What's human? Why do humans get to have all the fun? Why are non-human clumps of cells not protected, even when there are few of them and far too many humans? Is a fertilised egg human? Hell, it might be three humans! If the measure of humanity is genetic, then presumably those with genetic defects are less human. Well, are they? What if some of us mutate into telepaths---are superhumans not human?
What happens if you measure human-ness by higher brain function? Or, better, by traits considered uniquely human, like appreciation for fine art, or compassion, or the desire to torture and kill for sport?
Back to the unspoken fear of the OP: Human evolution is running backwards. People must stop having so many children. But at the same time, in order for the average intelligence of humanity to increase, smart humans should have more children than stupid humans. I claim without proof that smart people are good for us. If the stupid don't kill themselves off (I very much like a society that takes care of its weak), and if there is no reproductive advantage to being smart, but there is still a societal gain from having smart people, then we really ought to be choosing embryos for intelligence. In other words: we have a chance, once again, to evolve. Why throw it away?
You are attempting to limit the amount of data a searcher receives [...] How is he attempting to limit the amount of data a searcher receives? How do I have any positive information about McCain (if there is any) purged from Google? This is just an attempt to make sure that something relevant becomes known. Is it dishonest to give a speech, if you don't tell the whole truth? In science, yes, but politics is carried out with much less integrity than science---you are "allowed" to only discuss what you want.
I believe the problem is when you stand up and scream you are an atheist and want everyone else to change what they are doing to do it your way, is when there are problems. Religious people are often very happy, and I'm sure their religion contributes to that. I wouldn't really want to take it away from them... until their religion makes them do something that affects anyone else. At that moment they go from having a harmless fantasy to having a potentially dangerous set of motives (that is, they affect my life based on their fantasy; by definition articles of faith are not subject to rational analysis and testing). Then they'd better change what they are doing and do it "my way"--the way involving discourse and thought and intellect, rather than faith.
If everyone has 3 kids, we're fucked. I'm guessing there are about 6 times as many people on the earth as it can sustainably support. Maybe more, maybe less, but we need many fewer people if we're to survive the next 100 years as not just as a species but as a planet.
That said, we need more smart, wise, stable people from loving families to counterbalance the opposite. Got any ideas?
On the car-seat front, my parents threw me in a crib in the back of the VW bus (middle seat removed to make room therefor). My balance, coordination, agility on moving platforms (circus rides, cars, boats, trees...) are enormously better than those of most everyone else I know. It could be a coincidence, but I like to remind myself that you cannot have both freedom to grow and safety.
SUVs are far more dangerous than cars in the snow, due primarily to the high center of gravity (and often the farm-work--grade suspension). Braking shifts the weight to the front wheels much more abruptly than on a car, leading to immediate, severe oversteer. Sliding sideways in the snow, you hit a patch of dry pavement, and then you roll. Cars skid much more safely, and it is much easier to regain control in a car.
Furthermore, the AWD systems available in Subaru, VW/Audi, Volvo, etc., have been about 30 years ahead of the 4WD systems in SUVs for a while, and the latter are taking their sweet time about catching up. It figures--they're designed for driving very slowly in mud, not on slippery highways.
There are a few places where road maintenance is so bad that a car can't pass and you need an SUV. However, given that dirt roads in the mountains of Colorado, maintained every decade or so, are trivial in a car, and it's not until you reach the riverbed portion of the road that you can't continue, the need for a SUV is very much in doubt there as well.
As for towing--I regularly tow 2500lbs behind my 20-year-old Audi with no problem. Some people need more capacity, but not many, and not often. For most people, it is best to rent a 400hp diesel flatbed truck or exactly what you need on those rare occasions.
Points 5 and 7 are beautifully exhibited by anyone who drives a large, heavy, poorly-handling vehicle with higher-than-standard bumpers, headlights, emissions, noise...
SUVs and light trucks are between 2 and 6 times as likely to kill the victim of a crash (across cars, bicycles, pedestrians) than cars are (look it up; my numbers are a bit obsolete and probably low given that SUVs have gotten bigger, and that those numbers are from unmodified ones). And the occupant of the SUV is no safer. Sociopathic? Yes.
