Yes I agree, I live in central Europe and if you ever have tasted LÃderach (Swiss) or Bachhalm or Zotter (Austrian) you would not touch any Nestle dreck with a 10 ft pole.
If you really lived in Central Europe, you would know that Poles, although excellent people, rarely get that tall.
Yeah, people like you like to play the 1984 card, but it is getting a bit worn along the edges.
The threat from things like radicalism of various sorts, or from pedophiles (as brought up elsewhere in this thread), is similar to an infectious disease: if left to fester, it spreads amongst the most vulnerable in society, like the young and disenfranchised. So, apart from the question of whether having dangerous thoughts should be considered a crime or not, there is the harm that their presence as a "disease of society" does; and in any epidemy, the first thing you do is quarantaine to try to limit the spread. This is not because being ill is a crime, but because being infectious constitues a danger, and society needs time to take appropriate measures to stop more outbreaks; such as clearing the slums or digging sewers, if you will. In a similar way, it is very hard to improve lives for the angry, young men, who are now becoming terrorists, as long as the radicalisation epidemic is raging.
There is no evidence that viewing child porn causes the consumer to commit more child abuse, and some evidence that it is preventative.
Really? As the many, very serious cases that have been all over the news, at least here in UK, like the Jimmy Savill case and others, pedophile predators cause immense harm that cripples the survivors for life. Many pedophiles, if not most, don't see themselves as needing help with their problem - they don't think they have a problem, it is society that "just doesn't get it". And just like pornography has never really been anything other than a poor substitute for the real thing, watching child porn or using a plastic doll is only ever something that can, at best, take the edge off. That might be a help, if you feel strongly that you have a serious problem, but it is not my impression that most pedophiles see it that way.
Apart from that, production of child porn is not likely to limit itself to just animations and fantasies, is it? I don't think so - possession of child porn is very often evidence that you are an active pedophile, or that you are moving in that direction, and that you are not likely to seek help, unless you are forced to do so.
We often punish pedophiles just for seeking psychological help.
I assume you have the evidence to back this up? Could you point us to it, please?
Well, of course, but this is not about making it impossible to do naughty things; they just want to make sure that you can't hide behind "I didn't know". And of course, everybody already knows that you know what you are doing is illegal, but this way it has a chance of standing up in a criminal court.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe
SJW? You say it as if it is an insult; I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right, being willing to put yourself on the line to speak out for the weakest and working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of.
It would be easy for me to just go "Well, if you don't want to be called racist, don't be one"; but if you feel that your views are always being rejected, despite being well thought out, perhaps it is something in the way you present them? Fire and brimstone doesn't persuade - it just alienates. That is why I try to stick to measured arguments and facts; not that I always succeed, but when I do, people quite often listen and sometimes even agree. And sometimes I have to change my mind too, if I realise that my views are wrong.
Honestly, how stupid is Twitter's management? Here is one person who has helped Twitter actually eclipse the MSM, despite the fact that nobody want to buy them, and this is how they wanna treat him? Go right ahead, and he can dry up the Twitter swamp.
I think perhaps twitter look a bit wider and further ahead than to whether Trump and his followers want to use it; you guys are still a minority in the wider world, where twitter allegedly has some of its business. And of course, once he becomes president, his popularity is going to decline, we all know that, I think, because he is not going to deliver what his followers want, and the rest will see their expectations of his perceived incompetence confirmed. All in all, it won't matter whether he stays.
On another note, come Jan 20, Trump will own both @RealDonaldTrump as well as @POTUS. Now, they may ban the former, but will they ban the latter as well?
Of course - why not? Being the president doesn't entitle you to behave like a bigger moron than the average user - on the contrary. Just look to what the public did to Mr Clinton over his extramarital affairs, not to mention the impeachment: both were for things that would have merited very little in terms of legal machinery, had he not been president. Even bog standard celebrities are subject to scrutiny and criticism far beyond what ordinary people experience - why should Trump not be put through the wringer, then? If he doesn't like it, maybe he should retire to a more protected role suitable to his abilities.
