I don't recycle aluminum, or anything else. If I got a break on my garbage bill I would (maybe), but as is...forget it.
How much do you get paid to drive to the city facility to get rid of old paint and batteries instead of throwing them out?
I don't do these things either. Perhaps if I got a break on the bill when I haul stuff out to the dump? Assuming that I didn't pay for that break with my taxes?
How much do you save by (Name any act that is helpful to the enviornment)?
I haul my trash out when I go hiking or hunting. Does that count? Of course I benefit in the latter activity by racking up a year's worth of Bambi steaks AND save money on beef in the process, so hauling my trash out after a hunt isn't precisely a selfless activity....
Doing the right thing isn't always about saving money....
When talking about the economic behaviors of population groups it's pretty much all about money. Very few people are going to spend oodles of extra cash simply so they can get kudos from some group of whacko environmentalists; the benefit has to be more immediate, tangible, and proven to actually work.
Hybrid cars aren't any of these things. They're a waste of resources, a waste of tax dollars (subsidies!), and worst of all - they aren't that much more efficient than an economy sedan. Big whoop.
Because I feel a responsibility for the Earth
That's great. But what you have to understand is that your feelings are just that - your feelings. No one else is obligated to feel the same way you do about "the Earth", and most people are going to make the rational economic choice rather than the irrational one.
If you want people to join you in saving the planet, you're going to have to show them how it personally benefits them, most likely by putting cash back in their wallets. Telling them it'll "help the ecology" or some such ephemeral rot isn't going to impress them.
HIde and watch. Otherwise it makes zero sense. Been here done this stuff. Remember, I make my living doing this and I do it right smack in the Buckle of the Bible Belt.
So what? I spent years working for government agencies both large and small. If the lady had done something illegal she'd be under police investigation - but she isn't, now is she? And the city won't even accuse her of malfeasance, which they'd surely do just for the scapegoat value if there were any proof of that. But they won't.
Therefore there IS more to this story.
Yes. And the obvious conclusion - lacking any charges, any police investigation, and any accusations by the city in question - is that Ms. Martin has somehow gotten herself on the bad side of someone very powerful and very petty. Perhaps she wouldn't ban a book a particular councilor didn't like; perhaps she wouldn't sleep with some sweaty little pervert in the bureaucracy. Now here comes the perfect excuse to exact revenge by driving her out of her position over a playable non-issue.
I've seen this sort of bullshit take place more times than I can count. It's the primary reason I stopped doing jobs for ANY government (local, state, federal), because no matter where you go the shit is exactly the same, and it's just as bad. Government is chock full of petty little assholes of the most vile sort.
I mean leftist in the sense that the Texas Library Association had Ralph Nader keynoting with a totally over the top and overtly political campaign speech to raucus standing ovations.
I never understood how anyone could think that Ralph Nader is a leftist. The guy campaigns not just for big government, but intrusive controlling HUGE government. He hates the very idea of individual freedom that he doesn't personally approve of. I'd say he's more of a fascist than anything else.
If there is a definition of 'out of the mainstream' that doesn't include a room with about 75% Naderites in TEXAS then please enlighten me what that phrase means on your planet.
You didn't say "out of the mainstream", you said leftist. Most librarians aren't leftists. And just because you provided a single point of anecdotal evidence (which is indicative of nothing at all beyond that point of evidence), that doesn't make every librarian in America a Nader-lover or a leftist.
When I'm at library functions I'm always aware that I'm a pilgrim in a very unholy land. Of moonbats.
Think what you like, but librarians as a whole are extremely anti-censorship. In the land of free speech it's good that at least one group of semi-influential folks happens to believe in one of the fundamentals of the Constitution. They could worship the Holy Mother Gaia for all I give a shit - so long as they continue to tell the book-burners and censors where to shove it. Especially the book-burners and censors that seem to thrive in the South.
If there is a systematic abuse of said library over a period of time, the question should rightly fall to the head as to why it was allowed to continue.
