Folks, get a grip. The man is not exchange his life for money. He's taking his life off the market, and putting everything that surrounds it on the market.
When he's done close to 100% of his "assets" will be his life... currently many of his assets are not his life.
He's doing a portfolio adjustment.
I wanted to read an article about someone who would kill himself for a price, aka selling his life, or selling himself into slavery (aka giving someone complete labor and behavior, life and death, control) and instead we get the opposite... a man claiming his life and getting rid of his stuff.
Well said... and about all that you can say in this ridiculous threat.
People marry and they share some things and keep other things separate, in a manner that works for both of them, based on communication and negotiation.
Everything tangled can be unentangled so it hardly matters what solution they reach in most areas.... but the one thing that can never be unentangled is the kids you produce. That entanglement is forever, so it is really important to work out a level of entanglement and separateness in all the other realms so that you can continue to give your entangled genes (children) what almost all children want and deserve... two parents who get a long, are involved in their lives, and, with any luck, can model how two people balance their separateness and togetherness in a loving relationship... or if absolutely necessary in a relatively friendly negotiated divorce that keeps both parents available for parenting.
Oh the whole reality of God debate is just shot through with absurdities. Is a poem untrue because it asserts an impossibility? Is a novel a falsehood because it's truths were imagined by an author and constructed from dreams and visions?
The theism/atheism/agnosticism discussion generally relies on such a limited understanding of what religion is that it becomes simply boring.
The truth of God is the truth of poetry and imagination and emotion. God texts are literature. You are free to argue that all literature is equally a religious text, or to say that your pleasure is to elevate one particular text to a place of particular importance in your life and culture.
Either way, the religious position is no different at root from the theater or literature... it is a collective decision to take a literature or book very seriously and to live out a version of the truths found therein.
Broadway theater is a place of a dozen separate religions, each experienced for a few hours, and each lasting as long as the show runs.
Some people prefer the silly truths, other people prefer the deeper truths, from within a given literature (eg. fundamentalist Christians and thoughtful Christians.) But the argument against religion always comes down to an argument against literature, poetry and imagination, and to a claim that the scientific method produces "truths" while literature poetry and imagination produce "lesser truths" or "falsehoods."
That in itself is a failure of the imagination, and proves that people haven't had very good liberal arts educations.
Scientific atheists waste their time trying to prove that poems are untrue, or that if they are "true", they are not true in the sense that really matters. Well excuse me but poetry might be even truer than physics, and it is certainly true in a different way from physics, and that is all that religion is and has ever been. Lived poetry. People choosing to live out a particular set of loved and communally shared poems.
Within the poetic religious domain there is plenty of room for argument about beauty and ethics and which poems produce more happiness for more people.
But just forget please about silly arguments about how poetry isn't as true as science because that is all that most religion versus science, theism versus atheism, debates come down to in my experience.
If you trust the Bush Administration's EPA, you can believe what they say:
EPA provides the following breakage advisory:
The Handling of Small Numbers of Broken Fluorescent Lamps
Recommended Broken Lamp Handling Practices: If a lamp breaks in your home, close off the room to other parts of the building. Open a window to disperse any vapor that may escape, and leave the room for at least 15 minutes. Carefully scoop up the fragments with a stiff paper (do not use your hands) and wipe the area with a disposable paper towel to remove all glass fragments. Do not use a vacuum as this disperses the mercury over a wider area. All fragments should be placed in a sealed plastic bag and properly disposed of. For proper disposal instructions, see the "Message for Environmental Groups."
Universal Waste Rule Requirements: Under the EPA Universal Waste Rule, a lamp that does not pass the TCLP test and is broken must be cleaned up and placed in a container. The container must be closed, structurally sound, compatible with lamps, and lacking any evidence of spillage. This advice is applicable to any mercury-containing lamp. In some states, universal waste status is lost when lamps are broken and they must be handled as a full hazardous waste. It is important to check with your local, state, or federal office for the latest update in regulatory status or go to www.lamprecycle.org.
Health Effects: No adverse effects are expected from occasional exposure to broken lamps.
Who has got an interest in making Linux work for grandma? No one.
No business model... no mass market product.
Making a consumer usable OS product requires not just individual intelligence but a collection of folks led by a leader (or two), well paid to do nothing else, relentlessly refining a user interface and creating standards and evangelizing their way of doing things.
It requires a company like Apple. It requires the kind of coordination that only emerges in an organization, not in a loosely knit self coordinating group that focusses on technical issue after technical issue.
It requires vision. And vision, to be sustained requires money. And money to be sufficient to sustain vision probably requires investors. And investors require a return on their investment.