OK - so we are going to see a mass exodus of disgruntled Americans now, are we? But who is going to want to receive them? Ah, I know, they can go to Mexico.
Only a complete moron would think that a recreational drug that alters your mood and brain chemistry is 'safe'.
Of course it isn't safe - even aspirin isn't safe. But if we know what we are doing, we can act in such a way that we minimise the risks. People drink alcohol - which is more harmful than cannabis - and it is widely recognised that there are ways to drink responsibly; the same is true for most recreational drugs. I speak from experience - I have tried many different things - the only time I lost control and were unable to think clearly was the very first time I tried alcohol. Even on LSD, you can still make intelligent decisions and act responsibly; or I can, at least. I have never been so spaced out that I didn't know that I shouldn't try to operate heavy machinery. There's no magic involved either - you just need to go into it with sensible expectations.
Strawman, TFA never mentioned anything about "workplace bullying"
It is what we call a reasonable guess. It's also a very reasonable to start talking about workplace bullying, even if this guy didn't kill himself because of it, because workplace bullying is a very major problem, that not only causes real, serious mental health problems, but also undermines morale in general and ultimately hurts productivity and profitability.There are several studies that have shown this, but really, it is just common sense, I would have thought.
I don't know what you imagine you get out of being callous - other than making yourself look slightly less than human. Workplace bullying really ought to be something that everybody worried about; nobody is immune to the very serious, mental health problems that this can cause, and trying to appear "tough" only makes you all the more vulnerable.
Well, as others will point out, nuclear actually still has one of the best safety records when you average it out over things and so on, and that is true - but it ia lilttle bit like saying, although your room is sometimes at 50 degrees centigrade and sometimes at 0 degrees, it is still comfortable, because the average turns out to be 20. I am not against nuclear, but I would much prefer something that allows us to clean up more easily when things go wrong. It may well be possible to think that into the design in some way. It's like so many other things - it isn't wise to go down a path of no return, unless you are very sure that you never want to go back.
Besides their beauty, reefs shelter land from storms, and are also a habitat for myriads of species.
Coral reefs are not just beautiful, though; they constitute only perhaps a few % of the oceans' environment, but they support something like 25% or more of all life in the sea, so we really do need to protect them.
It's a slightly sad tendency I see here on/. - to first overinterpret somebody's comments and then attack them. Personally I don't mind too much, but I'd prefer to have an intelligent conversation sometimes.
So, what I said is '... it is in line with what I have read..."; a pretty vague statement on any account. Hardly an all-out endorsement of the Daily Mail, I think; it's just that I have read things over the last few years that I think give a bit more reason to hope that it may not be uncrackable after all. I haven't kept notes, but it may well be things that were mentioned in something I read on http://www.sciencedaily.com/in.... Probably not the most breathtakingly exciting science site, but they seem to be mostly about science rather than sensations, and most articles seem to come with a few references in case you want to check the story. In my view it is a good place to keep yourself informed about actual, unglamorous science.
The real answer is a clear "No", I suspect. I don't think Trump cares much either way, to him "talking tough" is just a way to generate self-gratification, but when you get right down to reality, US businesses are relying heavily on importing cheaper labour from abroad, and would not at all like to lose that. So Trump will fold on this issue, as on so many other, and he will find a way to explain away why.
I guess what you mean is something like "I don't know what Marxism is, and I don't want to know because it's evil, evil, EEEEEVIILLL!!!", am I right?
To everybody else, Marxism is a theory in economy; one of the things that distinguish it is the fact that it doesn't make unrealistic assumptions about resources being infinite or the effects of financial mechanisms being instantaneous, among other things, like many modern theories do. Marxist economic theory has seen a bit of a renaissance in the last decade - it is no longer dismissed out of hand. This doesn't mean that we are now headed for an era of stone cold Statlinism (after all, Stalin didn't know or understand (or care) all that much about Marx's theories) - it just means that we're seeing the many, fundamental problems in the theories underwriting modern consumerist capitalism.