Is someone who points out those facts sociopathic? Is someone who laughs at the stupid and irresponsible decisions of others sociopathic? Sticks and stones...
You're making the argument that the only laws are the laws of physics (etc). Humans can't make laws, in that they can't make it impossible to do something. Since we can only punish people for what we've deemed immoral, everything is legal. You've defined a perfectly good word so that it doesn't refer to anything.
Except physics. Having law use its own damn words rather than stealing from science would be nice, but it just ain't gonna happen.
I still like the idea of selling organic food, produced however I want, and maybe even squeezing a little gasoline into it before delivery. Yep, it's got hydrocarbons in it, yer hanner. It's organic.
How far off does that throw our climate models? You know, the ones fit to the measurements of rising temperatures worldwide? Is this effect too short-term, or does it mean that our predictions have to be adjusted up by another couple of degrees? Oh dear...
If it can really print itself, the cost of replication goes down to the cost of parts. This is starting to sound a lot like the GPL's provision of distribution for the cost of media. Are we about to see GPLed hardware?
Some movies must be enjoyed on the big screen to get the full effect. I'm a big fan of highly visual movies too, but a few years later the movies I remember are ones such that I can't recall whether I watched them on the big screen or not. Special effects are great, but cool ideas come across just fine on a smaller screen.
And how many movies demand a glass of wine? No, they're not all porn:)
Besides, paying those bastards to let me watch 30 minutes of ads isn't high on my list.
Also also, if big screens are worth $10 to you every few weeks, I should think that a one-time $200 for a cell phone jammer would be a good investment.
We weren't discussing what I want. We were discussing what is philosophically acceptable. Yes, I want to live with a group of people (a country, if you will) with laws. But if there is no country whose laws are just, then I should be able to reject all of them and start a new one. It's the idea of capitalism, of the free market, taken into politics. Who has the right to say that I must live according to my choice of one of 245 (or whatever) sets of bad rules? As you can see from the USA, changing one country for the better is a lot of work.
As it is, I have to choose between a bunch of ethically bankrupt countries. I cannot start my own simply because there isn't room. I would have to kill people in order to make room, which is just silly.
Of course, globalisation and technology have made the boundaries between countries mostly meaningless from the legal standpoint: for just one obvious example, the USA (among others, but just to illustrate an idea...) is knowingly pumping out a staggering amount of greenhouse gas, which (among things) causes flooding of the coastal land of other people all over the world. So the USA's internal laws are directly responsible for an act of global war. Thanks to the USA's greenhouse-gas weapon, we will have many more people on much less land, and some countries will simply be destroyed. Seeing how the landless countries cope with the attack is going to be very interesting.
Which brings me back to living outside the law. As long as we share a common resource (like an atmosphere) we need global law to manage that resource. Desperately. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the current system whereby I must choose one of 245 stupid systems of personal "morals" (law) when I find none of them acceptable.
Ok, what if I don't want to live in a country? What choice do I have? Who has the right to tell me I must live in some country, or choose where they're going to send me when I don't live in it? I pretty much have to live in Antarctica.
That is simply not reasonable. When countries form a cover of all the reasonably habitable land, then people who seek personal freedom have nowhere to go. There is no more freedom. This has led to my own working definition of overpopulation.
FOSS has done an amazing amount of good for the world, but I decided that my money can have a more significant impact on more urgent problems elsewhere. I've donated to Wikimedia, a nice blend between FOSS philosophy and usefulness Right Now for a very wide audience, but they're only useful for those of us with ready access to the 'net.
For advice on many of the major Good Causes, Charity Navigator appears very worthwhile. I've been using it for a few years, and find that while it misses a few, the information it provides is very interesting.
In case you care, my current top pick is Pathfinder International, although the Union of Concerned Scientists is always high up there. If you want more of an Amerigeek angle, there are always the EFF and the ACLU.
I basically agree with your (Martin's?) definition of "cult". However, (1), (2), and (4) are just the definition of "religion" (with the addition of the word "charismatic").(3) is really "objective", there, christ-boy:P
(5) I like. It makes a great deal of sense and rings true, although it happens far too often in mainstream religions as well (although it might still make sense to call them cults when this happens).
Welcome! 4 miles might be the perfect introduction to bike commuting, if you find a route that you enjoy.
