I agree with your analysis, sadly... This is how the world works, and how we became a nation of whores.
When money/profits are more important than ethics (or basic humanity), we really don't have much going for us anymore. When debates like this are even within the realms of comprehension, it is a sad, sad, reflection on us.
There is no such thing as a red or blue state. Its a media construct, that somehow became confused with a statement of truth. Look at the voting margins between Dems and Reps in any so-called Red or Blue state, and you'll be hard pressed to find a margin greater than 10%. The Red vs. Blue thing, if anything, is probably showing that people are moving more towards the middle, but this would remain invisible, since the lunatic fringes of each ideology are louder than the growing horde of moderates.
Arizona, for example, is a VERY "red" state. But... We have a Democratic governor (who strongly endorsed Obama, almost to the point of quitting to help him), and around half of our counties have very liberal tendencies. Outside of Phoenix, two out of three of our "big" cities are very Democratic.
Sadly the Electoral system isn't very good for showing diversity of opinion, which leads to both polarization and moderation being shown as "red" or "blue".
Also... Red doesn't always equal religious... Only 43% of people in Arizona described themselves as religious in the 2000 census. Not to say that the remainder are atheists, but obviously not religious wackos either.
. Collective bargaining is something you are completely free to try, if you can convince your employer to go for it. What they're against is the idea that employers should be forced to allow it.
Agreed, with caveats. If employees can coerce the employer to their conditions, I'm fine with that, its nice and symmetric. I don't think law makers should encourage unions, OR work to discourage them. It should be a employee/employer game, not a government one.
If you are an unskilled laborer, and there is someone else out there who will do your job for less than what you will do it for, your employer should be completely free to get rid of you and hire that person. You do not have a right to that particular job or to any particular wage. You are entitled to whatever you can bargain for with your employer. If you and all your coworkers get together and insist on collective bargaining, and your employer thinks it'd be better to go for that than to go through the hassle of firing the lot of you and hiring a whole new staff, that's great. You're completely free to do that.
I do have a problem with the pure seniority model as well. I don't think time worked is nearly as important as competence and skills. But then again, using your line of reasoning, if you can get your employer to buy it... Its fine and dandy. I think the use of the word "free" is a little much though, since as a union (freely negotiated with employer) you can check that freedom with your own collective actions. So it isn't completely free, but constrained with consequences, like all other things.
I do think there is some protections that should be granted though, like firing people for reasons that have nothing to do with their accepted wage, or ability to do the job, reasons such as gender, sexual orientation, and race. We probably disagree there...
Known or highly probably advances, yes. Unknown, or theoretical advances no.
Should we use all our resources willy-nilly, thinking that we will have a Star Trek like replicator by the time their all gone? Or burn all our oil and whatnot just because someday soon we'll have cold fusion? Or, more controversally, ignore something like global warming (not to get in that argument, take this as a thought experiment) because we assume future generations will have a way of dealing with it.
Resource management problems, and the illusion of infinite supply/replacements has brought relatively advanced civilizations to their knees before. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for example.
That study said it was conditional to some events, and some types of people, not universal. It was combating the idea that "venting" was universally significant, and not that the opposite was.
The basic point is, people cope differently, and we must cater to this. There is no single universal RIGHT way to deal with traumatic experiences.
Ex-Soldiers ARE amongst the people who pick our future decision makers. More importantly, the people who surround them and know them are. My parents still are anti-war, because of a Vietnam, and the effects it had on their friends, society. Thus damaged soldiers are a good way of tempering our pro-war zealotry in the future. Compare the social effects of the Vietnam (and all earlier wars), to the rather tame, and psychologically subdued, wars after it. The first Gulf War was almost invisible, and quickly forgotten, while WWII, Korea, and Vietnam still leave some lasting scars. A lot of this is because of the conditions that the soldiers faced, and the effects they had on them.
Though, to temper my own idiocy, I don't think we should strive for psychologically injuring our soldiers, war does a good enough job at that. None of my friends who survived the modern Iraq engagement came out very well. War does a good enough job at hurting people, to wish to further this is madness. Even with psychological help, my friends are still injured by it, though perhaps in a less traumatic way.
I don't want ANYONE to suffer more than they have to. I don't think neglecting our soldiers for some future good, is really an ethical decision. The ends never justify the means. The sooner we learn this, the sooner we take war with a serious grain of skepticism, and disdain. Using our returning soldiers for our own agenda, is just as bad as the problem you want to address (using our soldiers to further your political ends). Your still just using someone for your own reasons, and benefit.
Though if they virtualized combat (ala Ender's Game), or had a miracle drug to completely desensitize our soldiers, I would also be against it. I want our soldiers to be human, and to experience what they do, for good or ill. the second war becomes a video game, that's when we will elect to be in a permanent war. Only with first hand knowledge (i.e. human experience) can we weigh the consequences of our actions. My friends (and all others like them) who were in Iraq and Afghanistan are why I'm anti-war, not because of some ideological premise. If war was only waged machine against machine, I'd be all for it, its the human factor that matters, only. But denying care to soldiers, again, for a silly point is idiotic, and morally incomprehensible.
The people you need to sensitize are the decisionmakers and the people who pick them. Don't pick on the soldiers. Leave them alone.
What we need is full reporting of war, subjecting the public to ALL aspects of it, all the gore, all the violence, everything. I remember watching some local footage of "Shock and Awe", and seeing some kids head, with half of it missing... That is war. Only if us comfortable folk at home can see it as it is, then can we decide if its worth it. When coverage is overly sanitized, then the real impact is muted to the point to be nonexistent. Show our dead soldiers, and their dead fighters (I hestitate to call them soldiers) and innocents, with no sanitization... Then the public can judge, and then the issue becomes real to us.