Even the Daily Mail sometimes gets it right. Whether they did this time, I don't know, but it is in line with what I have read over the last year from more reliable sources. There are indications that it is possible to find parts of both rhinoviruses (which cause cold) and flu viruses that are sufficiently stable to allow us to develop vaccines against all of them (the problem with cold and flu viruses is that they mutate constantly, but there are some parts that don't)
Surely it is now time to engage in a feeding frenzy and rip him apart? After all, if Clinton is a traitor for having her own mail server, and therefore guilty of mass murder and all the other accusations, then of course the same goes here? And so on... I expect we are now going to see intense scrutiny of this guy and his family - let's dig up all the dirt on him, why not? (Exercise for the reader: see if you can spot the sarcasm)
The assumption is always that the human population will continue to grow as it has in the past, and that we will always have enough resources to do so; both of which are unlikely, in my view. The following will seem very gloomy, I know, but I am actually optimistic about humanity - I think we can solve our problems, I just think people are being hopelessly naive about the prospect of continuing the current lifestyle, as well as terribly unimaginative and to be honest, lacking in self-confidence, when it comes to adjusting to changes. Even the flabbiest couch potato, who feels that he can't live without his constant overconsumption, is fully able to adapt - and is guaranteed to end up enjoying the experience, if they will allow themselves.
Firstly, we are already running up against resource restrictions - water (useable water, that is) in many regions and energy are the obvious ones. But we are also running out of less obvious things like disease resistance and what I vaguely call "ecology": the network of habitats, organisms etc, that work together as a whole and provide a number of essential services (such as insects pollinating food crops - not just honey bees, but a lot of species that depend on the nature we are so good at messing up). All these problems are solvable, but so far the understanding and the will to act have been rather lacking.
If we don't solve the resource problems as well as get our population growth seriously under control, we will reach the point where we have an unsustainaby large population and no resources, at which point it will crash catastrophically; after which point all farming will presumably be manual, at best.
But assuming that we do manage to get ourselves under control and solve the problems we have created, I don't think farming will ever be fully automated in the future. I think a very important part of making humanity's presence on Earth sustainable, long-term, is to get away from the idea of constant growth, so most production must in the future be strictly limited to what is actually needed for immediate or nearly-immediate consumption; hence, the need for food production by farming will be much less. Add to this the fact that there is a lot of people who actually enjoy working manually with the soil, and I think the need for fully automatic farming will be rather small; it will probably be seen as an option to be used if we have to - like for growing very specialised crops (such as algae that produce specific chemicals).
You all have a strange way of declaring everyone to be a "friend" of Clinton.
Heh, yeah - by such loose standards, mr Trump must be a friend of Clinton, because I have seen a picture of him beside the Clintons, with a big smile on his face (well, I assume it was his face - it would have been a strange scenario otherwise)
Germany can't extradite without guarantees that he won't face execution, not only would it violate German law, it would violate the European Charter of Human Rights. All EU member nations have surrendered sovereignty to the EU in human rights matters. Blatant violations could result in sanctions.
Exactly - and for examples, just look at how UK have spent years trying very hard to throw out known terrorists. The Europeans take the law serious - more so than the US, certainly; we don't have "extraordinary renditions" and a concentration camp in Cuba.
If I may add my bit, encouraging huge businesses isn't really the best strategy; small to medium sized companies more create employment more efficiently (as in more employees per $ in revenue) because they tend to have less management overhead etc, and a small business is less prone to find ways to transport their profits to tax-havens (possibly because the overhead cost of financial trickery is too high for a small company).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I agree, I live in central Europe and if you ever have tasted LÃderach (Swiss) or Bachhalm or Zotter (Austrian) you would not touch any Nestle dreck with a 10 ft pole.
If you really lived in Central Europe, you would know that Poles, although excellent people, rarely get that tall.
Yeah, people like you like to play the 1984 card, but it is getting a bit worn along the edges.
