You can't follow his logic? I think it runs like this: An nineteenth century biologist drew inaccurate, and perhaps even fraudulent, images of the embryos of various speciesthereforeYHVY created the world in 6 days. Or did I miss a step there somewhere?
No, he's not proposing a tax on things people specifically want to retain copyright to. You're conflating the current system (automatic) with the proposed system
Yes, but since the whole world is now bound up by international IP agreements, such as the TRIPS annex to the WTO, no country is free to come to its own arrangements (unless it want to opt out of world trade). The proposed system is in fact an impossibility, it is in fact akin to the model that the US as abandoned in order to be able to enforce US IP rights internationally. So realistically, the original question (ie if IP is property why no property tax) raises precisely they question to posert has put. What he did wrong was attaching to this particular fantas^H^H^H^H^H^Hthread.
Yes, the eventual failure of AGW (ahem, climate change) theory would have negative impact on the public opinion onto the rest of science.
Yes it would, but the benefits of reality disproving the theory would far outweigh any damagage to Science, and Science is actually allowed to correct its theories to fit with reality. Unfortunately on this particular issue, so much work has been done and the findings are now so conclusive, that this happy outcome seems impossibly unlikely... still I persist in buying the occasional lottery ticket (though this doesn't stop me planning for my future based on the presumption probabilty dictates).
as if, somehow, a 'duly enacted law' is not arbitrary
as if, somehow, black is not white?
arbitrary, a. and n.
1. To be decided by one's liking; dependent upon will or pleasure; at the discretion or option of any one. Obs. in general use. ...
4. Unrestrained in the exercise of will; of uncontrolled power or authority, absolute; hence, despotic, tyrannical.
OED
Duly enacted law is not arbitrary by definition, it is instead... wait for it... duly enacted.
Not to confuse you with abstract concepts, let me give you a concrete example. Take a legislative body of enumerated powers such as the US Congress, which derives its law making power from the Constitution. If the duly enacted laws this body passed were arbitrary, there could hardly exist, in constitutional law, such a concept as ultra vires, now could there? Judging by your comment, you are apparently unaware that such legislative bodies are composed of more than a single member and moreover, that these members are elected by the general population. Thus the laws they pass cannot either be said to express the arbitrary will of some individual, can they?
Armed with this new knowledge I trust that now you will "somehow" be able to distinguish duly enacted law from the indivdual aesthetic predilections of some nameless bureaucrat who just happens to have her finger on the button.
You may also care to further your education by reading up on Magna Carta
Strictly speaking, even if the site does contain child porn, it's still on the list because of someone's dislike for that content. Whether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society to block it or not, are different questions entirely.
A world of difference exists between the scenarios where something is banned on the basis of someone's arbitrary dislike of content and whether it is banned on the basis of duly enacted laws governing non-acceptable content. In a society governed by the rule of law the question of "[w]hether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society" is not one properly left to nameless government bureaucrats. "Strictly speaking", the relevant question is whether the compilers of the list are giving proper expression to the legislative framework under which they labour.
The proposed requirement for getting cut off from the net is suspicion... not guilt.
We don't know that! The turn of phrase a particular journalist uses in covering a story has no legislative force in the UK. All that is being discussed here is a "draft consultation," there is no bill, nothing to indicate how the law would actually work and Parliament might not be ready to cut the golden thread quite yet.
Citing an IQ figure as proof of genius only demonstrates idiocy of the highest order.
But let's put this citation in context. He was accused of being an "idiot" by a poster who has never met him and who has scarcely had the opportunity realistically to assess his intelligence, merely because he holds an opinion with which said poster disagreed. That sufficiently justifies what, in other circumstances, could only be considered braggardly impertinence
Or, put another way, why did he put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden? Especially if he knew (being omniscient) that we would eat the fruit.
But at that time God wasn't omniscient yet (he only became so at the hands of medieval church fathers acting under the influence of Neoplatonism). Actually read the second creation myth! (ie. from Gen 2:4-3:24) He walks into the Garden and plays hide-and-seek with A&E. "Oh Adam, come out come out wherever you are!" Adam comes out and it's "Dude watcha wearing that leaf for?" "Ah God, I'm naked." "Huh? I created you pig-ignorant, who told you you're naked." Then 'bing' on goes the light bulb and God realises, "You've been eating from that tree haven't you?" Always the quick thinker, God then works out (though he tells us a bit later in Gen 3:22) that if Adam now eats off the Tree of Life, he'll be just like one of us gods! So he gets his bouncers to guard the Tree of Life and pronounces a few nasty curses on A&E (and by inheritance you and me) and kicks them out for the Garden.