I don't know the area (luckily, Flying Scotsman does), but for your general questions, you can't do much better than Ken Kifer's pages on Bike Commuting.
Gear? A Huffy will be nothing but frustrating. A decent bike bought in a good bike shop, properly sized, will be easy to maintain and ride. Fenders are very worthwhile, and a good rack and panniers are to die for: if you have the cash, I highly recommend Ortlieb (try REI), for their tough waterproof fabric and nigh-perfect attachment mechanism. Ken Kifer has far more information on everything else you could conceivably want. I would also chime in that I'm far more comfortable biking in bike clothes (not cotton! I love SmartWool) and changing when I arrive at work. Bike shorts in grocery stores only garner strange looks amongst the proletariat:)
Safety? Be visible, get your friends out on their bikes, raise awareness. Strangely, helmets seem not to do any good, but skills do! Obey traffic laws (while certain exceptions are reasonable, most are not, and creating a bike-friendly environment means pretending to respect cars;) Gently assert your rights, don't yield to a car when you have right of way unless doing so is likely to result in a collision (and then call the police), but don't take right of way when it's not yours to take. Basically, be traffic.
Cars are great! I love cars. I love my Audi quattro wagon. Obviously, there are limits to what a bike can do. Of course, there are limits to what a car can do. Helicopters are also nice. But bikes are really staggeringly beautiful, all things considered. Cars are necessary sometimes, but people, especially in the once-strong USA, use them when bikes would be better.
I once showed up for a carpool for a backcountry ski trip, and there was someone there on a bike. In his trailer were his huge winter pack, skis, ski boots, skins,... no problem.
Oddly, "bikes can't do everything" is not the same as "bikes are useless."
If you push yourself, you will end up tired. Your long-term energy levels will go way up, but right after a hard workout of course you'll be tired.
If you do some light physical activity, you will emerge energised. Bikes are staggeringly efficient: you don't need to work hard to cover impressive distances.
People have been bike-commuting since before you were born. These little nitpicks are solved problems. Although if you live 50 miles from work or your employer is unresponsive to requests for showers or secure bike parking, well, you chose poorly, didn't you?
And given that there's no way in hell that we can all drive our cars everywhere sustainably, you'd better stop and think whether you'll be one pushing for positive change, or whining that someone's trying to convince you to live better.
Slashdot Mirror
What's human? Why do humans get to have all the fun? Why are non-human clumps of cells not protected, even when there are few of them and far too many humans? Is a fertilised egg human? Hell, it might be three humans! If the measure of humanity is genetic, then presumably those with genetic defects are less human. Well, are they? What if some of us mutate into telepaths---are superhumans not human?
What happens if you measure human-ness by higher brain function? Or, better, by traits considered uniquely human, like appreciation for fine art, or compassion, or the desire to torture and kill for sport?
Back to the unspoken fear of the OP: Human evolution is running backwards. People must stop having so many children. But at the same time, in order for the average intelligence of humanity to increase, smart humans should have more children than stupid humans. I claim without proof that smart people are good for us. If the stupid don't kill themselves off (I very much like a society that takes care of its weak), and if there is no reproductive advantage to being smart, but there is still a societal gain from having smart people, then we really ought to be choosing embryos for intelligence. In other words: we have a chance, once again, to evolve. Why throw it away?
If everyone has 3 kids, we're fucked. I'm guessing there are about 6 times as many people on the earth as it can sustainably support. Maybe more, maybe less, but we need many fewer people if we're to survive the next 100 years as not just as a species but as a planet.
That said, we need more smart, wise, stable people from loving families to counterbalance the opposite. Got any ideas?
On the car-seat front, my parents threw me in a crib in the back of the VW bus (middle seat removed to make room therefor). My balance, coordination, agility on moving platforms (circus rides, cars, boats, trees...) are enormously better than those of most everyone else I know. It could be a coincidence, but I like to remind myself that you cannot have both freedom to grow and safety.
SUVs are far more dangerous than cars in the snow, due primarily to the high center of gravity (and often the farm-work--grade suspension). Braking shifts the weight to the front wheels much more abruptly than on a car, leading to immediate, severe oversteer. Sliding sideways in the snow, you hit a patch of dry pavement, and then you roll. Cars skid much more safely, and it is much easier to regain control in a car.
