Seems to me, and this is just because I am evil, but this could be used as a very powerful tool by the less than noble to do very creativly bad things. And the participants may not necessarily know they are participating in the evil.
You could put people into dangerous situations, influence politicians, perhaps clog up vital areas at just the right time to cause serious harm.
Not that I dislike these things, I think they are awesome... but like I said, evil is great! I'm off to think of fun ways to put flash mobs on Rumsfeld's mind.:)
here are many ways... for example, you can pass the cost onto the consumer in the form on a small additional tax/levy on the product. Combine this with things like government incentives (tax breaks, etc), and there are many solutions to this problem. So, no, you don't have to sell more or cheapen the goods (which ends up being the thesis for the rest of that paragraph).
Yes, you are absolutly right, because people can make money out of thin air and never have to deal with the consequences...
So, you have just moved one run down the ladder, but the question still remains.. How do the people pay for the more expensive goods? Do they work longer hours (Sucking up food and electricity)?
There will always be room for the thinkers, but if robots can take over the shit jobs like waste cleanup and bending, then more power to them! Give us humans a break!
Wow, this is a brilliant post. "We don't need to recycle 'cuz we still have plenty of room to put our massive amounts of garbage!". Seriously, that has to be the most unbelievably ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I don't *care* if there's lots of room to throw more garbage... it shouldn't go there in the first place.
Until it's cheaper to recycle than to build anew, any attempt a recycling actually makes the problem WORSE. How can this be? Follow this line of reasoning and you'll see:
Say it takes $1 to mine a block of tin and $5 to recycle a block of tin of the same size.
Now, there are two questions here. First, why is there a difference in price? Does it require more power to run the machinery? If so, where does that power come from? (Hint, Oil!) Does it require more expensive chemicals or parts? If so why are those things so expensive? (Hint, probably higher energy costs, thus Oil again)
The second question to consider is, how is the company buying the tin going to pay for it? They can't just make money out of the blue, they've got to sell more of whatever they make. Selling more means spending more money, using more energy, and sucking up more raw and recycled resources by implication. Selling more also means more garbage in the long run. The other option for reducing costs in order to pay for recycled materials is to cheapen the quality of the goods being sold. This usually ends up meaning more disposable packaging and goods with a shorter life span, and even more garbage.
Until you reach the point where recycling costs the same or less than getting the raw material, recycling doesn't neccessarily help the environment.
Besides, it's expensive getting metals out of the earth (as in mining them). Doesn't it make more sense to save money and recycle them?
If it did, there'd be a recycling station on every corner. So obviously, no, it's still cheaper to mine for "new" metal than to recycle.
And as an addendum to that, money is usually a fairly good estimate of the amout of overall energy invested in something. If it costs $1 to mine and $10 to recycle, where do you think that $10 came from? Why is it 10x as much? Does it require 10x the amout of energy to extract the goods (i.e. burning more fossil fuels)? Does it require costly chemicals that are 10x as dangerous to manufacture?
At some point that money translates to an energy input from the environment (some company has to sell 10x the number of widgets, and those widgets use up 10x the amount of raw do-dads and those raw do-dads require 10x the cubic feet of rainforest to be cut down), which mean it actually are probably hurting the environment by recycling more than helping it if you are paying more for recycled goods.
Hey, whatdaya know, it's just a block or so away from the office, how funny! Anyone planning on visiting give me a buzz and we'll do the whole slashdot meetup get together thing.:)
You see, that's what you're saying. That the media is allowed to lie and misuse terms if we "know what they mean." This is untrue. It's a form of the type of subtle spin and bias that big media conglomeration promises us it won't do.
You have inspired me. From now on, I'm no copyright infringer, no am I a common thief... I am a copyright MURDERER!
What you're doing here is nit-picking because of sour grapes. There's no substantial damage being done to society because of these misappropriation of terms, since everyone knows they are talking about copyright infringement.
Just like how everyone knows the "death tax" and the "estate tax" are one in the same... But people don't complain when the government want to repeal the "death" tax...
Words matter. If you shouted "copyright infringer!" to someone running away with "stolen" copies of your music, everyone would wonder what the hell, exactly, is your damn problem... But if you shout "thief!" you'll get a VERY different reaction.
If that's true it's a good thing for Ferrari/Porsche/Aston Martin/ Rolls Royce have plenty of rich dumb customers who don't know that they could buy a cheap Ford/GM/Crysler/Nissan/Skoda that'll work just as well.
They aren't rich and dumb, they are rich and have very small penises.
