The end of death necessitates the end of birth. Now I'm normally the first to cringe at a "won't somebody think of the children", but the idea of a bunch of increasingly old, increasingly selfish people clinging on to the world and making it increasingly unpleasant and hostile to the next generation fills me with horror. We have a duty to get out of the way and let a fresh set of minds and ideas have a go. Maybe they'll do a better job than us, which doesn't seem like a high bar sometimes.
Oh really? I accept that I may be mis-informed. I heard some people talking about it shortly after, there must have been confusion over the facts, and I hadn't heard any correction.
Vaccine-skepticism isn't a specific genetic trait that can be weeded out though. It's human nature to look for and see correlations that don't actually exist.
Yes, that was a fake polio vaccination campaign. Loads of people died because they had been told that they had been vaccinated when they hadn't, so didn't get a real vaccination.
The number of slashdotters that bleat about "teh evil corporations that break teh law!" But support bypassing copyright law and getting their content for free because "information must be free".
It may be the same thing, but it isn't necessary the same people. We aren't a borg collective who all think alike. Some people defend Free Software, which requires copyright law in order to exist. Some people download all the torrents. There may be a cross-section that does both, which is as you say hypocritical. But the existence of that cross-section does not invalidate the opinions of those who consistently hold one position or the other.
Also, not all laws are created equal. Some people may support political measures such as export controls and sanctions, while not supporting copyright. If you broke the speed limit last year, does that mean that you are not entitled to justice if someone assaults you today?
Who builds the scripts and images? There is effort involved in building an image that has Firefox on it. If Dell feel they need to charge in order to recoup the cost of that effort, rather than offering it free as part of the value of their service, then that's up to them. The market will decide whether that is reasonable or not. I don't see how this could be illegal, they aren't using the trademark in the sense of branding them as "Firefox Laptops".
How is the possession or consumption of cocaine a crime at all? That's a victimless crime?!?! Well no, it's not. People get murdered, kidnapped, raped and shot, purely to get that fine white power into Charlie Sheen's sinuses. Same with Child porn.
Not same. The cocaine trade only causes that kind of side-effect because it is illegal. Child rape would still happen if child porn were made legal, much much more so in fact. Note that I am agreeing with your conclusion that child porn is bad, but not about the side-issue that you brought in to the discussion about the drug trade.
Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is? How can you fight something if you don't know how widespread it is? How do you find something if you don't try to look for it? If the law requires child porn blocking, then someone has to be trawling the internet actively looking for child porn in order to know what to block. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.
Linking pay strictly to company performance in an absolute way isn't rational. Let's approach it from the perspective of "what would happen with or without this person". If the right CEO would make the difference between a company earning $12B and $13B, then that person is worth a billion. If a CEO makes the difference between a company earning $17B and $17.1B, then they are only worth $100M. The company itself may be a bigger company, but if it's a company that is easy to run and pretty much rakes in the money by itself with no real effort, then the CEO is not really worth spending a huge amount on if there is not much scope for building up the company to be even bigger. Of course this is a simplified and exaggerated set of circumstances, but the principle is: does this person make a big difference to the company's bottom line? They are worth a portion of the difference that they make, not an absolute fraction of the company's profits.
Assange had gun cam footage from US helicopters in Iraq. Clearly he's been sneaking into military bases and installing cameras in the helicopters. They never showed that in the movie!
I disagree. I consider my opinions carefully. If you have something specific to say, I'm interested to hear it, but that response is just as knee-jerky as mine. At least I explained my reasoning. I accept that there are some risks, particularly the risk of a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, and that entrapment is a danger, but that is the case with all criminal law. These are things that the courts need to carefully consider.
Because regular pornography (or any other media) is not inherently illegal to create/share/possess, whereas child porn is. Possession of child porn is in and of itself proof that a crime has been committed, and it is taken as implicit that the possessor has done something to encourage further production (either by paying, re-sharing, or simply reinforcing the producer's psychological self-justification - apparently some people produce and share just for the kick of doing so, so the audience is a direct contributing factor). Possession of any other downloaded media is utterly and completely different in every legal sense.
Birds are descended from a few small species that are classed as "dinosaurs", possibly descended from just one species that has left little if any direct remains. That species no longer exists as such, but I would contend that it isn't really extinct. They aren't descended from T-Rex, which along with 99.99%* of dinosaur species is extinct.
I suspect that I need more 9's in that, but no-one really knows.
Sure, mutations are random and indiscriminate. But the statement "mutagenesis is effectively an acceleration of the natural system of evolution" is false. It's an acceleration of mutation, but it's not an acceleration of the natural system of "evolution by natural selection" to give it its full title. It's evolution by manual selection. Sure, if sufficient selection has taken place to ensure that no undesirable mutations have crept in, I have no problem with this. I'm just clarifying the terminology, because it's no use having an uninformed debate.
The web is a kind of cloud, a limited subset of what cloud computing can do, but useful to mention specifically since so many peope are familiar with it.
Third, many companies shared data "on a voluntary basis". Whether this is really voluntary or under some thinly veiled threat, there is nothing guaranteeing they won't lie on their own accord.
I guess only time will tell whether a company's canary tag is a genuine attempt to defy the police state, or a fig leaf to make you think they are on your side. As with all promises, you have to choose who you trust.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you've never used Windows 8? But I guess you're accidentally right in that it is off-topic.
The end of death necessitates the end of birth. Now I'm normally the first to cringe at a "won't somebody think of the children", but the idea of a bunch of increasingly old, increasingly selfish people clinging on to the world and making it increasingly unpleasant and hostile to the next generation fills me with horror. We have a duty to get out of the way and let a fresh set of minds and ideas have a go. Maybe they'll do a better job than us, which doesn't seem like a high bar sometimes.