Furthermore, the AWD systems available in Subaru, VW/Audi, Volvo, etc., have been about 30 years ahead of the 4WD systems in SUVs for a while, and the latter are taking their sweet time about catching up. It figures--they're designed for driving very slowly in mud, not on slippery highways.
There are a few places where road maintenance is so bad that a car can't pass and you need an SUV. However, given that dirt roads in the mountains of Colorado, maintained every decade or so, are trivial in a car, and it's not until you reach the riverbed portion of the road that you can't continue, the need for a SUV is very much in doubt there as well.
As for towing--I regularly tow 2500lbs behind my 20-year-old Audi with no problem. Some people need more capacity, but not many, and not often. For most people, it is best to rent a 400hp diesel flatbed truck or exactly what you need on those rare occasions.
Points 5 and 7 are beautifully exhibited by anyone who drives a large, heavy, poorly-handling vehicle with higher-than-standard bumpers, headlights, emissions, noise...
SUVs and light trucks are between 2 and 6 times as likely to kill the victim of a crash (across cars, bicycles, pedestrians) than cars are (look it up; my numbers are a bit obsolete and probably low given that SUVs have gotten bigger, and that those numbers are from unmodified ones). And the occupant of the SUV is no safer. Sociopathic? Yes.
Is someone who points out those facts sociopathic? Is someone who laughs at the stupid and irresponsible decisions of others sociopathic? Sticks and stones...
Yay gasoline! It's killing us all. It's called progress.
Of course, those who know hisrory are privileged to repeat it. Sail is back!
That's no fee, it's a fine.
You're making the argument that the only laws are the laws of physics (etc). Humans can't make laws, in that they can't make it impossible to do something. Since we can only punish people for what we've deemed immoral, everything is legal. You've defined a perfectly good word so that it doesn't refer to anything.
Except physics. Having law use its own damn words rather than stealing from science would be nice, but it just ain't gonna happen.
I still like the idea of selling organic food, produced however I want, and maybe even squeezing a little gasoline into it before delivery. Yep, it's got hydrocarbons in it, yer hanner. It's organic.
How far off does that throw our climate models? You know, the ones fit to the measurements of rising temperatures worldwide? Is this effect too short-term, or does it mean that our predictions have to be adjusted up by another couple of degrees? Oh dear...
That's "Irrelevant" data, I believe...
If it can really print itself, the cost of replication goes down to the cost of parts. This is starting to sound a lot like the GPL's provision of distribution for the cost of media. Are we about to see GPLed hardware?
And how many movies demand a glass of wine? No, they're not all porn :)
Besides, paying those bastards to let me watch 30 minutes of ads isn't high on my list.
Also also, if big screens are worth $10 to you every few weeks, I should think that a one-time $200 for a cell phone jammer would be a good investment.
I think you answered your own question. Humans are a failure. Time for something better!
Waitaminute... you posted a very long, noisy, fuming, and exceptionally rude message just to say "I don't want to have this conversation"?
Turn on your brain.
We weren't discussing what I want. We were discussing what is philosophically acceptable. Yes, I want to live with a group of people (a country, if you will) with laws. But if there is no country whose laws are just, then I should be able to reject all of them and start a new one. It's the idea of capitalism, of the free market, taken into politics. Who has the right to say that I must live according to my choice of one of 245 (or whatever) sets of bad rules? As you can see from the USA, changing one country for the better is a lot of work.
As it is, I have to choose between a bunch of ethically bankrupt countries. I cannot start my own simply because there isn't room. I would have to kill people in order to make room, which is just silly.
Of course, globalisation and technology have made the boundaries between countries mostly meaningless from the legal standpoint: for just one obvious example, the USA (among others, but just to illustrate an idea...) is knowingly pumping out a staggering amount of greenhouse gas, which (among things) causes flooding of the coastal land of other people all over the world. So the USA's internal laws are directly responsible for an act of global war. Thanks to the USA's greenhouse-gas weapon, we will have many more people on much less land, and some countries will simply be destroyed. Seeing how the landless countries cope with the attack is going to be very interesting.