I'm going to replace my SUSE 9 install with Ubantu now... but when I have work to do I do it in XP or OSX, and I wouldn't recommend linux to any nongeek unless I particularly disliked them.
Whether we will ever exceed current production levels is an entirely open and empirical question. Even if we do, that doesn't prove that "Peak Oil" is "wrong"... just that we haven't hit it yet. The evidence I read suggests we're approaching the top.
Damn, you beat me to it. That's exactly right, and so true it really is funny (and so funny it HAS to be true).
Intelligent life is EXTREMELY common, and every time it arises in the universe it starts toying with the fundamental forces of nature, builds particle accelerators and voila.... soon we have a universe populated by blackholes, the vast majority of which represent the former locations of intelligent life forms....
It's really quite a profound thought/possibility... intelligence as a thing that is its own undoing in a deep sense. It's the oldest mythological idea around..... wouldn't it be funny if it was real by THIS mechanism?
Well, we wouldn't have time to laugh since the black hole would suck everything in pretty quickly... but if we did have time to laugh surely the intense irony of that "I'm falling into a black hole" moment would be bring a good chuckle!
1... the prevailing sense of humor on slashdot is puerile (however you spell it)
2... that there are no women who read these pages.
3... that grinding women up and putting them in your freezer is generally thought to be good clean fun for everyone.
4... that most people who defended that comment probably are not in a relationship with any self respecting woman...
4a... and have a mental age of about... oh 14.
5... that most folks around here don't want a vile idea to get in the way of a good yuck.... although guys, when you grow up, you might find that a good fuck is a hell of a lot better than a good yuck...
6.... all of the above.
I should have known I was too old to still be reading Slashdot.
He can say it and I can point out that he's a bigotted insensitive jerk for doing so... and someone with mod points can mod him out of existence... if there is any justice on slashdot.
...a signature like that is just hate speech... substitute an ethnic or racial group for "women" if you are having a hard time seeing what's not funny about it.
Most school computers are there to run applications.... and applications are tools to do things more easily that humans need to know how to do the old fashioned way.... write, communicate, draw, do math.
For those with a bent toward actual programming, a computer in school is a useful learning tool.
For anything else you just know that kids are wasting their time solving silly problems, navigating through silly games and menus, cruising the "safe" filtered web, browsing silly educational CDs. WASTE of time.
If you want computers to be a learning tool put them in schools with the tools that kids need to build applications... programming languages, programming environments, etc. Nothing else.
For information, send them to the library. For communication, let them write with a pen, speak in public. For art let them get their hands dirty.
Computers by their nature aggregate someone elses knowledge so that YOU can do something WITHOUT that knowledge. But it is the knowledge needed to do the aggregation inherent in an application that is the "wisdom" of computers... and since kids just run applications, their is little or nothing for them to gain from interaction with computers.
Until kids are ready to engage computers as programming tools and to create their own applications they are not ready and will not benefit from computers in schools.
(Exception... yes the library and search capacties of computers are useful for finding stuff.... but you don't need many computers to meet that need.)
OK, one of the hearts. But at least Free Geek is located in the real Portland, inner southeast, as opposed to out in sterile, wealthy, Geography of Nowhere, Silicon Forest, stripmall land....aka Beaverton.
Still it's neat to have Linus himself living here in our little old forest.
So how long before the US government or Osama figures out that a nuclear bomb or (maybe) even a good chunk of high explosives trigering a landslide can be used as a weapon of mass destruction... a delivery system if you will?
Whoops. Quick delete this post before Osama reads it. Nah, his folks are just as smart as me.
You don't have to get close to the US with your big bomb... just send the wave across the sea. However I suspect that the power unleashed by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake is much larger than any inexpensive nuclear device they could lay their hands on.... but if a nuclear device could trigger a huge landslide.... well then.
Well.
Very interesting.
I feel pretty safe in Portland Oregon, possible erruptions of Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Hood aside.
But coastal Oregon and the Pacific region? The Atlantic seaboard?
No... I never thought Kerry had it sewn up, because the futures market has never suggested that.
"Pretty much a flip of the coin" would be 50/50. The people with money on the line say it's 55/45.
That means what it means... not even odds... just that people aren't willing to pay 46 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Kerry wins, and won't accept less than 55 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Bush wins.
Most people think in binary terms... "I think Bush will win" or "I think Kerry will win." Well the market thinks there is a 55% chance that Bush will win, and a 45% chance that Kerry will win... that's all it means, and it's depressing, if it reflects reality, but things that have a 45% chance of happening can still happen, and markets can be wrong.
