The theory of evolution is a theory that offers an explanation of how the observed fact of evolution has happened. This is like gravity: we have known its existence for thousands of years, but Newton created a theory of gravity, and Einstein improved on it. But the proposed mechanisms of evolution are not limited in scope to living organisms, they are just as valid for non-living chemistry, and perhaps it is artificial to distinguish sharply between life and dead matter.
Apart from that, the origin of life is in itself a highly interesting subject, well worth a closer study.
Great programmers work for who they want, on what they want. They take getting their personal needs met for granted, but they have grand ideas about things they want to see realized and not enough money of their own to do it. Blah. That sounds like a quote from a cheap B-movie. In the real world great programmers work. Period. They are not a sort of demi-gods who can command the world around them, they are modest, hard-working individuals, with a lot of practical and theoretical knowledge and a passion for what they do. What you are describing is a conceited, arrogant twit, who is more likely to steal the show from others than actually achieving anything himself.
Great people want strong leadership that will help them achieve beyond what they can do alone. Whoa, boy, you should stop watching all those second-rate movies and get out in fresh air once in a while. The people that want strong leadership are the people who can't find their own way in the world; they are not 'great', they are what the Chinese call 'insignificant'. You sound like you aspire to be some sort of cheap dictator.
You don't want a 'super-star', believe me. Super-stars are primadonnas, and amazingly good at grabbing the attention and looking impressive; but most programming work is un-glamorous, tedious, hard work, simply, and for that you need people who are able to make a constant and reliable effort. These people are almost without exception modest, a bit shy, possibly nerdy, and certainly not 'super-stars'.
On the other hand - the way you describe your company sounds over-hyped and conceited, so maybe you really are looking for attention-grabbers and posers.
No need to be surprised here - court cases against large corporations do take long time. The really amazing thing is the fact that many Slashdot comments will actually defend Microsoft's behaviour, as if they were above the law because they have loads of money.
Perhaps this will awaken people to the fact that in modern society nobody is above - or below - the law.
I barely managed to read the first page; but there is a grain of thruth in there. Every group of people has its own 'culture' and norms, and if you don't fit in, you will find it hard to be accepted as part of the group. Part of that is the way you look - if you want to be accepted amongst upper management, you have to look the part. The same is true for engineers - after all, would you trust a programmer wearing an impeccable suit and tie?
But much more important than the clothes you wear is the person you are. Are you reliable? Are you life-competent? In all groups it is important to contribute to the group, not just professionally, but also socially. You can fit into a group even if you break a lot of the norms, if you are seen to make important contributions to the group. A bit like the messy old grandpa who seems to be from another planet, but who none the less resolves a lot of family conflicts with his understanding and wisdom.
Re:This is all ridiculous and breeds future behavi
on
Internet Pranks in Schools
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Honestly, if she had fat legs and someone pointed it out to her in person would they have criminal/civil court documents filed over it? No, they would get detention/short-term suspension and move on with their lives. The recent rise in people being upset that a co-worker won't speak to them and is "threatening" because they dress in all black and wear sunglasses or that someone doesn't like them is created by this trend in secondary education that teaches people to behave like this.
I just can't understand why a grown adult would not be able to leave the house because some little fucking bastard said she had fat legs on the Internet. Both the adult and the student need to grow up -- fast. You have a point there - but there is a difference. As the amount of SPAM in most people's inboxes shows, the internet provides us with a terrifyingly efficient way of reaching large numbers of people. If you insult somebody face to face, that is between you and that person, and possibly a couple of people nearby, but what you put n the internet is visible to the whole world. This can easily be an overwhelming prospect for the victim of cyber-bullying. You know, even adults in high positions are just humans, and vulnerable.
Does anybody else wonder why this HW is so expensive? This is paid for through the taxes, so it would be interesting to see if what we are paying for is actual value and not just pumped up salaries and patent fees.
We all need privacy - I mean, would you feel comfortable with knowing that there might be a camera in your bedroom? Or in your bathroom? There has to be a limit somewhere, a space where can be alone. Some people may not mind crapping in public (this was apparently what the Romans did, more or less), or knowing that their minds could be read electronically (the technology to do so is getting closer each day); but having a safe haven somewhere is a fundamental need for all living creatures, I think.
So, "I have nothing to hide" is simply not true. I have lots to hide, and I would prefer to have a say in what I have to reveal to others, if it's not too much trouble.