Not exactly a portrait of a deity possesing the three O's is it? On the other hand, bearing in mind that at this stage the Jews did not believe in an afterlife, it is a profound (in a mythopoetic, rather than scientific sense) commentary on the nature of the human condition.
As an aside, and oddly enough on topic, the first creation myth (Gen 1:1 - 2:3) (actually the newer of the two) and is amazingly easy to reconcile with observed evolution and perhaps even with the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately many believers then to fuse and confuse the two myths (but compare the order in which man, woman, plants and animals are created in each myth), which even in translation are strikingly different, robbing themselves of the opportunity of reconciling their faith with observed reality.
Let me get this straight. In order to save the climate, we're going to switch from CO2 producing internal combustion engines to something that directly sucks the energy right out of the sky.
Glad to know I'm not alone on that one. At first glance we would expect the opposite of fossil fuel consumption (ie. to remove energy from climatic systems), so while it might be useful in the short run (and doubtlessly it is useful as a small component to the energy mix we'll need to survive without fossil fuels), the eventual effect might not be without climatic consequences itself (ie. if it forms a major component of said energy mix). Of course the climate being what it is, nothing that appears reasonable at first glance is guaranteed to be correct. In any case, this seems an intervention which should be carefully modelled before we scale it up to far. I would be very happy to be shown that I am merely being paranoid here.
Re:Might be a dumb question, but...
on
PDF Is Now ISO 32000
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Can someone please explain to me what this means?
What this means is that you now have to correct your website and where it says "Download document as PDF" change it to "Download document in ISO3200 standard," or risk the ISO sending the monkeys out from castle to get you!
If it's corporations doing it in a capitalist market where the consumer decides what they want as opposed to the government doing it and not letting the consumer decide anything except to obey or die, then the worst that could happen is on the other end of the spectrum from 1984.
Orwell was a socialist. Communist and socialist are not the same thing.
Orwell fought for the Trotskyist POUM in the Spanish Civil War, he was a socialist of the communist variety. Being agaist a powerful state and being a communist are far more easily reconciled than being in favour of a strong state and being a communist. Remember, according to Marxist theory, communism was only achieved after the state had "melted away."
In any case OPs point stands, Orwells point was not that Stalinism alone is an evil, his critique was aimed both at the Eastern Bloc and the Western "Democracies" which in his view were sham democracies. The book is so titled because it reflects, in a hyperbolic fashion, how Orwell say the political state of the world in 1948.
In the US, the purpose of antitrust laws is, at least theoretically, for the sole benefit of the consumer.
Nonesense! As someone who has actually read excerpts from the congressional debate apropos the Sherman Act (the orginal anti-trust law) along with its provisions, allow me to disabuse you:
The purpose of US antitrust law, both theoretically and in the actual wording used is to protect "trade and commerce" from monopolists and cartells. The Clayton Act specifically grants standing to someone "injured in their business". I doubt that a consumer qua consumer, even today has any means of accessing anti-trust law.
As is clear from the speeches in Congress, the purpose of the drafters of the American law was to protect a particular (utopian?) vision of democracy, namely one comprised overwhelmingly of small business men and contractors, independent and in competition with one; and to avoid a society of large corporations with a population comprised mainly of employees.
I can't speak for European competion law, but I would imagine, that much like ours in Australia, it is substantially based on the ideas developed in turn-of-the-century (19->20th) USA.
On the contrary, I have a degree with a double History major. I was one of the top students in my year at perhaps the most prestigious college in Australia (Melb Uni folk would disagree:) ), shared (1/2 way) the final year history essay prize and was also awarded a prize by a scholarly society external to the university. I'd tell you my average mark, but I think I've bragged enough already. At one time I was even toying with the idea of writing a thesis about the connection of Rambo movies and the shift in US foreign policy duing the Reagan adminstration... In your favour it might be said that if you are wrong, at least you are consistenly so.
In any case, I would dispute the relevance of History (which is, after all, about the analysis of texts) to a debate about what-ifs such as this.
Because there's a great big ocean of isolationism among the US populace (and even its government) that takes up the majority of the 20th century.