I would think it would be possible to build a plastic maze with slowly shifting walls. Built into the maze would be sensors that shift the walls of the maze when there are no mice in that area. Then you drop all your mice in different areas and there you go, endless halways to run through. The mice don't ever even have to cross paths, so it's just like a cage, but it is never the same twice so there is always something to do. Sometimes mice would be herded into a "play room", sometimes to a "food room", etc. No more crazymice. It would also be neat to watch in action.
Its not uncommon for mice to wheel-- its akin to a kid riding a block.
Man, that takes me back... Me and my block, just sitting there, riding around, you know. It was 100% concrete with two large holes in the side, you know, just your typical old cinder block, but boy could it move. Ahhh, good times.
meltoast writes "We send employees through a cubicle farm to see their reactions and then take that information and apply it to our knowledge of the human psyche. Well, what if those employees are completely out of their minds? Discover recently ran an article showing that employees kept in a cubicle environment may be crazy. 'In one sequence, an employee climbs the cloth-covered walls of his cubicle, hangs from the false ceiling by his hands while gnawing on the frame, then drops to the floor, only to repeat the process endlessly. On the other side of the room, a second employee makes copies, one per second, for up to 30 minutes at a time.'"
Actually, this behavior is often a sign of perfectly sane employees with one absoluly stark raving manager.
I mean, I just don't understand this mentality. Why do you feel like you're entitled to redistribute the copyrighted works of others? Why? When did this become a right?
It became a right sometime around the Sonny Bono copyright extension act... I'm all for copyright, but not copyright that lasts longer than the average human lifetime. That's theft... Not theft from the artists, theft from the public. The artists are granted a very limited right by the people to make a profit off of thier work for a short time. Once that time is over, the work becomes ours. The *people* are the ones being so kind as to give this little right to the artists. In a state of nature, everything an artist creates is automatically owned by everyone close enough to make a recording. When the "artists" (meaning the copyrightholders who are usually not, in fact, the "artists") disrespect the limits of the rights we grant them and lobby corrupt politicans (I'm looking at you dead boy, that tree was too kind to you) to change the laws then I cease to have ANY moral obligation ot respect thier rights.
In britain, recently, some foreign geezers covered themselves in petrol over and lit the human torch. In front of some foreign embassy. It appeared on the BBC, and national radio stations.
Do you even know who they were? Or what the cause was? Did anything change?
Well, it's very important to do it right. The first mistake they made was being old geezers, and not hot teen girls. Hot teen girls setting themselves on fire would have been on every newspaper front page in the country for a week. Second, they have to make sure that people are watching, and they they understand the back story. Even hot teen girls who are only identified after they are burt to a crisp won't make a splash, but if they have a week's worth of video tape documenting thier lives before the flames, those could be played over and over again. Finally, the old guys stopped. The othe rkey is to not stop. One geezer burning himsself at the front of teh building every day for a month would nto be somethign that can be easily ignored... One hot girl shooting hersefl every day for a month would be intollerable. Make them pregnant and then, well, that wouldn't last a week...
More likely we'd care for a week, and then it would misteriously not be televised anymore.
Well, that's why, for it to work, it needs to be absurdly pathetic. The people dying can't be strong jawed idealists with a flying banner behind them and an Eagle over head... They needs to be pathetic, crying, absolutly terrified children, young adults and pregnant women. They need to look exactly like your children and young adults. When you watch them from middle America, you have to see your own sons and daughters standing there. You have to see the anguish in the faces of thier parents; you are thier parents. Tears streaming down thier faces, the full and complete knowledge of the absolute terror and horror they feel clearly visible in thier eyes. The kids can't "want" to die, they can't be pleased with themselves. They have to shaking and trembling, coughing and sputtering, and they have to make absolutly terrifying corpses.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me, and this is just because I am evil, but this could be used as a very powerful tool by the less than noble to do very creativly bad things. And the participants may not necessarily know they are participating in the evil.
:)
You could put people into dangerous situations, influence politicians, perhaps clog up vital areas at just the right time to cause serious harm.
Not that I dislike these things, I think they are awesome... but like I said, evil is great! I'm off to think of fun ways to put flash mobs on Rumsfeld's mind.
RTFA: Having them stolen from a locked school locker is not 'leaving them around'.
Depends on your definition of "leaving around"... Now help me jimmy this car door, I can see somone "left around" a CD player in thier front seat.
here are many ways... for example, you can pass the cost onto the consumer in the form on a small additional tax/levy on the product. Combine this with things like government incentives (tax breaks, etc), and there are many solutions to this problem. So, no, you don't have to sell more or cheapen the goods (which ends up being the thesis for the rest of that paragraph).