So, it's "freedom of speech" time all over again. What hypocrisy; what people in general mean with that is simply that they want to have that right for themselves; they don't care much for the freedom of speech for people who have certain viewpoints that are not popular. This is not a particularly American phenomenon, that is the way of all societies; there will always be certain viewpoints that will be met with a choir of "shut up" and "you shouldn't be saying that". It's just that Americans want to curb the freedom of speech in other ways than the Iranians.
Because, make no mistake here - this is not just the Iranian government that want to steal the freedom of the people; there is no doubt that a substantial part of the people of Iraq that feel this way. Compare to yourself - assuming that you are a devout Christan - wouldn't you object to people insulting Jesus? Blasphemy is still a felony in many countries, even in our part of the world, and so is "hate-speech" and inciting to unrest. And while we may agree that freedom of speech is important, it is also well worth remembering that it took us a couple of hundred years to get here, and that different societies follow their own, different paths. Let me remind everybody, that there was, in fact, a time when the Muslim world was the beacon of freedom and enlightenment while Christianity was a backwater. These things change, and instead of pointing fingers we should concentrate on not throwing away our own freedoms.
In China and broadly Asia, IP is almost a misnomer No, it is definitely a misnomer - we have to remember that IP is a relatively new idea, even in the West; I don't think it actually came in to common use until some time into the 20th century. In China, perhaps more than here, copying the work of great masters has been the main way of learning - in Chinese calligraphy the goal for the student is to be able to write exactly as the famous master calligraphers; only then can you start developing your own style. This used to be common in Europe too - an apprentice painter learned to paint as his master by copying his work.
I think this is because art used to be considered simply a craft - art as something lofty and ethereal is a fairly new concept too. And the idea that any intellectual work, even just a trivial memo or source code, is somehow in the same sphere, is an even newer concept - and a rather preposterous one at that. Copyright legislation is still based on the assumption that the subject matter is somehow an expression of true creativity - like eg. novels - but in practise this is almost never the case.
You use words like 'stealing' and 'spying', which may be justified from an American viewpoint, but not necessarily from a Chinese one. Perhaps from their viewpoint it is morally wrong to keep knowledge secret when it could benefit society; perhaps they are not 'spying', but 'exercising the right of the people'?
When you think about it, perhaps it isn't so strange. Intellectuals have historically always been critical of society, even from the time of Socrates. I think the reason is that when you are intelligent and well educated, it is all too easy to see the hypocrisy and injustice all around you, and if you care at all, you will want to change it. Unfortunately high intelligence and education in themselves doesn't guarantee maturity - this has to come with experience, so while we are young, we can easily adopt extreme viewpoints, not least if we don't have a good relationship to older, more mature persons that we can discuss our thoughts with.
That is all there is to it, really - it is all too popular in the more clueless end of the press to speculate about some groups of people being fundamentally different. I suppose reporters just aren't like the rest of us.
So? Here in the wet there are people - seriousminded people - who are strangely obsessed with illustrations of some nearly naked guy strapped to a piece of wood. At least when the Chinese admire Mao Zedong, it is a person whom we know actually existed, and who was a major benefactor for the Chinese people.
Yes, I did actually say that, and I do know that he turned funny in his head when he got old, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he brought China out of the dark middleages into to the 20th century and gave the Chinese people reasons for self-respect. The Communist revolution was reason why China is now well on the way to becoming the world's leading superpower.
Right, I'm done - you can go on and hate me. It's OK, nothing to be ashamed of.
Although privacy is important, this is not a question about privacy, but about accountability. The sad truth is that even if they have to ask a judge about it, they will still get all the warrants they want - remember, this is about National Security (TM). But when you get a warant from a judge, a record is made of the event, by an authority that is independent (at least in principle), unless I am much mistaken, which means that in principle it will be possible to review the events later and possibly prosecute things like abuse of power etc.
If there are no independent records, what is there to stop agents from spying on their neighbors? Only the personal integrity of the individual agent, and while most may be decent people, some aren't. And much worse than that, it will be a lot easier for powerful interest groups to infiltrate and abuse the system - do we want, say, Scientology to have agents in a position where they can tap our private communications? They aren't exactly know for their respect for their fellow humans, and there are many other groups exactly like them.
- and it is probably due to the author of the article or the good mr Zonk not understanding the issue. It would seem obvious to me that if she no longer has her own immune system, but the donor's, then it would attack the rest of her body even as it left the liver alone.
The article doesn't say whether the hospital has checked the genetic identity of the girl's immune cells, but it could be that either her immune system has accepted the foreign immune cells as their own, or her immune system has been 'reprogrammed' to consider the foreing liver cells as 'own'.