Which is, of course, why the US refused to participate in both world wars, didn't get involved in the Russian Civil War, never got entagled in Vietnam, took absolutely no interest at any time in the 20th Century (either before, during or after the cold war) in the constitution of governments in central and south America (or elsewhere in the world), did not in the early C21st thrust itself in an unprovked war in the middle east (and that by an ostensibly isolationist administration) &c. &c &c. But perhaps you live in one of Everett's alternative universes, one where an isolationist US existed throughout the C20th? Or maybe the stories a people (or a government) enjoys to telling about itself do not always reflect the reality of that people (or government)? Just a thought.
Sure the involvment in WWII followed an irresitable provocation, as arguably did the invovlement in WWI. But what would could have been considered provocation sufficient to attack the Soviet Union? And remember we are dealing with a nation where even relatively intelligent people can construe their role in the C20th as oceanically isolationist. I've even seen Americans argue that invasion of Iraq was a result of provocation!?
I don't blame you for taking this jaundiced view, after all, this is not any nation we are talking about, it is your nation. But you must understand that the experience of the US adminstration outside your borders is primarily an experience of intervention. Not an invariably unfavourable experience, I hasten to add (as a German (though not exclusively so) I would like to thank your country for liberating mine from the NS regime!), but nonetheless an experience of intervention. You don't get to be the world's most powerful empire without breaking a few eggs. But of course, you are not an empire...
It would have likely settled back to [isolationism] if not for the whole series of events that followed the first Soviet A-Bomb.
Now we really would need to slip into an alternative universe to answer this, but I disagree vigourously! Again I would ask you for a moment to forget that this is your nation we are talking about and attempt to look at the facts with a measure of objectivty. We are dealing instead with Nation X. A nation with a history of international intervention, and specifically armed intervention against the USSR. Nation X, which is the only nation ever to use WMDs in anger. Nation X, where the thinking is so insular that the population (aided no doubt by the administration) can be convinced to construe unrelated events (such as terrorist attacks) as a direct (and threatening) provocation. Now you are expecting me to entertain the notion that Nation X, with no threat of retaliation, would indefinitely restrain itself from using the weapons it has used in the past against a nation it has (without provocation) attacked in the past?! Surely this isn't credible!
The US prides its space program, which was created by Nazi war criminals using stolen Nazi technology (stolen from its allies).
You have a point, but you overplay you hand in calling German rocket scientists "Nazi war criminals." People like Werner von Braun were never convicted of war crimes (and falsely to call them criminals is a long established species of slander). Moreover designing weapons systems for their country involved no greater moral turpitude (arguably less) than that of the scientists (or "war criminals" as you would have it) involved in the Manhattan Project, the British "Dam Busters" &c.. About the greatest accusation that can be leveled against him is that Jewish slave labour was being used at the plant which constructed the weapons he designed, and that he visited said plant, none of which involved any choices von Braun was empowered to make.
Try to maintain objectivity and cut the invective down a bit and you will become more pursuasive. You might also avoid being as blinkered as those who cannot see past the US perspective to recognise that from the Russian perspective (and indeed that of the world in general) Koval is indeed a great hero.
That's the thing - I sincerely doubt that anyone in the US Government would have bothered, even if we were still the only ones with The Bomb.
You said it dude! I mean that Russian guy is just being paranoid isn't he? I for one just can't imagine a nation as benign as the US ever using a weapon as terrible as the A-bomb against enemy cities. I mean think of all the innocent civilians who would have been killed (or had their kimono patterns burnt into their skin)... Americans simply don't tolerate that kind of behavior from their government.
Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market
Sure, that's the Nike woosh has become an icon for the NoBrand movement, even though all the other major sportsgoods manufacturers indulge in the same practices blamed on Nike.
The submitters moral indignation is a bit hard to stomach. How can it be "logical" and "not surprising" while at the same time being "cavalier" and even "hypocritical." What's hypocritical about stating the obvious truth? They are only being frank and declaring the truth that they are a pro-environmental publicity company.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you on about?
You can't follow his logic? I think it runs like this: An nineteenth century biologist drew inaccurate, and perhaps even fraudulent, images of the embryos of various species therefore YHVY created the world in 6 days. Or did I miss a step there somewhere?
Show me the math that ... disproves Creation.
Sorry dude, but if you are making the positive assertion that Creation in fact happened, it is you who have "to show the math."