Yes, you are absolutly right, because people can make money out of thin air and never have to deal with the consequences...
So, you have just moved one run down the ladder, but the question still remains.. How do the people pay for the more expensive goods? Do they work longer hours (Sucking up food and electricity)?
There will always be room for the thinkers, but if robots can take over the shit jobs like waste cleanup and bending, then more power to them! Give us humans a break!
Wow, this is a brilliant post. "We don't need to recycle 'cuz we still have plenty of room to put our massive amounts of garbage!". Seriously, that has to be the most unbelievably ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I don't *care* if there's lots of room to throw more garbage... it shouldn't go there in the first place.
Until it's cheaper to recycle than to build anew, any attempt a recycling actually makes the problem WORSE. How can this be? Follow this line of reasoning and you'll see:
Say it takes $1 to mine a block of tin and $5 to recycle a block of tin of the same size.
Now, there are two questions here. First, why is there a difference in price? Does it require more power to run the machinery? If so, where does that power come from? (Hint, Oil!) Does it require more expensive chemicals or parts? If so why are those things so expensive? (Hint, probably higher energy costs, thus Oil again)
The second question to consider is, how is the company buying the tin going to pay for it? They can't just make money out of the blue, they've got to sell more of whatever they make. Selling more means spending more money, using more energy, and sucking up more raw and recycled resources by implication. Selling more also means more garbage in the long run. The other option for reducing costs in order to pay for recycled materials is to cheapen the quality of the goods being sold. This usually ends up meaning more disposable packaging and goods with a shorter life span, and even more garbage.
Until you reach the point where recycling costs the same or less than getting the raw material, recycling doesn't neccessarily help the environment.
Besides, it's expensive getting metals out of the earth (as in mining them). Doesn't it make more sense to save money and recycle them?
If it did, there'd be a recycling station on every corner. So obviously, no, it's still cheaper to mine for "new" metal than to recycle.
And as an addendum to that, money is usually a fairly good estimate of the amout of overall energy invested in something. If it costs $1 to mine and $10 to recycle, where do you think that $10 came from? Why is it 10x as much? Does it require 10x the amout of energy to extract the goods (i.e. burning more fossil fuels)? Does it require costly chemicals that are 10x as dangerous to manufacture?
At some point that money translates to an energy input from the environment (some company has to sell 10x the number of widgets, and those widgets use up 10x the amount of raw do-dads and those raw do-dads require 10x the cubic feet of rainforest to be cut down), which mean it actually are probably hurting the environment by recycling more than helping it if you are paying more for recycled goods.
1. Without patents, the little guy who invents something new won't be able to compete against the big corporations who copy his idea.
Linus doesn't stand a chance...
In other words, they've been left with the choice of killing the patient OR killing the disease.
In this case, wouldn't the patient BE the disease?
Hey, whatdaya know, it's just a block or so away from the office, how funny! Anyone planning on visiting give me a buzz and we'll do the whole slashdot meetup get together thing. :)
In that situation, you are providing the enabler to steal the content.
Please stop calling it theft. It's not THEFT damnit! Call it what it is... It's COPYRIGHT CHILD TOTURE AND MURDER.
You see, that's what you're saying. That the media is allowed to lie and misuse terms if we "know what they mean." This is untrue. It's a form of the type of subtle spin and bias that big media conglomeration promises us it won't do.
You have inspired me. From now on, I'm no copyright infringer, no am I a common thief... I am a copyright MURDERER!
What you're doing here is nit-picking because of sour grapes. There's no substantial damage being done to society because of these misappropriation of terms, since everyone knows they are talking about copyright infringement.
Just like how everyone knows the "death tax" and the "estate tax" are one in the same... But people don't complain when the government want to repeal the "death" tax...
Words matter. If you shouted "copyright infringer!" to someone running away with "stolen" copies of your music, everyone would wonder what the hell, exactly, is your damn problem... But if you shout "thief!" you'll get a VERY different reaction.
If that's true it's a good thing for Ferrari/Porsche/Aston Martin/ Rolls Royce have plenty of rich dumb customers who don't know that they could buy a cheap Ford/GM/Crysler/Nissan/Skoda that'll work just as well.
They aren't rich and dumb, they are rich and have very small penises.
Well, what good is a maze without a bunch of death traps???
True, true.
"The Cube", if you recall, also had death traps. I have a suspiscion that there may be a link there.
