could be inspected and safe measures taken for workers and the environment. It'd fall under the same regulations as the pharmaceutical industries.
And remember: alcohol and tobacco kill more people per year than all other drugs *combined*. Let me repeat myself: alcohol and tobacco kill more people than heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines put together.
Something to think about...
- Rev.