Please point to where in the article it says that ANY abuse of the system took place, much less SYSTEMATIC abuse. Oh wait - they never said any such thing!
The whole article was what? Two paragraphs? And the city was very careful to say nothing definitive, allowing the reporter to draw his own conclusions - which he tried not to do, but did anyway in a sentence in the first paragraph.
Undeniable or not, it isn't how normal human beings assess crimes or their punishment. Normal human beings know that crimes that cause real physical or emotional harm are far more evil than incidental fiscal crimes like spamming. Your view of the crimes in question isn't normal nor, in my opinion, psychologically well-adjusted.
Either provide logic as to why the well being of an individual is more important than the well being of society
The issue at hand isn't "the well being of society", but whether or not the crime of spamming is somehow worse than the crime of rape. Your strawmen don't interest me.
The fact is that any normal human being would never equate the two, much less demand that the monetary value of the crimes should be their determining factor in how evil they happen to be. Rape is hands down a far greater evil than spam - this is obvious to those of us who have our heads on straight. And until recently this is pretty much how the law operated: those crimes which caused actual harm to individual human beings were given stiffer sentences than those which only inflicted monetary damage.
To flip the two things is a sociopathic view of the application and enforcement of law.
keep your emotional rants to yourself.
You mean I should voluntarily give up my right to free speech simply because you can't wrap your brain around the idea that most people wouldn't agree with your rather inhuman assessment of the crimes in question? I don't think I will, thanks.
The handful of lives injured by a rapist pales in comparison to the millions in damages inflicted by a spammer.
I predicted it, and here it is: someone whose hold on reality is so tenuous they can't even begin to fathom the inherent wrongness in comparing these two crimes. Trying to justify spam as a greater evil than rape based on the monetary damages involved just goes to show that you don't even understand the fundamentals of question - or perhaps even the fundamentals of human nature.
You might try re-reading your post and wrapping your brain around the idea that your 'argument' would evoke nothing more than visceral horror from most well-adjusted, normal human beings. That is, if you even have the capacity to understand WHY it might evoke this response.
Well, I'm sure the average mysogynist or date-rapist would be happy to back you up, but that's the sort of endorsement most people would be desperate to avoid....
Odds are the authorities suspect actual involvement in the crime, otherwise it just doesn't make any sense.
What crap. The "authorities" in this case are a single politician looking to score points, or grind an axe, or both. In no way, shape or form is any sort of criminal activity implied. Ms. Martin is NOT under police investigation.
The ALA has always had leftist leanings
Assuming that "leftist" here means "anti-censorship", a typical right-wing misinterpretation of anyone who won't ban the books the extremists want banned.
It doesn't go into ANY detail. It doesn't even provide the basis for the complaint. It just *implies* that the director was incompetent.
That's pretty much how serious it is.
If the director were actually incompetent the city wouldn't make any bones about it; she'd make a handy scapegoat. But they didn't use her as a scapegoat, did they? That infers that she actually isn't incompetent, and that we don't really know what the hell is going on.
Start thinking criminal charges.
Bullshit. If she were involved in criminal activities they would've already arrested her by now. This smells of politics, not crime.
They just charged the sex offender with possession
Which, depending on his parole terms, they can do with something as harmless a pictures of children playing in a park. We don't know what he had in his possession, but at no time is "kiddy porn" mentioned.
but TFA states that he (and some underaged boys, big surprise there) had looked at adult material using library computers.
And that's pretty close to impossible to stop, especially if - like some southern cities - any woman in a bikini is considered to be "adult material".
We're missing some kind of important details here.
Given that the city was very careful not to make any specific accusations against Ms. Martin, it's probable that there's a good deal going on that we'll never know about. If Ms. Martin was truly incompetent then the city wouldn't hesitate using her as the sacrificial lamb; but since they didn't do so it's likely that she isn't even remotely incompetent. All they did was *imply* that she's not doing her job correctly, and let the reporter infer what he would from that.