It also means that if you offer someone 44 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Kerry wins, they will say "no, the odds are better... you'll have to pay me 45 if you want that chance." The market certainly thinks Kerry COULD win, at 44 to win 100, it just thinks a bet on Bush is an even better bet, at 55 to win 100.
Any argument about predicting 2000 by tea leaves or NH towns can always be argued to be about the popular vote, as opposed to the winner.
One problem with this: http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem// is that they don't have an electoral college vote futures market which would be much more relevant than the popular vote in a close election.
And futures markets can't be expected to function in the event of wholly novel circumstances like a Supreme Court coup d'etat.... so whether it is New Hampshire towns, or futures markets, you can't hold them responsible for the 2000 election outcome, only, perhaps, for things like the total number of votes.
Fluky electoral college votes, and supreme court interventions come under the heading of "acts of (a particularly bloody minded) God"... beyond prediction by futures markets.
Maybe cultural mysogyny and anti-maternalism reduced the nutritional role of the breast and thus ENABLED them to be sexualized...
OR,maybe sexualization of the breast came first (if you insist on the missionary position in sex, frontal coitus, you focus male atteniton on breasts... if you deprive children of breast contact early on maybe they spend their life seeking it.... just hypotheses to debate ) led to a dislike of breasts as nutritional baby feeding objects. (see the annonomyous guy who said that breast feeding at three years of age is "gross".)
If breasts are "hot" then it is difficult to be comfortable with the nonsexual nutritional sucking of them.
It is an interesting question... but we can say that almost all indigenous cultures do not share this Western sexualiation of the breast, and are much more concerned that women be modest about their lower extremities than they are about their breasts. The idea that breasts are "simply hot" would seem ludicrous in nonWestern cultures... cultures that have not been influenced by Western media, which of course are increasingly few.
What's hot to normal human males in most cultures for most of human history is what's down below.
Slashdot Mirror
Folks, get a grip. The man is not exchange his life for money. He's taking his life off the market, and putting everything that surrounds it on the market.
When he's done close to 100% of his "assets" will be his life... currently many of his assets are not his life.
He's doing a portfolio adjustment.
I wanted to read an article about someone who would kill himself for a price, aka selling his life, or selling himself into slavery (aka giving someone complete labor and behavior, life and death, control) and instead we get the opposite... a man claiming his life and getting rid of his stuff.
Uh, no, they were asked: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39255
I believe that the U.S. government denied them permission. Too bad. They are certainly needed.
Well said... and about all that you can say in this ridiculous threat.
People marry and they share some things and keep other things separate, in a manner that works for both of them, based on communication and negotiation.
Everything tangled can be unentangled so it hardly matters what solution they reach in most areas.... but the one thing that can never be unentangled is the kids you produce. That entanglement is forever, so it is really important to work out a level of entanglement and separateness in all the other realms so that you can continue to give your entangled genes (children) what almost all children want and deserve... two parents who get a long, are involved in their lives, and, with any luck, can model how two people balance their separateness and togetherness in a loving relationship... or if absolutely necessary in a relatively friendly negotiated divorce that keeps both parents available for parenting.
thanks!
Oh the whole reality of God debate is just shot through with absurdities. Is a poem untrue because it asserts an impossibility? Is a novel a falsehood because it's truths were imagined by an author and constructed from dreams and visions?
The theism/atheism/agnosticism discussion generally relies on such a limited understanding of what religion is that it becomes simply boring.
The truth of God is the truth of poetry and imagination and emotion. God texts are literature. You are free to argue that all literature is equally a religious text, or to say that your pleasure is to elevate one particular text to a place of particular importance in your life and culture.
Either way, the religious position is no different at root from the theater or literature... it is a collective decision to take a literature or book very seriously and to live out a version of the truths found therein.
Broadway theater is a place of a dozen separate religions, each experienced for a few hours, and each lasting as long as the show runs.
Some people prefer the silly truths, other people prefer the deeper truths, from within a given literature (eg. fundamentalist Christians and thoughtful Christians.) But the argument against religion always comes down to an argument against literature, poetry and imagination, and to a claim that the scientific method produces "truths" while literature poetry and imagination produce "lesser truths" or "falsehoods."
That in itself is a failure of the imagination, and proves that people haven't had very good liberal arts educations.
Scientific atheists waste their time trying to prove that poems are untrue, or that if they are "true", they are not true in the sense that really matters. Well excuse me but poetry might be even truer than physics, and it is certainly true in a different way from physics, and that is all that religion is and has ever been. Lived poetry. People choosing to live out a particular set of loved and communally shared poems.