Not even a terrorist, hell-bent on killing himself in a terrorist attack is likely to transport a large quantity of seriously dangerous, radioactive material unprotected in a car. It would be shielded, and the only radiation likely to any distance from the source would be gamma- and possibly neutron radiation - and even that is not difficult to shield. Neutrinos, of course, would pass through anything, but the detector required would consist mostly of a large quantity of very pure water. And nice as it is to have your own swimmingpool, I can't see myself lugging an Olympic-size one around inside my mobile.
We have to do something about the ever increasing effect our lifestyle has on the environment. Only 6 months ago you would still hear the chorus of anti-environmentalists chanting their well-rehearsed nonsense; you don't hear it as much now - I suppose the message is finally sinking in. Perhaps this exact way is not the best, but that is how we usually make progress towards the best compromise: you take a first step, then you realize that there is a better way, so you correct the course a bit.
Also, this is not something that happens in isolation. For example, if it get too expensive to commute to work, more people are likely to begin to work from home. Employers are not idiots, despite what you hear (and see), they know that if it is too expensive to go to work, they will lose some of their best employees - they are the ones who will be able to change job fastest - so they will want to find a solution.
And perhaps somebody will realize that it would be a brilliant idea to place people's homes reasonably near to their work.
I mean, think about it - we have to limit radical ideas. Otherwise, one day somebody is going to figure out how to unify gravity with all the other forces. Remember that debacle with Charles Darwin and his radical extremist ideas about evolution! Do we want that kind of things to happen again? If we don't stop this kind of thing before it starts and throw out the baby with the bathwater, we'll soon see our young taking drugs, listening to rhythmic music and having fun!
The important bit here is the word "Science". You can be a fabulous programmer even if all you know is BASIC, and you can be a very good computer scientist without being able to write good applications. The goals are completely different.
It's like the distinction between engineers and scientists in general. Engineers have been educated to do practical work: building houses, bridges, ships, software - they may have learned advanced techniques, but of course with a view towards practical applicbility. Scientists on the other hands are not there to primarily make practical work - yes, it sounds funny, doesn't it? As a scientist you are supposed to investigate the unknown, and since you don't know what that entails, you have to understand things at a much more basic level. In computer science it means you need to know not just algorithms and a programming language, but also systems architecture, microcode, the mathematical models relevant for programming etc etc. In fact knowing how to program well is about as relevant to a computer scientist as 'being good with numbers' is to a mathematician; ie not entirely irrelevant, but there is a lot more to it than that.
And that is why Java may be a less than perfect language for teaching CS - it isolates you from the physical machine and protects you from the pitfalls in C and assembler - a good idea in a production environmennt, but not if those are the things you need to learn about. In a way you can say that it the job of the scientist to make all the mistakes and find a way through the wilderness. After that the engineers take over and build a proper road.
What utter nonsense it this? The power and versatility of the UNIX shell(s) is exactly why I and many others choose to work with UNIX. In fact, I tend to work more and more in ksh - my X desktop is almost exclusively a handy way to have several xterms open. If I only had the gui, I would get next to nothing done.
This has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to with knowing about your limits - and caring about them. He has, despite knowing better, done a large number of things that he shouldn't have; I refuse to believe that he didn't know that he was lying about Iraq, that he didn't know that he alienated all America's allies etc.
The only hypothesis I can offer for his stupidity is "blind faith": the kind of religious faith that says "close your eyes and ears to reality, only your religion matters". He is stupid because he has made conscious choice to be so, for religious reasons. Not that the Bible (or the Qur'an for that matter) dictates this, but fundamentalists wants to be better than God's word - and that is truly hubris.
Yes, that's right, when you can't find a good counter argument, use an ad hominem attack. Well done!
OK, so perhaps you don't hate poor people - as if anybody would seriously suggest that. The problem is that you just don't care, you have got your own arse covered, for now at least, but I'll bet that if you run out of luck, you'll change your attitude just like that.
This cavalier attitude is the effect of modern capitalism - only 'I' matter; bunch of Ferengies the lot of you (look it up if you want). You should be ashamed, only you wouldn't know how.
Capitalism depends on two factors: one, that energy can be got for next to nothing, and two, that it has no consequence that you pollute and waste resource like there was no tomorrow. Climate change will put and end to that.