Local politics are very personality-driven, and the personalities of the powerful are often very childish. If someone powerful - say Billingsley - took a dislike to Ms. Martin (perhaps she wouldn't remove a book he didn't like?) he might just take any excuse that came his way to exact 'revenge' against Ms. Martin.
The head librarian should be implementing sane policies that prevent things like this, and should be trying to provide a sliver of oversight for this stuff.
That depends on the jurisdiction. While you might WISH that a draconian site blocking policy were implemented nation-wide, it's up to the local government to decide what, if any, tools are going to be used to keep patrons away from places like kiddie porn sites. A good many libraries don't use anything more than the old-fashioned walk-through, for a variety of reasons.
In this particular case the city refuses to cite any specific reason for the directors suspension. They imply it had something to do with negligence but were careful to avoid any direct accusations. Governments, especially local governments, often do this when something more than what's reported is going on behind the scenes (e.g., using this as an excuse to fire the director who doesn't get along with some powerful city bureaucrat).
Ah no, i'd give the rapist 640 years. Spammer still deserves 64.
But until rapists are given life sentences the law is being applied disproportionately. We all hate spam here, but no rational person is going to compare ANY amount of spam to something as hideous as a single rape or murder. I stress no RATIONAL person, because this being Slashdot there are undoubtedly a number of loons who'll argue that a rape is somehow less of a crime than persistent spamming.
Nobody should reasonably expect the coffee to be so hot as to cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds.
Sure we can. Even children understand that hot things burn, and that burns hurt; therefore it pays to be especially careful with hot things. I expect AT LEAST as much reasoning from an adult. Twenty degrees this way or that only means that it'll hurt WORSE if you're acting stupidly with the hot object.
Not to mention, McDonalds had been warned, SEVERAL TIMES, by public health agencies to lower the temperature of their coffee when served.
This I could really give a shit about. It's coffee; it's hot. Do the math.
Go back and read the link, and you'll see that, while there are many frivilous lawsuits, that isn't one of them.
Already did. Today and years ago, when the suit first made the news. And I still think it's goddamned frivolous and should never have made it to trial.
"My kid is better then other kids, he can tell right from wrong, legal from illegal, fantasy from reality, and will never do anything to harm someone" is what probably 90% of parents think.
And they're probably right. It's the other 10% who bitch, whine and moan, demanding legislation that affects EVERYONE rather than just taking responsibility for their own lazy asses.
C) Then when the thing gets banned, they complain about how the government is too intrusive.
C only applies if the thing banned is something they personally like to do. If it's something their neighbor likes to do, they take malicious glee in the fact that they've managed to make someone else miserable, proving that they (indirectly) have some measure of power over other human beings.
Anyway, "Most parents think their child is mature enough so that these games will not influence them."
And they'd probably be right, since no one has ever managed to present a single solitary shred of empirical evidence pointing to a causal link between behavior in a computer game and behavior in real life. Can't blame the parents for ignoring the tiresome shrieking and wailing of the bullshit morality-mongers for once.
And that is the reason why we still have politicians taking the stance that this stuff is bad for the children.
Politicians take this line because it's a tried-and-true battle cry. Both "for the children" and "for the greater good" have worked for thousands of years; just ask Socrates.
No, OSS has an advantage because it's - get this - *open source*. As in, we can both look at what's going on underneath the hood (no surprises) and change it to do whatever we want. "Free" doesn't even enter into the equation.
I will be working against you and your colleagues at Exxon/Mobil, BP, and Unocal.
Are you reading from a script? I haven't seen such a textbook case of unthinking greenie extremism in ages.
You are already in the minority
No, I'm in the majority. Most people aren't convinced that we're all going to die a horrible death due to global warming. Most people think that folks like you who rant and rave and froth at the mouth are nutbags.
you will be in such a small minority that you will cease to be obstacles to bring about badly needed changes a consumer society that's out of control.