The threat from things like radicalism of various sorts, or from pedophiles (as brought up elsewhere in this thread), is similar to an infectious disease: if left to fester, it spreads amongst the most vulnerable in society, like the young and disenfranchised. So, apart from the question of whether having dangerous thoughts should be considered a crime or not, there is the harm that their presence as a "disease of society" does; and in any epidemy, the first thing you do is quarantaine to try to limit the spread. This is not because being ill is a crime, but because being infectious constitues a danger, and society needs time to take appropriate measures to stop more outbreaks; such as clearing the slums or digging sewers, if you will. In a similar way, it is very hard to improve lives for the angry, young men, who are now becoming terrorists, as long as the radicalisation epidemic is raging.
There is no evidence that viewing child porn causes the consumer to commit more child abuse, and some evidence that it is preventative.
Really? As the many, very serious cases that have been all over the news, at least here in UK, like the Jimmy Savill case and others, pedophile predators cause immense harm that cripples the survivors for life. Many pedophiles, if not most, don't see themselves as needing help with their problem - they don't think they have a problem, it is society that "just doesn't get it". And just like pornography has never really been anything other than a poor substitute for the real thing, watching child porn or using a plastic doll is only ever something that can, at best, take the edge off. That might be a help, if you feel strongly that you have a serious problem, but it is not my impression that most pedophiles see it that way.
Apart from that, production of child porn is not likely to limit itself to just animations and fantasies, is it? I don't think so - possession of child porn is very often evidence that you are an active pedophile, or that you are moving in that direction, and that you are not likely to seek help, unless you are forced to do so.
We often punish pedophiles just for seeking psychological help.
I assume you have the evidence to back this up? Could you point us to it, please?
Well, of course, but this is not about making it impossible to do naughty things; they just want to make sure that you can't hide behind "I didn't know". And of course, everybody already knows that you know what you are doing is illegal, but this way it has a chance of standing up in a criminal court.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure SJW's will still be free to call every Trump support a racist, sexist, homphobe
SJW? You say it as if it is an insult; I think having the courage and decency to stand up for what you know is right, being willing to put yourself on the line to speak out for the weakest and working towards a fairer and better society, are things to be proud of.
It would be easy for me to just go "Well, if you don't want to be called racist, don't be one"; but if you feel that your views are always being rejected, despite being well thought out, perhaps it is something in the way you present them? Fire and brimstone doesn't persuade - it just alienates. That is why I try to stick to measured arguments and facts; not that I always succeed, but when I do, people quite often listen and sometimes even agree. And sometimes I have to change my mind too, if I realise that my views are wrong.
Honestly, how stupid is Twitter's management? Here is one person who has helped Twitter actually eclipse the MSM, despite the fact that nobody want to buy them, and this is how they wanna treat him? Go right ahead, and he can dry up the Twitter swamp.
I think perhaps twitter look a bit wider and further ahead than to whether Trump and his followers want to use it; you guys are still a minority in the wider world, where twitter allegedly has some of its business. And of course, once he becomes president, his popularity is going to decline, we all know that, I think, because he is not going to deliver what his followers want, and the rest will see their expectations of his perceived incompetence confirmed. All in all, it won't matter whether he stays.
On another note, come Jan 20, Trump will own both @RealDonaldTrump as well as @POTUS. Now, they may ban the former, but will they ban the latter as well?
Of course - why not? Being the president doesn't entitle you to behave like a bigger moron than the average user - on the contrary. Just look to what the public did to Mr Clinton over his extramarital affairs, not to mention the impeachment: both were for things that would have merited very little in terms of legal machinery, had he not been president. Even bog standard celebrities are subject to scrutiny and criticism far beyond what ordinary people experience - why should Trump not be put through the wringer, then? If he doesn't like it, maybe he should retire to a more protected role suitable to his abilities.
Love it or leave it.
OK - so we are going to see a mass exodus of disgruntled Americans now, are we? But who is going to want to receive them? Ah, I know, they can go to Mexico.