Isn't it just like a cheap soap opera? It's like watching the 512th episode of Dallas - the bad guy walks in, make some outrageous claim and uses all means to bully the good guys - again. Just like in episode 511, 510, 509,... The bottom line here is that the world is full of bullies, who who really know what real life is and who don't care because they just want everything RIGHT NOW!!!
Absurd as it seems, that is apparently the law in France. The best advice I can give is one that I have heard often enough from Americans: If you don't like the smell in the kitchen, get out. Amazon apparently decided that they didn't mind the smell all that much - that is their prerogative.
The thing is - when we venture outside our own neigborhood, things are going to be different. Perhaps this is more obvious to a European - despite the EU, we are still a bunch of nations with big differences in culture and legislation, and most of us are only a few hours' drive away from a place where things are different in significant ways, so we are used to it. You learn to simply accept that kind of things.
Slashdot Mirror
The theory of evolution is a theory that offers an explanation of how the observed fact of evolution has happened. This is like gravity: we have known its existence for thousands of years, but Newton created a theory of gravity, and Einstein improved on it. But the proposed mechanisms of evolution are not limited in scope to living organisms, they are just as valid for non-living chemistry, and perhaps it is artificial to distinguish sharply between life and dead matter.
Apart from that, the origin of life is in itself a highly interesting subject, well worth a closer study.
Considering how easy it is to crack hardware and software, is it really wise to create a robot army, that could be subverted and turned against you?
You don't want a 'super-star', believe me. Super-stars are primadonnas, and amazingly good at grabbing the attention and looking impressive; but most programming work is un-glamorous, tedious, hard work, simply, and for that you need people who are able to make a constant and reliable effort. These people are almost without exception modest, a bit shy, possibly nerdy, and certainly not 'super-stars'.
On the other hand - the way you describe your company sounds over-hyped and conceited, so maybe you really are looking for attention-grabbers and posers.
No need to be surprised here - court cases against large corporations do take long time. The really amazing thing is the fact that many Slashdot comments will actually defend Microsoft's behaviour, as if they were above the law because they have loads of money.
Perhaps this will awaken people to the fact that in modern society nobody is above - or below - the law.
I barely managed to read the first page; but there is a grain of thruth in there. Every group of people has its own 'culture' and norms, and if you don't fit in, you will find it hard to be accepted as part of the group. Part of that is the way you look - if you want to be accepted amongst upper management, you have to look the part. The same is true for engineers - after all, would you trust a programmer wearing an impeccable suit and tie?
But much more important than the clothes you wear is the person you are. Are you reliable? Are you life-competent? In all groups it is important to contribute to the group, not just professionally, but also socially. You can fit into a group even if you break a lot of the norms, if you are seen to make important contributions to the group. A bit like the messy old grandpa who seems to be from another planet, but who none the less resolves a lot of family conflicts with his understanding and wisdom.
I just can't understand why a grown adult would not be able to leave the house because some little fucking bastard said she had fat legs on the Internet. Both the adult and the student need to grow up -- fast. You have a point there - but there is a difference. As the amount of SPAM in most people's inboxes shows, the internet provides us with a terrifyingly efficient way of reaching large numbers of people. If you insult somebody face to face, that is between you and that person, and possibly a couple of people nearby, but what you put n the internet is visible to the whole world. This can easily be an overwhelming prospect for the victim of cyber-bullying. You know, even adults in high positions are just humans, and vulnerable.
Does anybody else wonder why this HW is so expensive? This is paid for through the taxes, so it would be interesting to see if what we are paying for is actual value and not just pumped up salaries and patent fees.
We all need privacy - I mean, would you feel comfortable with knowing that there might be a camera in your bedroom? Or in your bathroom? There has to be a limit somewhere, a space where can be alone. Some people may not mind crapping in public (this was apparently what the Romans did, more or less), or knowing that their minds could be read electronically (the technology to do so is getting closer each day); but having a safe haven somewhere is a fundamental need for all living creatures, I think.
So, "I have nothing to hide" is simply not true. I have lots to hide, and I would prefer to have a say in what I have to reveal to others, if it's not too much trouble.
So, it's "freedom of speech" time all over again. What hypocrisy; what people in general mean with that is simply that they want to have that right for themselves; they don't care much for the freedom of speech for people who have certain viewpoints that are not popular. This is not a particularly American phenomenon, that is the way of all societies; there will always be certain viewpoints that will be met with a choir of "shut up" and "you shouldn't be saying that". It's just that Americans want to curb the freedom of speech in other ways than the Iranians.