Why would you find it "funny" to have someone destroyed his life by not living to the fullest?
I guess you haven't studied Mimbari humour.
Oh really? I accept that I may be mis-informed. I heard some people talking about it shortly after, there must have been confusion over the facts, and I hadn't heard any correction.
Vaccine-skepticism isn't a specific genetic trait that can be weeded out though. It's human nature to look for and see correlations that don't actually exist.
Yes, that was a fake polio vaccination campaign. Loads of people died because they had been told that they had been vaccinated when they hadn't, so didn't get a real vaccination.
The number of slashdotters that bleat about "teh evil corporations that break teh law!"
But support bypassing copyright law and getting their content for free because "information must be free".
It may be the same thing, but it isn't necessary the same people. We aren't a borg collective who all think alike. Some people defend Free Software, which requires copyright law in order to exist. Some people download all the torrents. There may be a cross-section that does both, which is as you say hypocritical. But the existence of that cross-section does not invalidate the opinions of those who consistently hold one position or the other.
Also, not all laws are created equal. Some people may support political measures such as export controls and sanctions, while not supporting copyright. If you broke the speed limit last year, does that mean that you are not entitled to justice if someone assaults you today?
If the USians want to cast it in a bad light, they call it "British Petroleum". It makes it sound sinister and evil.
Who builds the scripts and images? There is effort involved in building an image that has Firefox on it. If Dell feel they need to charge in order to recoup the cost of that effort, rather than offering it free as part of the value of their service, then that's up to them. The market will decide whether that is reasonable or not. I don't see how this could be illegal, they aren't using the trademark in the sense of branding them as "Firefox Laptops".
How is the possession or consumption of cocaine a crime at all? That's a victimless crime?!?! Well no, it's not. People get murdered, kidnapped, raped and shot, purely to get that fine white power into Charlie Sheen's sinuses. Same with Child porn.
Not same. The cocaine trade only causes that kind of side-effect because it is illegal. Child rape would still happen if child porn were made legal, much much more so in fact. Note that I am agreeing with your conclusion that child porn is bad, but not about the side-issue that you brought in to the discussion about the drug trade.
Is it possible to make something illegal if you don't know what it is? How can you fight something if you don't know how widespread it is? How do you find something if you don't try to look for it? If the law requires child porn blocking, then someone has to be trawling the internet actively looking for child porn in order to know what to block. I wouldn't wish that job on anyone.
OK, I totally mis-read the article. Too far in the future.
A Few Notes on the Culture.
Linking pay strictly to company performance in an absolute way isn't rational. Let's approach it from the perspective of "what would happen with or without this person". If the right CEO would make the difference between a company earning $12B and $13B, then that person is worth a billion. If a CEO makes the difference between a company earning $17B and $17.1B, then they are only worth $100M. The company itself may be a bigger company, but if it's a company that is easy to run and pretty much rakes in the money by itself with no real effort, then the CEO is not really worth spending a huge amount on if there is not much scope for building up the company to be even bigger. Of course this is a simplified and exaggerated set of circumstances, but the principle is: does this person make a big difference to the company's bottom line? They are worth a portion of the difference that they make, not an absolute fraction of the company's profits.
That's what friend lists are for. I only ever play Counterstrike online if I see a friend online, and *click* I'm on the same server he or she is on.
How about this: http://www.domenic-recchia.com...
Assange had gun cam footage from US helicopters in Iraq. Clearly he's been sneaking into military bases and installing cameras in the helicopters. They never showed that in the movie!
I disagree. I consider my opinions carefully. If you have something specific to say, I'm interested to hear it, but that response is just as knee-jerky as mine. At least I explained my reasoning. I accept that there are some risks, particularly the risk of a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, and that entrapment is a danger, but that is the case with all criminal law. These are things that the courts need to carefully consider.
Because regular pornography (or any other media) is not inherently illegal to create/share/possess, whereas child porn is. Possession of child porn is in and of itself proof that a crime has been committed, and it is taken as implicit that the possessor has done something to encourage further production (either by paying, re-sharing, or simply reinforcing the producer's psychological self-justification - apparently some people produce and share just for the kick of doing so, so the audience is a direct contributing factor). Possession of any other downloaded media is utterly and completely different in every legal sense.
Birds are descended from a few small species that are classed as "dinosaurs", possibly descended from just one species that has left little if any direct remains. That species no longer exists as such, but I would contend that it isn't really extinct. They aren't descended from T-Rex, which along with 99.99%* of dinosaur species is extinct.
I suspect that I need more 9's in that, but no-one really knows.
GM is hugely unpopular in the UK.
Sure, mutations are random and indiscriminate. But the statement "mutagenesis is effectively an acceleration of the natural system of evolution" is false. It's an acceleration of mutation, but it's not an acceleration of the natural system of "evolution by natural selection" to give it its full title. It's evolution by manual selection. Sure, if sufficient selection has taken place to ensure that no undesirable mutations have crept in, I have no problem with this. I'm just clarifying the terminology, because it's no use having an uninformed debate.
The web is a kind of cloud, a limited subset of what cloud computing can do, but useful to mention specifically since so many peope are familiar with it.
If they have living descendants, then surely they didn't go extinct.
Third, many companies shared data "on a voluntary basis". Whether this is really voluntary or under some thinly veiled threat, there is nothing guaranteeing they won't lie on their own accord.
I guess only time will tell whether a company's canary tag is a genuine attempt to defy the police state, or a fig leaf to make you think they are on your side. As with all promises, you have to choose who you trust.