Only a complete moron would think that a recreational drug that alters your mood and brain chemistry is 'safe'.
Of course it isn't safe - even aspirin isn't safe. But if we know what we are doing, we can act in such a way that we minimise the risks. People drink alcohol - which is more harmful than cannabis - and it is widely recognised that there are ways to drink responsibly; the same is true for most recreational drugs. I speak from experience - I have tried many different things - the only time I lost control and were unable to think clearly was the very first time I tried alcohol. Even on LSD, you can still make intelligent decisions and act responsibly; or I can, at least. I have never been so spaced out that I didn't know that I shouldn't try to operate heavy machinery. There's no magic involved either - you just need to go into it with sensible expectations.
Strawman, TFA never mentioned anything about "workplace bullying"
It is what we call a reasonable guess. It's also a very reasonable to start talking about workplace bullying, even if this guy didn't kill himself because of it, because workplace bullying is a very major problem, that not only causes real, serious mental health problems, but also undermines morale in general and ultimately hurts productivity and profitability.There are several studies that have shown this, but really, it is just common sense, I would have thought.
I don't know what you imagine you get out of being callous - other than making yourself look slightly less than human. Workplace bullying really ought to be something that everybody worried about; nobody is immune to the very serious, mental health problems that this can cause, and trying to appear "tough" only makes you all the more vulnerable.
Why the fuck would any Linux developer want to do this?
Oh, don't be like that. Let them meet us half-way: they port Windows 10 to Linux and open-source it, and we will take a look at it, why not?
Well, as others will point out, nuclear actually still has one of the best safety records when you average it out over things and so on, and that is true - but it ia lilttle bit like saying, although your room is sometimes at 50 degrees centigrade and sometimes at 0 degrees, it is still comfortable, because the average turns out to be 20. I am not against nuclear, but I would much prefer something that allows us to clean up more easily when things go wrong. It may well be possible to think that into the design in some way. It's like so many other things - it isn't wise to go down a path of no return, unless you are very sure that you never want to go back.
Besides their beauty, reefs shelter land from storms, and are also a habitat for myriads of species.
Coral reefs are not just beautiful, though; they constitute only perhaps a few % of the oceans' environment, but they support something like 25% or more of all life in the sea, so we really do need to protect them.
It's a slightly sad tendency I see here on /. - to first overinterpret somebody's comments and then attack them. Personally I don't mind too much, but I'd prefer to have an intelligent conversation sometimes.
So, what I said is '... it is in line with what I have read ..."; a pretty vague statement on any account. Hardly an all-out endorsement of the Daily Mail, I think; it's just that I have read things over the last few years that I think give a bit more reason to hope that it may not be uncrackable after all. I haven't kept notes, but it may well be things that were mentioned in something I read on http://www.sciencedaily.com/in.... Probably not the most breathtakingly exciting science site, but they seem to be mostly about science rather than sensations, and most articles seem to come with a few references in case you want to check the story. In my view it is a good place to keep yourself informed about actual, unglamorous science.
Hey, I've heard about sore losers, but sore winners? That's a new one
The real answer is a clear "No", I suspect. I don't think Trump cares much either way, to him "talking tough" is just a way to generate self-gratification, but when you get right down to reality, US businesses are relying heavily on importing cheaper labour from abroad, and would not at all like to lose that. So Trump will fold on this issue, as on so many other, and he will find a way to explain away why.
... on the constant mockery, this will be Dubya all over again, won't it?
Looking back, George W Bush seems so much better. I never thought I would say that, but there you go.
...Cultural Marxist 'Critical Theory',...
I guess what you mean is something like "I don't know what Marxism is, and I don't want to know because it's evil, evil, EEEEEVIILLL!!!", am I right?