By that you mean that you and your like-thinking buddies are just jonesing to establish a world-wide dictatorship dedicated to forcing your particular brand of reality on everyone else, all for "the greater good".
As I said before, I'm damned glad that you're nothing more than an impotent clown.
I'd take the time to debate you but unfortunately you spent so much energy thinking up clever responses that you didn't leave anything of substance.
That's because you never said anything of substance. You're too busy ranting about "raping the globe" to actual put forth anything so crass as FACTS.
And you are predicting that technology is our savior?
It's a sure bet that if we need to be saved, we DON'T have any other tools in our arsenal. Unless you believe in a god, which I don't.
On what empirical evidence do you base this conclusion on?
Perhaps all of human history, from the discovery of fire right up to the flight of Discovery last week. Not a single sane person on the planet can say that we'd be better off without technology.
Is there some paralell universe you've been fortunate to study?
Apparently "parallel universe" to you is what's called "history" to the rest of us.
Give technology to the wrong individuals and society, and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster.
I see. And it's intellectual elites like yourself who get to decide which of the proles get what sort of technology, I'd guess. As in, you're one of the 'right' individuals and those who agree with you are the 'wrong' sort.
I thank the (fictional) gods that you're just an ordinary Joe, with no power in the real world. The society you'd create would make Orwell look like a stand-up comedian.
Those humans sans technology managed to survive being only about 1/1000th of the current population.
I see you conveniently ignored the fact that it's *the very fact that we are technologically proficient* which gives us an enormous adaptive edge over our ancestors, regardless of what changes come our way.
Slashdot Mirror
How much money do you save recycling aluminum?
I don't recycle aluminum, or anything else. If I got a break on my garbage bill I would (maybe), but as is...forget it.
How much do you get paid to drive to the city facility to get rid of old paint and batteries instead of throwing them out?
I don't do these things either. Perhaps if I got a break on the bill when I haul stuff out to the dump? Assuming that I didn't pay for that break with my taxes?
How much do you save by (Name any act that is helpful to the enviornment)?
I haul my trash out when I go hiking or hunting. Does that count? Of course I benefit in the latter activity by racking up a year's worth of Bambi steaks AND save money on beef in the process, so hauling my trash out after a hunt isn't precisely a selfless activity....
Doing the right thing isn't always about saving money....
When talking about the economic behaviors of population groups it's pretty much all about money. Very few people are going to spend oodles of extra cash simply so they can get kudos from some group of whacko environmentalists; the benefit has to be more immediate, tangible, and proven to actually work.
Hybrid cars aren't any of these things. They're a waste of resources, a waste of tax dollars (subsidies!), and worst of all - they aren't that much more efficient than an economy sedan. Big whoop.
Because I feel a responsibility for the Earth
That's great. But what you have to understand is that your feelings are just that - your feelings. No one else is obligated to feel the same way you do about "the Earth", and most people are going to make the rational economic choice rather than the irrational one.
If you want people to join you in saving the planet, you're going to have to show them how it personally benefits them, most likely by putting cash back in their wallets. Telling them it'll "help the ecology" or some such ephemeral rot isn't going to impress them.
Max
HIde and watch. Otherwise it makes zero sense. Been here done this stuff. Remember, I make my living doing this and I do it right smack in the Buckle of the Bible Belt.
So what? I spent years working for government agencies both large and small. If the lady had done something illegal she'd be under police investigation - but she isn't, now is she? And the city won't even accuse her of malfeasance, which they'd surely do just for the scapegoat value if there were any proof of that. But they won't.
Therefore there IS more to this story.
Yes. And the obvious conclusion - lacking any charges, any police investigation, and any accusations by the city in question - is that Ms. Martin has somehow gotten herself on the bad side of someone very powerful and very petty. Perhaps she wouldn't ban a book a particular councilor didn't like; perhaps she wouldn't sleep with some sweaty little pervert in the bureaucracy. Now here comes the perfect excuse to exact revenge by driving her out of her position over a playable non-issue.
