I assure you I'm not misunderstanding the concept of free speech.... What I'm saying is that in today's society, people with money have more access than do poor people to nationwide mediums which provide access to the freedom of speech.
You're misunderstanding the concept of money then. People with money have more access to things that cost money. That's not insightful when I say it to most people.
If your point is that some things that cost money shouldn't cost money, then that's simpler. Just get all the people who work to provide a service to volunteer all their time. Then it won't cost money.
Oh, and "mediums" don't provide access to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech comes with your mouth and your writing hand. You have no right to an audience (because that would infringe on the rights of the people in the audience) or a communications medium (because that would infringe on the rights of the people who provide the communications medium).
Go attract a willing audience for your speech and someone will gladly provide you a free communications medium for the opportunity to advertise to your audience. That's how it works in a free society. Everyone's free, not just you.
- Make you own gun. - Blow stuff up. - Make your own beer. - Anything involving eavesdropping and/or a hidden camera. - Anything that crashes. - Animals that do tricks. - Anything that'll get you a lot of cash quickly with no work. - Make ice cream out of lab chemicals - Construct a death ray - Etc.
Oversimplifying a complex issue doesn't help advance the debate. It's just mud in the water.
True. It's hard to avoid though.
On the other hand, the decision for government to act can be quite simple. Either they do, or they don't and maybe reconsider when more information (or different information) is available.
Waiting seems like a good risk, given the lack of good alternatives. If there were a painless solution, that might not be the case. As it is, no existing plan can be called either painless or a solution.
Even calling a plan a "solution" implies that a warmer climate is worse overall than a colder one. It might be a net benefit.
that nonsense about how the people of Bhopal should just get over it.
No one said they should. They might want to try to make the best of things though. Because what's the alternative? Not trying to make the best of things? What if one of them could "get over it" and make a good life for himself? Would you tell him not to?
I didn't bring it up either. Someone else brought it up for some reason. I just think trying to make the best of things is better than living in the past because something bad happened to you in the past.
I do care about people. I want them to be better off. I don't want them to stay mired in their victimhood until the court judgement arrives and the lawyers get paid.
It's been 20 years. Do you think it's too soon to move on?
Maybe they should push their problem onto their decendants so they can still feel bad about it in 150 years (like slavery) or 500 years (Columbus Day)?
It is easy to decry the apparent greed of lawyers, but at the end of the day, sometimes the only thing that you can use is the courts.
And sometimes you can't get what you want at all and you just have to be a grown-up about it and move on.
A lot of times justice isn't served, but often enough that there is hope.
Lawyers and courts create injustice for everyone while pretending to be interested in justice for a few. Justice is no more than a marketing slogan for them.
Just because someone wins a lottery once in a while doesn't make the tickets a good investment strategy.
So without huge payments to lawyers, some people would be better off and some people would be worse off. Since lawyers consume so much and produce nothing at all, it's not hard to argue that the people who do produce things would be better off, on average, without lawyers.
Why is EA in the news? For the same reason Vioxx is in the news. Some lawyers are trying to get the word out in order to find members of a class action. They're also trying to gin-up hatred for the company and sympathy for the "victims" in order to cash in on a big judgement against the company.
It's a big part of the news business. Lawyers pre-package stories for lazy reporters. Reporters get credit for "reporting" a story without doing any work. The public is manipulated. Lawyers cash in.
are you guys so addicted to your gas guzzlers and inefficient houses that you refuse to even discuss your behaviour's more or less possible/probable consequences?
Let me rewrite that:
are you guys so addicted to yourfreedomthat you refuse to even discuss your behaviour's more or less possible/probable consequences?
Get a group of people who agree with you. Pool your meager cash and buy something.
But what if your opinion is in a tiny minority with no resources so you can't even collectively raise the funds to buy anything? Then how much political influence did you have when the public owned the airwaves? Not much.
Slashdot Mirror
I assure you I'm not misunderstanding the concept of free speech. ... What I'm saying is that in today's society, people with money have more access than do poor people to nationwide mediums which provide access to the freedom of speech.
You're misunderstanding the concept of money then. People with money have more access to things that cost money. That's not insightful when I say it to most people.
If your point is that some things that cost money shouldn't cost money, then that's simpler. Just get all the people who work to provide a service to volunteer all their time. Then it won't cost money.
Oh, and "mediums" don't provide access to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech comes with your mouth and your writing hand. You have no right to an audience (because that would infringe on the rights of the people in the audience) or a communications medium (because that would infringe on the rights of the people who provide the communications medium).
Go attract a willing audience for your speech and someone will gladly provide you a free communications medium for the opportunity to advertise to your audience. That's how it works in a free society. Everyone's free, not just you.
EQ2 is a success. WoW is a success too. WoW has more subscribers than EQ2, but EQ2 is doing well.
This is a problem you can solve yourself. Install things so you can manage them. Use modules (http://modules.sourceforge.net/) for the env vars.
You're going to need a lot of fancy gadgets. They should be at least 1-2 years ahead of the gadgets you can get in the US.
Set this up as the home page.
There are no tax implications. The FASB is not the IRS. The IRS would have to make a seperate rule.
- Make you own gun.