To everybody else, Marxism is a theory in economy; one of the things that distinguish it is the fact that it doesn't make unrealistic assumptions about resources being infinite or the effects of financial mechanisms being instantaneous, among other things, like many modern theories do. Marxist economic theory has seen a bit of a renaissance in the last decade - it is no longer dismissed out of hand. This doesn't mean that we are now headed for an era of stone cold Statlinism (after all, Stalin didn't know or understand (or care) all that much about Marx's theories) - it just means that we're seeing the many, fundamental problems in the theories underwriting modern consumerist capitalism.
Even the Daily Mail sometimes gets it right. Whether they did this time, I don't know, but it is in line with what I have read over the last year from more reliable sources. There are indications that it is possible to find parts of both rhinoviruses (which cause cold) and flu viruses that are sufficiently stable to allow us to develop vaccines against all of them (the problem with cold and flu viruses is that they mutate constantly, but there are some parts that don't)
Surely it is now time to engage in a feeding frenzy and rip him apart? After all, if Clinton is a traitor for having her own mail server, and therefore guilty of mass murder and all the other accusations, then of course the same goes here? And so on... I expect we are now going to see intense scrutiny of this guy and his family - let's dig up all the dirt on him, why not? (Exercise for the reader: see if you can spot the sarcasm)
The assumption is always that the human population will continue to grow as it has in the past, and that we will always have enough resources to do so; both of which are unlikely, in my view. The following will seem very gloomy, I know, but I am actually optimistic about humanity - I think we can solve our problems, I just think people are being hopelessly naive about the prospect of continuing the current lifestyle, as well as terribly unimaginative and to be honest, lacking in self-confidence, when it comes to adjusting to changes. Even the flabbiest couch potato, who feels that he can't live without his constant overconsumption, is fully able to adapt - and is guaranteed to end up enjoying the experience, if they will allow themselves.
Firstly, we are already running up against resource restrictions - water (useable water, that is) in many regions and energy are the obvious ones. But we are also running out of less obvious things like disease resistance and what I vaguely call "ecology": the network of habitats, organisms etc, that work together as a whole and provide a number of essential services (such as insects pollinating food crops - not just honey bees, but a lot of species that depend on the nature we are so good at messing up). All these problems are solvable, but so far the understanding and the will to act have been rather lacking.
If we don't solve the resource problems as well as get our population growth seriously under control, we will reach the point where we have an unsustainaby large population and no resources, at which point it will crash catastrophically; after which point all farming will presumably be manual, at best.
But assuming that we do manage to get ourselves under control and solve the problems we have created, I don't think farming will ever be fully automated in the future. I think a very important part of making humanity's presence on Earth sustainable, long-term, is to get away from the idea of constant growth, so most production must in the future be strictly limited to what is actually needed for immediate or nearly-immediate consumption; hence, the need for food production by farming will be much less. Add to this the fact that there is a lot of people who actually enjoy working manually with the soil, and I think the need for fully automatic farming will be rather small; it will probably be seen as an option to be used if we have to - like for growing very specialised crops (such as algae that produce specific chemicals).
You all have a strange way of declaring everyone to be a "friend" of Clinton.
Heh, yeah - by such loose standards, mr Trump must be a friend of Clinton, because I have seen a picture of him beside the Clintons, with a big smile on his face (well, I assume it was his face - it would have been a strange scenario otherwise)
No, no, what they are worried about is this sort of thing: https://www.theguardian.com/bo...
I think you'll agree that it sounds pretty out there.
Germany can't extradite without guarantees that he won't face execution, not only would it violate German law, it would violate the European Charter of Human Rights. All EU member nations have surrendered sovereignty to the EU in human rights matters. Blatant violations could result in sanctions.
Exactly - and for examples, just look at how UK have spent years trying very hard to throw out known terrorists. The Europeans take the law serious - more so than the US, certainly; we don't have "extraordinary renditions" and a concentration camp in Cuba.
If I may add my bit, encouraging huge businesses isn't really the best strategy; small to medium sized companies more create employment more efficiently (as in more employees per $ in revenue) because they tend to have less management overhead etc, and a small business is less prone to find ways to transport their profits to tax-havens (possibly because the overhead cost of financial trickery is too high for a small company).