Within the poetic religious domain there is plenty of room for argument about beauty and ethics and which poems produce more happiness for more people.
But just forget please about silly arguments about how poetry isn't as true as science because that is all that most religion versus science, theism versus atheism, debates come down to in my experience.
Peace.
If you trust the Bush Administration's EPA, you can believe what they say:
---------
...there will be no Linux adoption by the masses.
Who has got an interest in making Linux work for grandma? No one.
No business model... no mass market product.
Making a consumer usable OS product requires not just individual intelligence but a collection of folks led by a leader (or two), well paid to do nothing else, relentlessly refining a user interface and creating standards and evangelizing their way of doing things.
It requires a company like Apple. It requires the kind of coordination that only emerges in an organization, not in a loosely knit self coordinating group that focusses on technical issue after technical issue.
It requires vision. And vision, to be sustained requires money. And money to be sufficient to sustain vision probably requires investors. And investors require a return on their investment.
I'm going to replace my SUSE 9 install with Ubantu now... but when I have work to do I do it in XP or OSX, and I wouldn't recommend linux to any nongeek unless I particularly disliked them.
http://www.energybulletin.net/ and in particular: http://www.energybulletin.net/22442.html
6 47
5 16
http://www.theoildrum.com/ and in particular: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/14/18285/
Whether we will ever exceed current production levels is an entirely open and empirical question. Even if we do, that doesn't prove that "Peak Oil" is "wrong"... just that we haven't hit it yet. The evidence I read suggests we're approaching the top.
Read this too:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/2/204936/
http://www.energybulletin.net/22213.html
Damn, you beat me to it. That's exactly right, and so true it really is funny (and so funny it HAS to be true).
Intelligent life is EXTREMELY common, and every time it arises in the universe it starts toying with the fundamental forces of nature, builds particle accelerators and voila.... soon we have a universe populated by blackholes, the vast majority of which represent the former locations of intelligent life forms....
It's really quite a profound thought/possibility... intelligence as a thing that is its own undoing in a deep sense. It's the oldest mythological idea around..... wouldn't it be funny if it was real by THIS mechanism?
Well, we wouldn't have time to laugh since the black hole would suck everything in pretty quickly... but if we did have time to laugh surely the intense irony of that "I'm falling into a black hole" moment would be bring a good chuckle!
Is there really a problem with Photoshop jpegs?
I'm an amatuer web designer... I have Fireworks and Photoshop CS, and I produce all my jpegs for web from Photoshop.
Will I see an improvement if I use Fireworks?
I'm starting with Cannon raw files, converted to tifs, uploaded to photoshop, saving to jpeg from photoshop cs.
Can Fireworks do something good with a photoshop saved tif when I do the tif to jpeg conversion and save for web?
Can you describe the difference you see?
... right... what part of "world wide web" doesn't this guy get?
And remind me which part of the country finds grinding women up and putting them in the freezer funny... so I can avoid living there.
...something, but what?
Choose your favorite
1... the prevailing sense of humor on slashdot is puerile (however you spell it)
2... that there are no women who read these pages.
3... that grinding women up and putting them in your freezer is generally thought to be good clean fun for everyone.
4... that most people who defended that comment probably are not in a relationship with any self respecting woman...
4a... and have a mental age of about... oh 14.
5... that most folks around here don't want a vile idea to get in the way of a good yuck.... although guys, when you grow up, you might find that a good fuck is a hell of a lot better than a good yuck...
6.... all of the above.
I should have known I was too old to still be reading Slashdot.
... who thinks that jokes about grinding women and stuffing them in his freezer up are a hoot. You know HE doesn't ever get laid... unless he pays.
Did I say he couldn't say it?
He can say it and I can point out that he's a bigotted insensitive jerk for doing so... and someone with mod points can mod him out of existence... if there is any justice on slashdot.
...a signature like that is just hate speech... substitute an ethnic or racial group for "women" if you are having a hard time seeing what's not funny about it.
Most school computers are there to run applications.... and applications are tools to do things more easily that humans need to know how to do the old fashioned way.... write, communicate, draw, do math.
For those with a bent toward actual programming, a computer in school is a useful learning tool.
For anything else you just know that kids are wasting their time solving silly problems, navigating through silly games and menus, cruising the "safe" filtered web, browsing silly educational CDs. WASTE of time.
If you want computers to be a learning tool put them in schools with the tools that kids need to build applications... programming languages, programming environments, etc. Nothing else.