No, he's not proposing a tax on things people specifically want to retain copyright to. You're conflating the current system (automatic) with the proposed system
Yes, but since the whole world is now bound up by international IP agreements, such as the TRIPS annex to the WTO, no country is free to come to its own arrangements (unless it want to opt out of world trade). The proposed system is in fact an impossibility, it is in fact akin to the model that the US as abandoned in order to be able to enforce US IP rights internationally. So realistically, the original question (ie if IP is property why no property tax) raises precisely they question to posert has put. What he did wrong was attaching to this particular fantas^H^H^H^H^H^Hthread.
Yes, the eventual failure of AGW (ahem, climate change) theory would have negative impact on the public opinion onto the rest of science.
Yes it would, but the benefits of reality disproving the theory would far outweigh any damagage to Science, and Science is actually allowed to correct its theories to fit with reality. Unfortunately on this particular issue, so much work has been done and the findings are now so conclusive, that this happy outcome seems impossibly unlikely ... still I persist in buying the occasional lottery ticket (though this doesn't stop me planning for my future based on the presumption probabilty dictates).
Anarchists are so cute!
Q: Why do Anarchists drink Herbal Tea?
A: Because proper tea is theft.
as if, somehow, a 'duly enacted law' is not arbitrary
as if, somehow, black is not white?
arbitrary, a. and n.1. To be decided by one's liking; dependent upon will or pleasure; at the discretion or option of any one. Obs. in general use.
4. Unrestrained in the exercise of will; of uncontrolled power or authority, absolute; hence, despotic, tyrannical.
OED
Duly enacted law is not arbitrary by definition, it is instead ... wait for it ... duly enacted.
Not to confuse you with abstract concepts, let me give you a concrete example. Take a legislative body of enumerated powers such as the US Congress, which derives its law making power from the Constitution. If the duly enacted laws this body passed were arbitrary, there could hardly exist, in constitutional law, such a concept as ultra vires , now could there? Judging by your comment, you are apparently unaware that such legislative bodies are composed of more than a single member and moreover, that these members are elected by the general population. Thus the laws they pass cannot either be said to express the arbitrary will of some individual, can they?
Armed with this new knowledge I trust that now you will "somehow" be able to distinguish duly enacted law from the indivdual aesthetic predilections of some nameless bureaucrat who just happens to have her finger on the button.
You may also care to further your education by reading up on Magna Carta
Strictly speaking, even if the site does contain child porn, it's still on the list because of someone's dislike for that content. Whether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society to block it or not, are different questions entirely.
A world of difference exists between the scenarios where something is banned on the basis of someone's arbitrary dislike of content and whether it is banned on the basis of duly enacted laws governing non-acceptable content. In a society governed by the rule of law the question of "[w]hether that dislike is well founded or not, and whether it serves a greater good to society" is not one properly left to nameless government bureaucrats. "Strictly speaking", the relevant question is whether the compilers of the list are giving proper expression to the legislative framework under which they labour.
The proposed requirement for getting cut off from the net is suspicion... not guilt.
We don't know that! The turn of phrase a particular journalist uses in covering a story has no legislative force in the UK. All that is being discussed here is a "draft consultation," there is no bill, nothing to indicate how the law would actually work and Parliament might not be ready to cut the golden thread quite yet.
really, the days of secret ceremonies are coming to and end.
Evidently not! Seems like some cultures just don't want to be assimilated.
Citing an IQ figure as proof of genius only demonstrates idiocy of the highest order.
But let's put this citation in context. He was accused of being an "idiot" by a poster who has never met him and who has scarcely had the opportunity realistically to assess his intelligence, merely because he holds an opinion with which said poster disagreed. That sufficiently justifies what, in other circumstances, could only be considered braggardly impertinence
Are they planning to routinely overwrite your data?
My first reaction as well. Yes, the name does seem oddly inapposite. I guess not that many scientitsts are also classical/medieval scholars.
Or, put another way, why did he put the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden? Especially if he knew (being omniscient) that we would eat the fruit.
But at that time God wasn't omniscient yet (he only became so at the hands of medieval church fathers acting under the influence of Neoplatonism). Actually read the second creation myth! (ie. from Gen 2:4-3:24) He walks into the Garden and plays hide-and-seek with A&E. "Oh Adam, come out come out wherever you are!" Adam comes out and it's "Dude watcha wearing that leaf for?" "Ah God, I'm naked." "Huh? I created you pig-ignorant, who told you you're naked." Then 'bing' on goes the light bulb and God realises, "You've been eating from that tree haven't you?" Always the quick thinker, God then works out (though he tells us a bit later in Gen 3:22) that if Adam now eats off the Tree of Life, he'll be just like one of us gods! So he gets his bouncers to guard the Tree of Life and pronounces a few nasty curses on A&E (and by inheritance you and me) and kicks them out for the Garden.