Because, make no mistake here - this is not just the Iranian government that want to steal the freedom of the people; there is no doubt that a substantial part of the people of Iraq that feel this way. Compare to yourself - assuming that you are a devout Christan - wouldn't you object to people insulting Jesus? Blasphemy is still a felony in many countries, even in our part of the world, and so is "hate-speech" and inciting to unrest. And while we may agree that freedom of speech is important, it is also well worth remembering that it took us a couple of hundred years to get here, and that different societies follow their own, different paths. Let me remind everybody, that there was, in fact, a time when the Muslim world was the beacon of freedom and enlightenment while Christianity was a backwater. These things change, and instead of pointing fingers we should concentrate on not throwing away our own freedoms.
I think this is because art used to be considered simply a craft - art as something lofty and ethereal is a fairly new concept too. And the idea that any intellectual work, even just a trivial memo or source code, is somehow in the same sphere, is an even newer concept - and a rather preposterous one at that. Copyright legislation is still based on the assumption that the subject matter is somehow an expression of true creativity - like eg. novels - but in practise this is almost never the case.
You use words like 'stealing' and 'spying', which may be justified from an American viewpoint, but not necessarily from a Chinese one. Perhaps from their viewpoint it is morally wrong to keep knowledge secret when it could benefit society; perhaps they are not 'spying', but 'exercising the right of the people'?
Yeah, I've tried too. Gee, that was some heavy dope, man.
When you think about it, perhaps it isn't so strange. Intellectuals have historically always been critical of society, even from the time of Socrates. I think the reason is that when you are intelligent and well educated, it is all too easy to see the hypocrisy and injustice all around you, and if you care at all, you will want to change it. Unfortunately high intelligence and education in themselves doesn't guarantee maturity - this has to come with experience, so while we are young, we can easily adopt extreme viewpoints, not least if we don't have a good relationship to older, more mature persons that we can discuss our thoughts with.
That is all there is to it, really - it is all too popular in the more clueless end of the press to speculate about some groups of people being fundamentally different. I suppose reporters just aren't like the rest of us.
So? Here in the wet there are people - seriousminded people - who are strangely obsessed with illustrations of some nearly naked guy strapped to a piece of wood. At least when the Chinese admire Mao Zedong, it is a person whom we know actually existed, and who was a major benefactor for the Chinese people.
Yes, I did actually say that, and I do know that he turned funny in his head when he got old, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he brought China out of the dark middleages into to the 20th century and gave the Chinese people reasons for self-respect. The Communist revolution was reason why China is now well on the way to becoming the world's leading superpower.
Right, I'm done - you can go on and hate me. It's OK, nothing to be ashamed of.
Although privacy is important, this is not a question about privacy, but about accountability. The sad truth is that even if they have to ask a judge about it, they will still get all the warrants they want - remember, this is about National Security (TM). But when you get a warant from a judge, a record is made of the event, by an authority that is independent (at least in principle), unless I am much mistaken, which means that in principle it will be possible to review the events later and possibly prosecute things like abuse of power etc.
If there are no independent records, what is there to stop agents from spying on their neighbors? Only the personal integrity of the individual agent, and while most may be decent people, some aren't. And much worse than that, it will be a lot easier for powerful interest groups to infiltrate and abuse the system - do we want, say, Scientology to have agents in a position where they can tap our private communications? They aren't exactly know for their respect for their fellow humans, and there are many other groups exactly like them.
- and it is probably due to the author of the article or the good mr Zonk not understanding the issue. It would seem obvious to me that if she no longer has her own immune system, but the donor's, then it would attack the rest of her body even as it left the liver alone.
The article doesn't say whether the hospital has checked the genetic identity of the girl's immune cells, but it could be that either her immune system has accepted the foreign immune cells as their own, or her immune system has been 'reprogrammed' to consider the foreing liver cells as 'own'.
Not even a terrorist, hell-bent on killing himself in a terrorist attack is likely to transport a large quantity of seriously dangerous, radioactive material unprotected in a car. It would be shielded, and the only radiation likely to any distance from the source would be gamma- and possibly neutron radiation - and even that is not difficult to shield. Neutrinos, of course, would pass through anything, but the detector required would consist mostly of a large quantity of very pure water. And nice as it is to have your own swimmingpool, I can't see myself lugging an Olympic-size one around inside my mobile.
We have to do something about the ever increasing effect our lifestyle has on the environment. Only 6 months ago you would still hear the chorus of anti-environmentalists chanting their well-rehearsed nonsense; you don't hear it as much now - I suppose the message is finally sinking in. Perhaps this exact way is not the best, but that is how we usually make progress towards the best compromise: you take a first step, then you realize that there is a better way, so you correct the course a bit.