- Blow stuff up.
- Make your own beer.
- Anything involving eavesdropping and/or a hidden camera.
- Anything that crashes.
- Animals that do tricks.
- Anything that'll get you a lot of cash quickly with no work.
- Make ice cream out of lab chemicals
- Construct a death ray
- Etc.
The people who want the laws enacted are worse than the jerks. Jerks are just annoying.
People who enact laws are forcing you to act the way they want or they'll put you in prison. In other words, they're a dangerous threat to you.
Oversimplifying a complex issue doesn't help advance the debate. It's just mud in the water.
True. It's hard to avoid though.
On the other hand, the decision for government to act can be quite simple. Either they do, or they don't and maybe reconsider when more information (or different information) is available.
Waiting seems like a good risk, given the lack of good alternatives. If there were a painless solution, that might not be the case. As it is, no existing plan can be called either painless or a solution.
Even calling a plan a "solution" implies that a warmer climate is worse overall than a colder one. It might be a net benefit.
Why not answer the question? Show why peer reviewed journals are a valid source.
You've chosen to attack the basis for the belief that they might not be a valid source. It's not an answer, it's a diversion.
You've also concluded that article reviewers have no personal stake. What's the basis for that conclusion? Lack of imagination?
If people wanted "safe" conclusions to ensure their funding, they would be saying that global warming is no big deal.
Because the government is much more likely to fund research into something that's "no big deal" than something that's a crisis.
Years from now there'll be no doubt. That's exactly the time when it'll be responsible to change government policy to address the problem.
You don't amputate your foot because you think you might have hurt it.
I want her to feel embarrassed about her performance and not proud
Don't say that out loud. The government will put your children in a foster home.
And after the foster parents start mistreating them, they'll no longer be worried about their school performance. Success will be proclaimed.
Somehow, I don't think spening money on athletics causes low math scores.
that nonsense about how the people of Bhopal should just get over it.
No one said they should. They might want to try to make the best of things though. Because what's the alternative? Not trying to make the best of things? What if one of them could "get over it" and make a good life for himself? Would you tell him not to?
I didn't bring it up either. Someone else brought it up for some reason. I just think trying to make the best of things is better than living in the past because something bad happened to you in the past.
I do care about people. I want them to be better off. I don't want them to stay mired in their victimhood until the court judgement arrives and the lawyers get paid.
Are you saying that lawyers can bring back the dead now?
I know lawyers can get rich pretending to care about people. Are you practicing to become a lawyer?
It's been 20 years. Do you think it's too soon to move on?
Maybe they should push their problem onto their decendants so they can still feel bad about it in 150 years (like slavery) or 500 years (Columbus Day)?
It is easy to decry the apparent greed of lawyers, but at the end of the day, sometimes the only thing that you can use is the courts.
And sometimes you can't get what you want at all and you just have to be a grown-up about it and move on.
A lot of times justice isn't served, but often enough that there is hope.
Lawyers and courts create injustice for everyone while pretending to be interested in justice for a few. Justice is no more than a marketing slogan for them.
Just because someone wins a lottery once in a while doesn't make the tickets a good investment strategy.
So without huge payments to lawyers, some people would be better off and some people would be worse off. Since lawyers consume so much and produce nothing at all, it's not hard to argue that the people who do produce things would be better off, on average, without lawyers.
I agree. Unfortunately, when lawyers are involved, usually lawyers get huge sums of money and things don't get corrected.
Because EA is in the news.
Why is EA in the news? For the same reason Vioxx is in the news. Some lawyers are trying to get the word out in order to find members of a class action. They're also trying to gin-up hatred for the company and sympathy for the "victims" in order to cash in on a big judgement against the company.
It's a big part of the news business. Lawyers pre-package stories for lazy reporters. Reporters get credit for "reporting" a story without doing any work. The public is manipulated. Lawyers cash in.
Sorry that science scares you
There is no "science" that predicts people will "devastate the Earth's climate". Some science predicts small to medium climate changes, nothing more.
So you're lying about science in order to scare people. You want to scare them to control them and make them subservient to you.
If you think that your "freedom" gives you the ethical right to devastate the Earth's climate, then you are a blight on society.
If you think your silly scaremongering gives you the ethical right to limit people's freedom, then you're a tyrant who'd put an end to our society.
That's the other reason not to discuss it. What's the point?
What good is peer review when scientists are persecuted when they disagree with the scientific orthodoxy on the environment?
You might as well write a story saying all Republicans are stupid, ask 5 Democrats if they agree, and call it peer-reviewed when they say yes.
are you guys so addicted to your gas guzzlers and inefficient houses that you refuse to even discuss your behaviour's more or less possible/probable consequences?
Let me rewrite that:
are you guys so addicted to your freedom that you refuse to even discuss your behaviour's more or less possible/probable consequences?
Answer: Yes.
Did anyone else read that headline as "Massive Multiplayer Gaming Whorehouses On The Way"?
$5/hour just seemed wrong for that.
Get a group of people who agree with you. Pool your meager cash and buy something.
But what if your opinion is in a tiny minority with no resources so you can't even collectively raise the funds to buy anything? Then how much political influence did you have when the public owned the airwaves? Not much.