I've seen this sort of bullshit take place more times than I can count. It's the primary reason I stopped doing jobs for ANY government (local, state, federal), because no matter where you go the shit is exactly the same, and it's just as bad. Government is chock full of petty little assholes of the most vile sort.
I mean leftist in the sense that the Texas Library Association had Ralph Nader keynoting with a totally over the top and overtly political campaign speech to raucus standing ovations.
I never understood how anyone could think that Ralph Nader is a leftist. The guy campaigns not just for big government, but intrusive controlling HUGE government. He hates the very idea of individual freedom that he doesn't personally approve of. I'd say he's more of a fascist than anything else.
If there is a definition of 'out of the mainstream' that doesn't include a room with about 75% Naderites in TEXAS then please enlighten me what that phrase means on your planet.
You didn't say "out of the mainstream", you said leftist. Most librarians aren't leftists. And just because you provided a single point of anecdotal evidence (which is indicative of nothing at all beyond that point of evidence), that doesn't make every librarian in America a Nader-lover or a leftist.
When I'm at library functions I'm always aware that I'm a pilgrim in a very unholy land. Of moonbats.
Think what you like, but librarians as a whole are extremely anti-censorship. In the land of free speech it's good that at least one group of semi-influential folks happens to believe in one of the fundamentals of the Constitution. They could worship the Holy Mother Gaia for all I give a shit - so long as they continue to tell the book-burners and censors where to shove it. Especially the book-burners and censors that seem to thrive in the South.
Max
If there is a systematic abuse of said library over a period of time, the question should rightly fall to the head as to why it was allowed to continue.
Please point to where in the article it says that ANY abuse of the system took place, much less SYSTEMATIC abuse. Oh wait - they never said any such thing!
The whole article was what? Two paragraphs? And the city was very careful to say nothing definitive, allowing the reporter to draw his own conclusions - which he tried not to do, but did anyway in a sentence in the first paragraph.
Max
This is rather undeniable.
Undeniable or not, it isn't how normal human beings assess crimes or their punishment. Normal human beings know that crimes that cause real physical or emotional harm are far more evil than incidental fiscal crimes like spamming. Your view of the crimes in question isn't normal nor, in my opinion, psychologically well-adjusted.
Max
Either provide logic as to why the well being of an individual is more important than the well being of society
The issue at hand isn't "the well being of society", but whether or not the crime of spamming is somehow worse than the crime of rape. Your strawmen don't interest me.
The fact is that any normal human being would never equate the two, much less demand that the monetary value of the crimes should be their determining factor in how evil they happen to be. Rape is hands down a far greater evil than spam - this is obvious to those of us who have our heads on straight. And until recently this is pretty much how the law operated: those crimes which caused actual harm to individual human beings were given stiffer sentences than those which only inflicted monetary damage.
To flip the two things is a sociopathic view of the application and enforcement of law.
keep your emotional rants to yourself.
You mean I should voluntarily give up my right to free speech simply because you can't wrap your brain around the idea that most people wouldn't agree with your rather inhuman assessment of the crimes in question? I don't think I will, thanks.
Max
The handful of lives injured by a rapist pales in comparison to the millions in damages inflicted by a spammer.
I predicted it, and here it is: someone whose hold on reality is so tenuous they can't even begin to fathom the inherent wrongness in comparing these two crimes. Trying to justify spam as a greater evil than rape based on the monetary damages involved just goes to show that you don't even understand the fundamentals of question - or perhaps even the fundamentals of human nature.
You might try re-reading your post and wrapping your brain around the idea that your 'argument' would evoke nothing more than visceral horror from most well-adjusted, normal human beings. That is, if you even have the capacity to understand WHY it might evoke this response.
Well, I'm sure the average mysogynist or date-rapist would be happy to back you up, but that's the sort of endorsement most people would be desperate to avoid....
Max
Odds are the authorities suspect actual involvement in the crime, otherwise it just doesn't make any sense.