Which brings me back to living outside the law. As long as we share a common resource (like an atmosphere) we need global law to manage that resource. Desperately. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is the current system whereby I must choose one of 245 stupid systems of personal "morals" (law) when I find none of them acceptable.
Ok, what if I don't want to live in a country? What choice do I have? Who has the right to tell me I must live in some country, or choose where they're going to send me when I don't live in it? I pretty much have to live in Antarctica.
That is simply not reasonable. When countries form a cover of all the reasonably habitable land, then people who seek personal freedom have nowhere to go. There is no more freedom. This has led to my own working definition of overpopulation.
FOSS has done an amazing amount of good for the world, but I decided that my money can have a more significant impact on more urgent problems elsewhere. I've donated to Wikimedia, a nice blend between FOSS philosophy and usefulness Right Now for a very wide audience, but they're only useful for those of us with ready access to the 'net.
For advice on many of the major Good Causes, Charity Navigator appears very worthwhile. I've been using it for a few years, and find that while it misses a few, the information it provides is very interesting.
In case you care, my current top pick is Pathfinder International, although the Union of Concerned Scientists is always high up there. If you want more of an Amerigeek angle, there are always the EFF and the ACLU.
I basically agree with your (Martin's?) definition of "cult". However, (1), (2), and (4) are just the definition of "religion" (with the addition of the word "charismatic").(3) is really "objective", there, christ-boy :P
(5) I like. It makes a great deal of sense and rings true, although it happens far too often in mainstream religions as well (although it might still make sense to call them cults when this happens).
Whoever modded the parent (by AGMW) "flamebait" should be castrated. Metamods, please take heed!
Nothing wrong with eating lots. Just bike to work.
ps. Bwahahahaha!
Welcome! 4 miles might be the perfect introduction to bike commuting, if you find a route that you enjoy.
I don't know the area (luckily, Flying Scotsman does), but for your general questions, you can't do much better than Ken Kifer's pages on Bike Commuting.
Gear? A Huffy will be nothing but frustrating. A decent bike bought in a good bike shop, properly sized, will be easy to maintain and ride. Fenders are very worthwhile, and a good rack and panniers are to die for: if you have the cash, I highly recommend Ortlieb (try REI), for their tough waterproof fabric and nigh-perfect attachment mechanism. Ken Kifer has far more information on everything else you could conceivably want. I would also chime in that I'm far more comfortable biking in bike clothes (not cotton! I love SmartWool) and changing when I arrive at work. Bike shorts in grocery stores only garner strange looks amongst the proletariat :)
Safety? Be visible, get your friends out on their bikes, raise awareness. Strangely, helmets seem not to do any good, but skills do! Obey traffic laws (while certain exceptions are reasonable, most are not, and creating a bike-friendly environment means pretending to respect cars ;) Gently assert your rights, don't yield to a car when you have right of way unless doing so is likely to result in a collision (and then call the police), but don't take right of way when it's not yours to take. Basically, be traffic.
There's a little bit more on my own page.
Cars are great! I love cars. I love my Audi quattro wagon. Obviously, there are limits to what a bike can do. Of course, there are limits to what a car can do. Helicopters are also nice. But bikes are really staggeringly beautiful, all things considered. Cars are necessary sometimes, but people, especially in the once-strong USA, use them when bikes would be better.
I once showed up for a carpool for a backcountry ski trip, and there was someone there on a bike. In his trailer were his huge winter pack, skis, ski boots, skins, ... no problem.
Oddly, "bikes can't do everything" is not the same as "bikes are useless."
Liquified coal? Pfffft. Have you considered nuculur? That's what the Amuricun Peeple want.
Pay attention, jock.
If you push yourself, you will end up tired. Your long-term energy levels will go way up, but right after a hard workout of course you'll be tired.
If you do some light physical activity, you will emerge energised. Bikes are staggeringly efficient: you don't need to work hard to cover impressive distances.
People have been bike-commuting since before you were born. These little nitpicks are solved problems. Although if you live 50 miles from work or your employer is unresponsive to requests for showers or secure bike parking, well, you chose poorly, didn't you?
And given that there's no way in hell that we can all drive our cars everywhere sustainably, you'd better stop and think whether you'll be one pushing for positive change, or whining that someone's trying to convince you to live better.