Not exactly a portrait of a deity possesing the three O's is it? On the other hand, bearing in mind that at this stage the Jews did not believe in an afterlife, it is a profound (in a mythopoetic, rather than scientific sense) commentary on the nature of the human condition.
As an aside, and oddly enough on topic, the first creation myth (Gen 1:1 - 2:3) (actually the newer of the two) and is amazingly easy to reconcile with observed evolution and perhaps even with the Theory of Evolution. Unfortunately many believers then to fuse and confuse the two myths (but compare the order in which man, woman, plants and animals are created in each myth), which even in translation are strikingly different, robbing themselves of the opportunity of reconciling their faith with observed reality.
Let me get this straight. In order to save the climate, we're going to switch from CO2 producing internal combustion engines to something that directly sucks the energy right out of the sky.
Glad to know I'm not alone on that one. At first glance we would expect the opposite of fossil fuel consumption (ie. to remove energy from climatic systems), so while it might be useful in the short run (and doubtlessly it is useful as a small component to the energy mix we'll need to survive without fossil fuels), the eventual effect might not be without climatic consequences itself (ie. if it forms a major component of said energy mix). Of course the climate being what it is, nothing that appears reasonable at first glance is guaranteed to be correct. In any case, this seems an intervention which should be carefully modelled before we scale it up to far. I would be very happy to be shown that I am merely being paranoid here.
32000 even
Can someone please explain to me what this means?
What this means is that you now have to correct your website and where it says "Download document as PDF" change it to "Download document in ISO3200 standard," or risk the ISO sending the monkeys out from castle to get you!
If it's corporations doing it in a capitalist market where the consumer decides what they want as opposed to the government doing it and not letting the consumer decide anything except to obey or die, then the worst that could happen is on the other end of the spectrum from 1984.
Please see my sig.
Orwell was a socialist. Communist and socialist are not the same thing.
Orwell fought for the Trotskyist POUM in the Spanish Civil War, he was a socialist of the communist variety. Being agaist a powerful state and being a communist are far more easily reconciled than being in favour of a strong state and being a communist. Remember, according to Marxist theory, communism was only achieved after the state had "melted away."
In any case OPs point stands, Orwells point was not that Stalinism alone is an evil, his critique was aimed both at the Eastern Bloc and the Western "Democracies" which in his view were sham democracies. The book is so titled because it reflects, in a hyperbolic fashion, how Orwell say the political state of the world in 1948.
In the US, the purpose of antitrust laws is, at least theoretically, for the sole benefit of the consumer.
Nonesense! As someone who has actually read excerpts from the congressional debate apropos the Sherman Act (the orginal anti-trust law) along with its provisions, allow me to disabuse you:
The purpose of US antitrust law, both theoretically and in the actual wording used is to protect "trade and commerce" from monopolists and cartells. The Clayton Act specifically grants standing to someone "injured in their business". I doubt that a consumer qua consumer, even today has any means of accessing anti-trust law.
As is clear from the speeches in Congress, the purpose of the drafters of the American law was to protect a particular (utopian?) vision of democracy, namely one comprised overwhelmingly of small business men and contractors, independent and in competition with one; and to avoid a society of large corporations with a population comprised mainly of employees.
I can't speak for European competion law, but I would imagine, that much like ours in Australia, it is substantially based on the ideas developed in turn-of-the-century (19->20th) USA.
You've never studied history, have you?
On the contrary, I have a degree with a double History major. I was one of the top students in my year at perhaps the most prestigious college in Australia (Melb Uni folk would disagree :) ), shared (1/2 way) the final year history essay prize and was also awarded a prize by a scholarly society external to the university. I'd tell you my average mark, but I think I've bragged enough already. At one time I was even toying with the idea of writing a thesis about the connection of Rambo movies and the shift in US foreign policy duing the Reagan adminstration ... In your favour it might be said that if you are wrong, at least you are consistenly so.
In any case, I would dispute the relevance of History (which is, after all, about the analysis of texts) to a debate about what-ifs such as this.
Because there's a great big ocean of isolationism among the US populace (and even its government) that takes up the majority of the 20th century.