What crap. The "authorities" in this case are a single politician looking to score points, or grind an axe, or both. In no way, shape or form is any sort of criminal activity implied. Ms. Martin is NOT under police investigation.
The ALA has always had leftist leanings
Assuming that "leftist" here means "anti-censorship", a typical right-wing misinterpretation of anyone who won't ban the books the extremists want banned.
Max
TFA doesn't go into the details too much
It doesn't go into ANY detail. It doesn't even provide the basis for the complaint. It just *implies* that the director was incompetent.
That's pretty much how serious it is.
If the director were actually incompetent the city wouldn't make any bones about it; she'd make a handy scapegoat. But they didn't use her as a scapegoat, did they? That infers that she actually isn't incompetent, and that we don't really know what the hell is going on.
Start thinking criminal charges.
Bullshit. If she were involved in criminal activities they would've already arrested her by now. This smells of politics, not crime.
They just charged the sex offender with possession
Which, depending on his parole terms, they can do with something as harmless a pictures of children playing in a park. We don't know what he had in his possession, but at no time is "kiddy porn" mentioned.
but TFA states that he (and some underaged boys, big surprise there) had looked at adult material using library computers.
And that's pretty close to impossible to stop, especially if - like some southern cities - any woman in a bikini is considered to be "adult material".
Max
We're missing some kind of important details here.
Given that the city was very careful not to make any specific accusations against Ms. Martin, it's probable that there's a good deal going on that we'll never know about. If Ms. Martin was truly incompetent then the city wouldn't hesitate using her as the sacrificial lamb; but since they didn't do so it's likely that she isn't even remotely incompetent. All they did was *imply* that she's not doing her job correctly, and let the reporter infer what he would from that.
Local politics are very personality-driven, and the personalities of the powerful are often very childish. If someone powerful - say Billingsley - took a dislike to Ms. Martin (perhaps she wouldn't remove a book he didn't like?) he might just take any excuse that came his way to exact 'revenge' against Ms. Martin.
Max
The head librarian should be implementing sane policies that prevent things like this, and should be trying to provide a sliver of oversight for this stuff.
That depends on the jurisdiction. While you might WISH that a draconian site blocking policy were implemented nation-wide, it's up to the local government to decide what, if any, tools are going to be used to keep patrons away from places like kiddie porn sites. A good many libraries don't use anything more than the old-fashioned walk-through, for a variety of reasons.
In this particular case the city refuses to cite any specific reason for the directors suspension. They imply it had something to do with negligence but were careful to avoid any direct accusations. Governments, especially local governments, often do this when something more than what's reported is going on behind the scenes (e.g., using this as an excuse to fire the director who doesn't get along with some powerful city bureaucrat).
Max
Ah no, i'd give the rapist 640 years. Spammer still deserves 64.
But until rapists are given life sentences the law is being applied disproportionately. We all hate spam here, but no rational person is going to compare ANY amount of spam to something as hideous as a single rape or murder. I stress no RATIONAL person, because this being Slashdot there are undoubtedly a number of loons who'll argue that a rape is somehow less of a crime than persistent spamming.
Max
Did you read the linked page?
I surely did.
Nobody should reasonably expect the coffee to be so hot as to cause third degree burns in a matter of seconds.
Sure we can. Even children understand that hot things burn, and that burns hurt; therefore it pays to be especially careful with hot things. I expect AT LEAST as much reasoning from an adult. Twenty degrees this way or that only means that it'll hurt WORSE if you're acting stupidly with the hot object.
Not to mention, McDonalds had been warned, SEVERAL TIMES, by public health agencies to lower the temperature of their coffee when served.
This I could really give a shit about. It's coffee; it's hot. Do the math.
Go back and read the link, and you'll see that, while there are many frivilous lawsuits, that isn't one of them.
Already did. Today and years ago, when the suit first made the news. And I still think it's goddamned frivolous and should never have made it to trial.
Max
OpenOffice doesn't suck
You're exactly right, OpenOffice *doesn't* suck. Thanks for playing!