I would think it would be possible to build a plastic maze with slowly shifting walls. Built into the maze would be sensors that shift the walls of the maze when there are no mice in that area. Then you drop all your mice in different areas and there you go, endless halways to run through. The mice don't ever even have to cross paths, so it's just like a cage, but it is never the same twice so there is always something to do. Sometimes mice would be herded into a "play room", sometimes to a "food room", etc. No more crazymice. It would also be neat to watch in action.
Its not uncommon for mice to wheel-- its akin to a kid riding a block.
Man, that takes me back... Me and my block, just sitting there, riding around, you know. It was 100% concrete with two large holes in the side, you know, just your typical old cinder block, but boy could it move. Ahhh, good times.
The mice have gone crazy? Oh rats!
If the mice have gone nuts, what happens to the squirrels? They become cheesy?
hear that if you set up a treadwheel in the woods, normal mice, voles etc will use it!
But if a vole runs on a treadwheel in the woods, and no one is around to see it, is he really crazy?
meltoast writes "We send employees through a cubicle farm to see their reactions and then take that information and apply it to our knowledge of the human psyche. Well, what if those employees are completely out of their minds? Discover recently ran an article showing that employees kept in a cubicle environment may be crazy. 'In one sequence, an employee climbs the cloth-covered walls of his cubicle, hangs from the false ceiling by his hands while gnawing on the frame, then drops to the floor, only to repeat the process endlessly. On the other side of the room, a second employee makes copies, one per second, for up to 30 minutes at a time.'"
Actually, this behavior is often a sign of perfectly sane employees with one absoluly stark raving manager.
Three points of note:
A) These activities consume up to half of the creatures' waking hours, every single day.
B) The affected animals also exhibit other deficiencies and obsessive behaviors.
C) The entire lifestyle of these creatures is wildly altered by the addition of something as simple as a cardboard tube to their cages.
So, what you are saying is the mice are playing Quake? I read nothing about that, I need to go back and reread.
Nobody is entitled to do stuff that is not legal.
Indeed, so, using this argument, slaves who escaped to freedom back in the 1800's were not entitled to do so, eh?
I mean, I just don't understand this mentality. Why do you feel like you're entitled to redistribute the copyrighted works of others? Why? When did this become a right?
It became a right sometime around the Sonny Bono copyright extension act... I'm all for copyright, but not copyright that lasts longer than the average human lifetime. That's theft... Not theft from the artists, theft from the public. The artists are granted a very limited right by the people to make a profit off of thier work for a short time. Once that time is over, the work becomes ours. The *people* are the ones being so kind as to give this little right to the artists. In a state of nature, everything an artist creates is automatically owned by everyone close enough to make a recording. When the "artists" (meaning the copyrightholders who are usually not, in fact, the "artists") disrespect the limits of the rights we grant them and lobby corrupt politicans (I'm looking at you dead boy, that tree was too kind to you) to change the laws then I cease to have ANY moral obligation ot respect thier rights.
In britain, recently, some foreign geezers covered themselves in petrol over and lit the human torch. In front of some foreign embassy. It appeared on the BBC, and national radio stations.
Do you even know who they were? Or what the cause was? Did anything change?
Well, it's very important to do it right. The first mistake they made was being old geezers, and not hot teen girls. Hot teen girls setting themselves on fire would have been on every newspaper front page in the country for a week. Second, they have to make sure that people are watching, and they they understand the back story. Even hot teen girls who are only identified after they are burt to a crisp won't make a splash, but if they have a week's worth of video tape documenting thier lives before the flames, those could be played over and over again. Finally, the old guys stopped. The othe rkey is to not stop. One geezer burning himsself at the front of teh building every day for a month would nto be somethign that can be easily ignored... One hot girl shooting hersefl every day for a month would be intollerable. Make them pregnant and then, well, that wouldn't last a week...
More likely we'd care for a week, and then it would misteriously not be televised anymore.
Well, that's why, for it to work, it needs to be absurdly pathetic. The people dying can't be strong jawed idealists with a flying banner behind them and an Eagle over head... They needs to be pathetic, crying, absolutly terrified children, young adults and pregnant women. They need to look exactly like your children and young adults. When you watch them from middle America, you have to see your own sons and daughters standing there. You have to see the anguish in the faces of thier parents; you are thier parents. Tears streaming down thier faces, the full and complete knowledge of the absolute terror and horror they feel clearly visible in thier eyes. The kids can't "want" to die, they can't be pleased with themselves. They have to shaking and trembling, coughing and sputtering, and they have to make absolutly terrifying corpses.