Also, this is not something that happens in isolation. For example, if it get too expensive to commute to work, more people are likely to begin to work from home. Employers are not idiots, despite what you hear (and see), they know that if it is too expensive to go to work, they will lose some of their best employees - they are the ones who will be able to change job fastest - so they will want to find a solution.
And perhaps somebody will realize that it would be a brilliant idea to place people's homes reasonably near to their work.
I mean, think about it - we have to limit radical ideas. Otherwise, one day somebody is going to figure out how to unify gravity with all the other forces. Remember that debacle with Charles Darwin and his radical extremist ideas about evolution! Do we want that kind of things to happen again? If we don't stop this kind of thing before it starts and throw out the baby with the bathwater, we'll soon see our young taking drugs, listening to rhythmic music and having fun!
The important bit here is the word "Science". You can be a fabulous programmer even if all you know is BASIC, and you can be a very good computer scientist without being able to write good applications. The goals are completely different.
It's like the distinction between engineers and scientists in general. Engineers have been educated to do practical work: building houses, bridges, ships, software - they may have learned advanced techniques, but of course with a view towards practical applicbility. Scientists on the other hands are not there to primarily make practical work - yes, it sounds funny, doesn't it? As a scientist you are supposed to investigate the unknown, and since you don't know what that entails, you have to understand things at a much more basic level. In computer science it means you need to know not just algorithms and a programming language, but also systems architecture, microcode, the mathematical models relevant for programming etc etc. In fact knowing how to program well is about as relevant to a computer scientist as 'being good with numbers' is to a mathematician; ie not entirely irrelevant, but there is a lot more to it than that.
And that is why Java may be a less than perfect language for teaching CS - it isolates you from the physical machine and protects you from the pitfalls in C and assembler - a good idea in a production environmennt, but not if those are the things you need to learn about. In a way you can say that it the job of the scientist to make all the mistakes and find a way through the wilderness. After that the engineers take over and build a proper road.
What utter nonsense it this? The power and versatility of the UNIX shell(s) is exactly why I and many others choose to work with UNIX. In fact, I tend to work more and more in ksh - my X desktop is almost exclusively a handy way to have several xterms open. If I only had the gui, I would get next to nothing done.
You don't think he is a fool, or stupid? I do.
This has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to with knowing about your limits - and caring about them. He has, despite knowing better, done a large number of things that he shouldn't have; I refuse to believe that he didn't know that he was lying about Iraq, that he didn't know that he alienated all America's allies etc.
The only hypothesis I can offer for his stupidity is "blind faith": the kind of religious faith that says "close your eyes and ears to reality, only your religion matters". He is stupid because he has made conscious choice to be so, for religious reasons. Not that the Bible (or the Qur'an for that matter) dictates this, but fundamentalists wants to be better than God's word - and that is truly hubris.
Yes, that's right, when you can't find a good counter argument, use an ad hominem attack. Well done!
OK, so perhaps you don't hate poor people - as if anybody would seriously suggest that. The problem is that you just don't care, you have got your own arse covered, for now at least, but I'll bet that if you run out of luck, you'll change your attitude just like that.
This cavalier attitude is the effect of modern capitalism - only 'I' matter; bunch of Ferengies the lot of you (look it up if you want). You should be ashamed, only you wouldn't know how.
Capitalism depends on two factors: one, that energy can be got for next to nothing, and two, that it has no consequence that you pollute and waste resource like there was no tomorrow. Climate change will put and end to that.
Isn't it just like a cheap soap opera? It's like watching the 512th episode of Dallas - the bad guy walks in, make some outrageous claim and uses all means to bully the good guys - again. Just like in episode 511, 510, 509, ... The bottom line here is that the world is full of bullies, who who really know what real life is and who don't care because they just want everything RIGHT NOW!!!
Absurd as it seems, that is apparently the law in France. The best advice I can give is one that I have heard often enough from Americans: If you don't like the smell in the kitchen, get out. Amazon apparently decided that they didn't mind the smell all that much - that is their prerogative.
The thing is - when we venture outside our own neigborhood, things are going to be different. Perhaps this is more obvious to a European - despite the EU, we are still a bunch of nations with big differences in culture and legislation, and most of us are only a few hours' drive away from a place where things are different in significant ways, so we are used to it. You learn to simply accept that kind of things.