Max
For these reasons, the default answer in my family is *no*.
Then you've done the right thing. You've taken responsibility for YOUR family without trying to seize responsibility for MINE.
Max
"My kid is better then other kids, he can tell right from wrong, legal from illegal, fantasy from reality, and will never do anything to harm someone" is what probably 90% of parents think.
And they're probably right. It's the other 10% who bitch, whine and moan, demanding legislation that affects EVERYONE rather than just taking responsibility for their own lazy asses.
Max
Of course, the common sense notion that COFFEE IS FUCKING HOT never entered into the equation....
Max
C) Then when the thing gets banned, they complain about how the government is too intrusive.
C only applies if the thing banned is something they personally like to do. If it's something their neighbor likes to do, they take malicious glee in the fact that they've managed to make someone else miserable, proving that they (indirectly) have some measure of power over other human beings.
Max
Anyway, "Most parents think their child is mature enough so that these games will not influence them."
And they'd probably be right, since no one has ever managed to present a single solitary shred of empirical evidence pointing to a causal link between behavior in a computer game and behavior in real life. Can't blame the parents for ignoring the tiresome shrieking and wailing of the bullshit morality-mongers for once.
Max
And that is the reason why we still have politicians taking the stance that this stuff is bad for the children.
Politicians take this line because it's a tried-and-true battle cry. Both "for the children" and "for the greater good" have worked for thousands of years; just ask Socrates.
Max
No, OSS has an advantage because it's - get this - *open source*. As in, we can both look at what's going on underneath the hood (no surprises) and change it to do whatever we want. "Free" doesn't even enter into the equation.
Max
linux office apps suck
Not sure why'd you say this, since even the brain-dead can master OpenOffice. It's no more difficult to use than the comparable MS products.
Max
I will be working against you and your colleagues at Exxon/Mobil, BP, and Unocal.
Are you reading from a script? I haven't seen such a textbook case of unthinking greenie extremism in ages.
You are already in the minority
No, I'm in the majority. Most people aren't convinced that we're all going to die a horrible death due to global warming. Most people think that folks like you who rant and rave and froth at the mouth are nutbags.
you will be in such a small minority that you will cease to be obstacles to bring about badly needed changes a consumer society that's out of control.
By that you mean that you and your like-thinking buddies are just jonesing to establish a world-wide dictatorship dedicated to forcing your particular brand of reality on everyone else, all for "the greater good".
As I said before, I'm damned glad that you're nothing more than an impotent clown.
Max
I'd take the time to debate you but unfortunately you spent so much energy thinking up clever responses that you didn't leave anything of substance.
That's because you never said anything of substance. You're too busy ranting about "raping the globe" to actual put forth anything so crass as FACTS.
And you are predicting that technology is our savior?
It's a sure bet that if we need to be saved, we DON'T have any other tools in our arsenal. Unless you believe in a god, which I don't.
On what empirical evidence do you base this conclusion on?
Perhaps all of human history, from the discovery of fire right up to the flight of Discovery last week. Not a single sane person on the planet can say that we'd be better off without technology.
Is there some paralell universe you've been fortunate to study?
Apparently "parallel universe" to you is what's called "history" to the rest of us.
Give technology to the wrong individuals and society, and you've got yourself a recipe for disaster.
I see. And it's intellectual elites like yourself who get to decide which of the proles get what sort of technology, I'd guess. As in, you're one of the 'right' individuals and those who agree with you are the 'wrong' sort.
I thank the (fictional) gods that you're just an ordinary Joe, with no power in the real world. The society you'd create would make Orwell look like a stand-up comedian.
Max
You don't even know where the gun is or how to remove it - or even if you have the right gun. Your analogy falls on its face.
Max
Those humans sans technology managed to survive being only about 1/1000th of the current population.
I see you conveniently ignored the fact that it's *the very fact that we are technologically proficient* which gives us an enormous adaptive edge over our ancestors, regardless of what changes come our way.
Max