For information, send them to the library. For communication, let them write with a pen, speak in public. For art let them get their hands dirty.
Computers by their nature aggregate someone elses knowledge so that YOU can do something WITHOUT that knowledge. But it is the knowledge needed to do the aggregation inherent in an application that is the "wisdom" of computers... and since kids just run applications, their is little or nothing for them to gain from interaction with computers.
Until kids are ready to engage computers as programming tools and to create their own applications they are not ready and will not benefit from computers in schools.
(Exception... yes the library and search capacties of computers are useful for finding stuff.... but you don't need many computers to meet that need.)
What's so strange about it?
You find something that you love... you share it with the world.
http://portlandground.com/
ha! very good.
Never mind that big fancy OSDL out in Beaverton.... this is the heart of Portland linux.
http://www.freegeek.org/
OK, one of the hearts. But at least Free Geek is located in the real Portland, inner southeast, as opposed to out in sterile, wealthy, Geography of Nowhere, Silicon Forest, stripmall land....aka Beaverton.
Still it's neat to have Linus himself living here in our little old forest.
So how long before the US government or Osama figures out that a nuclear bomb or (maybe) even a good chunk of high explosives trigering a landslide can be used as a weapon of mass destruction... a delivery system if you will?
Whoops. Quick delete this post before Osama reads it. Nah, his folks are just as smart as me.
You don't have to get close to the US with your big bomb... just send the wave across the sea. However I suspect that the power unleashed by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake is much larger than any inexpensive nuclear device they could lay their hands on.... but if a nuclear device could trigger a huge landslide.... well then.
Well.
Very interesting.
I feel pretty safe in Portland Oregon, possible erruptions of Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Hood aside.
But coastal Oregon and the Pacific region? The Atlantic seaboard?
Yikes.
No... I never thought Kerry had it sewn up, because the futures market has never suggested that.
"Pretty much a flip of the coin" would be 50/50. The people with money on the line say it's 55/45.
That means what it means... not even odds... just that people aren't willing to pay 46 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Kerry wins, and won't accept less than 55 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Bush wins.
Most people think in binary terms... "I think Bush will win" or "I think Kerry will win." Well the market thinks there is a 55% chance that Bush will win, and a 45% chance that Kerry will win... that's all it means, and it's depressing, if it reflects reality, but things that have a 45% chance of happening can still happen, and markets can be wrong.
It also means that if you offer someone 44 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Kerry wins, they will say "no, the odds are better... you'll have to pay me 45 if you want that chance." The market certainly thinks Kerry COULD win, at 44 to win 100, it just thinks a bet on Bush is an even better bet, at 55 to win 100.
Who knows.
Any argument about predicting 2000 by tea leaves or NH towns can always be argued to be about the popular vote, as opposed to the winner.
One problem with this: http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem// is that they don't have an electoral college vote futures market which would be much more relevant than the popular vote in a close election.
And futures markets can't be expected to function in the event of wholly novel circumstances like a Supreme Court coup d'etat.... so whether it is New Hampshire towns, or futures markets, you can't hold them responsible for the 2000 election outcome, only, perhaps, for things like the total number of votes.
Fluky electoral college votes, and supreme court interventions come under the heading of "acts of (a particularly bloody minded) God"... beyond prediction by futures markets.
I know this is light hearted... but this isn't: http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem// I believe in futures markets. If Kerry wins, I reevaluate my belief.
Until then, I'm very worried, because I think these numbers mean something very bad for my guy. We shall see.
Hey, that was a GREAT post. Use real numbers to illustrate the utter mendacity of the Bushies.
thank you and amen
You could argue it many ways.
Maybe cultural mysogyny and anti-maternalism reduced the nutritional role of the breast and thus ENABLED them to be sexualized...
OR,maybe sexualization of the breast came first (if you insist on the missionary position in sex, frontal coitus, you focus male atteniton on breasts... if you deprive children of breast contact early on maybe they spend their life seeking it.... just hypotheses to debate ) led to a dislike of breasts as nutritional baby feeding objects. (see the annonomyous guy who said that breast feeding at three years of age is "gross".)
If breasts are "hot" then it is difficult to be comfortable with the nonsexual nutritional sucking of them.
It is an interesting question... but we can say that almost all indigenous cultures do not share this Western sexualiation of the breast, and are much more concerned that women be modest about their lower extremities than they are about their breasts. The idea that breasts are "simply hot" would seem ludicrous in nonWestern cultures... cultures that have not been influenced by Western media, which of course are increasingly few.
What's hot to normal human males in most cultures for most of human history is what's down below.