Which is, of course, why the US refused to participate in both world wars, didn't get involved in the Russian Civil War, never got entagled in Vietnam, took absolutely no interest at any time in the 20th Century (either before, during or after the cold war) in the constitution of governments in central and south America (or elsewhere in the world), did not in the early C21st thrust itself in an unprovked war in the middle east (and that by an ostensibly isolationist administration) &c. &c &c. But perhaps you live in one of Everett's alternative universes, one where an isolationist US existed throughout the C20th? Or maybe the stories a people (or a government) enjoys to telling about itself do not always reflect the reality of that people (or government)? Just a thought.
Sure the involvment in WWII followed an irresitable provocation, as arguably did the invovlement in WWI. But what would could have been considered provocation sufficient to attack the Soviet Union? And remember we are dealing with a nation where even relatively intelligent people can construe their role in the C20th as oceanically isolationist. I've even seen Americans argue that invasion of Iraq was a result of provocation!?
I don't blame you for taking this jaundiced view, after all, this is not any nation we are talking about, it is your nation. But you must understand that the experience of the US adminstration outside your borders is primarily an experience of intervention. Not an invariably unfavourable experience, I hasten to add (as a German (though not exclusively so) I would like to thank your country for liberating mine from the NS regime!), but nonetheless an experience of intervention. You don't get to be the world's most powerful empire without breaking a few eggs. But of course, you are not an empire ...
It would have likely settled back to [isolationism] if not for the whole series of events that followed the first Soviet A-Bomb.
Now we really would need to slip into an alternative universe to answer this, but I disagree vigourously! Again I would ask you for a moment to forget that this is your nation we are talking about and attempt to look at the facts with a measure of objectivty. We are dealing instead with Nation X. A nation with a history of international intervention, and specifically armed intervention against the USSR. Nation X, which is the only nation ever to use WMDs in anger. Nation X, where the thinking is so insular that the population (aided no doubt by the administration) can be convinced to construe unrelated events (such as terrorist attacks) as a direct (and threatening) provocation. Now you are expecting me to entertain the notion that Nation X, with no threat of retaliation, would indefinitely restrain itself from using the weapons it has used in the past against a nation it has (without provocation) attacked in the past?! Surely this isn't credible!
Lo
The US prides its space program, which was created by Nazi war criminals using stolen Nazi technology (stolen from its allies).
You have a point, but you overplay you hand in calling German rocket scientists "Nazi war criminals." People like Werner von Braun were never convicted of war crimes (and falsely to call them criminals is a long established species of slander). Moreover designing weapons systems for their country involved no greater moral turpitude (arguably less) than that of the scientists (or "war criminals" as you would have it) involved in the Manhattan Project, the British "Dam Busters" &c.. About the greatest accusation that can be leveled against him is that Jewish slave labour was being used at the plant which constructed the weapons he designed, and that he visited said plant, none of which involved any choices von Braun was empowered to make.
Try to maintain objectivity and cut the invective down a bit and you will become more pursuasive. You might also avoid being as blinkered as those who cannot see past the US perspective to recognise that from the Russian perspective (and indeed that of the world in general) Koval is indeed a great hero.
That's the thing - I sincerely doubt that anyone in the US Government would have bothered, even if we were still the only ones with The Bomb.
You said it dude! I mean that Russian guy is just being paranoid isn't he? I for one just can't imagine a nation as benign as the US ever using a weapon as terrible as the A-bomb against enemy cities. I mean think of all the innocent civilians who would have been killed (or had their kimono patterns burnt into their skin) ... Americans simply don't tolerate that kind of behavior from their government.
I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand that violent fantasies -- not actions, but fantasies -- are therapeutic and cathartic.
Guess what, people are not all the same. Violent fantasies can be therapeutic and cathartic for some people. Others (obviously) seek to reify them.
But I like the fiery feeling in my cuts ...
Yes, but I hate the feeling of being in unanaesthetized burns, you insensitive clod!
And a largely irrelevant publicity seeker who should be ignored by everybody
And a largely irrlevant publicity seeker will be ignored, but we're talking about Greenpeace Inc. here.
Well, that's the double-edged sword of having the "hot" product in any market
Sure, that's the Nike woosh has become an icon for the NoBrand movement, even though all the other major sportsgoods manufacturers indulge in the same practices blamed on Nike.
The submitters moral indignation is a bit hard to stomach. How can it be "logical" and "not surprising" while at the same time being "cavalier" and even "hypocritical." What's hypocritical about stating the obvious truth? They are only being frank and declaring the truth that they are a pro-environmental publicity company.