Your post was just a Wikipedia article on a fringe idea based on selected statistics, and not some inevitability.
Building our strategy on possible future events is still a rather shaky way of going about things. Which is still opposed your first post, as far as I can tell from your intents.
Yes, thorium may or may not be a viable replacement for our current array of energy problems. Though I rather doubt that we'd ever concentrate all our eggs in a single basket. Even betting on this, is a rather faulty bet, in my opinion though, since we would still have supply-side problems, and perhaps (probably) many many unforeseen other bottlenecks to any future technologies.
I like the idea of shaping the future, and not just staying the course and praying for the best in the future.
Maybe. But when people start enforcing my "rights" by telling me what I am not allowed to do, I start to worry that their concept of individual rights might be a wee bit shaky.
And you would be right. There is no such thing as "real" rights, there is no observable a priori basis for them. Rights are basically a social convention, and this completely arbitrary. In the end it boils down to something you claim as such, and are capable of convincing others of, and finally being able to protect once established as such.
Yes, I too hate Unions because some people under them make more money than I think they should...
That, btw, might be the dumbest reason to hate unions. I'm generally pro-union (my father is a life-long Teamster, with a nice pension, and rather limited bad stories), and I can find several cases of union abuse, and places where they go wrong (being from Detroit, you can too), but just because someone gets paid more than you want them too, is not one of them. Yes, some of that might come out of your pocket, but then again, you have the ability to go to a cheaper store, if the difference means that much.
I generally find unions to be more good than not, though they can be bad (as can all things).
The "LAW" will not protect workers. If you read/., you know that most people of a libertarian bent are fully against the law protecting anyone from employers. Most conservatives agree. On that end, the only thing one can do is organize, and protect their own interests from their employer. Really the goal is to put the employees, and the employer, on equal grounds. Sometimes unions forget this, of course, and boost themselves OVER their employer, forgetting that they need the latter, as much as the latter needs the former.
I do think that unions are unfairly slandered though (a lot of money goes towards this). I also think that we have the general "squeaky wheel" bias going on here, where only the BAD things they do get publicized, while the ones that tick along normally are completely ignored, leaving us with only a negative impression (probably the sane impression would be a neutral one). They also, as seems your case, builds a sense of resentment. In the trucking industry the difference between pay-scales can be rather extreme between union shops and non-union ones.
One of my friends fathers hates unions only for the reason he worked his whole life in a non-union shop, and made around 50% less than his union counterparts, and entered his golden years with hardly anything, while his co-workers left with substantial pensions.
No sane person likes ethanol. I do consider myself an environmentalist, too, and I can even see how moronic a solution ethanol is in the US. Therefore your point failed. Congrats.
I don't see environmentalism as about "bringing progress to a halt", but rather trying to ensure that our progress is SUSTAINABLE and doesn't bring harm to us in the future. Yes, it gets in the way of pure greed and development, but I don't have anything against that, since I don't see greed for greed's sake a virtue, nor do I see progress for progress' sake a virtue.
I don't see a problem with environmentalism acting as a check on industry and pure (exploitative) capitalism. If a corporation acts in a way that is more harmful than helpful, what is wrong with correcting this, especially when the harm happens in the long term (a time frame that ideological capitalism is VERY bad at self-regulating)? I do value the health of the world that my children and grandchildren will inherit from me, I see this as a healthy view of things. I also value the natural world for its own sake, and not merely as a collection of resources that someone can (and should) make money off of. The latter view has had some very large bad consequences throughout history, by the way.
I put my own health, and that of future generations, above some faceless corporations profit margin. Does this make me against progress? If yes, how is this a bad thing, then? Not all progress is a universal good.
I always suspected that the singularity/transhumanism was the Rapture for geeks, and now I have proof. Building your life around a mythical point is generally a bad idea, since faith has been known to be wrong. Its like the Christian Extremists (I'm not slandering the rest of you, no worries) who are supporting Israel to bring about the end of the world, and thus don't need to worry about the Earth's climate, or future generations at all.
History is full of droves of the "faithful" who dropped all their plantings and stood on the mountain tops waiting for some God to come down and save them, only to die of starvation a year or so later.
Its worse than being short-sighted, its being willfully short-sighted. Its like blowing your whole savings, cashing out your house, and maxing your credit cards at 45, since your sure you'll die by 50... Then comes your 51st birthday.
The next step is Vurt feathers? Or Strange Days? Or that immersion tech in Rant?
I don't actually know if this is a good idea, or even possible. Our brains are laid out differently, and sensory experience is perceived differently, and through different pathways. Thus I don't know if we can ever map one brains experiences directly to anothers.
Saying that this is possible (with some sort of individualized neural translation software), imagine the other difficulties.
To be banal, the next step in entertainment is either full 3D, or even more banally, downloaded content.
Perhaps I just don't have the refined senses of many people, but I hardly can tell the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD. One of my friends has a VERY nice set up, and I still can barely tell the difference. I can't state anything on the sound differences, since he has a very expensive surround sound set-up, that even makes DVDs sound killer.
Yes, I can tell a very slight graphics difference between them, but it is nothing close to the difference between DVD and VHS. If I'm really into the movie, I can't tell at all, to be honest. It isn't worth the investment for the TV, box, cables, sound system. If it was a bigger improvement, it might, but for the range of difference, I just can't justify spending that much.
Perhaps when my TV dies, and my DVD player dies, and my 1986 stereo system dies, then I might upgrade, for the right price. Though I will still buy DVDs for it, since they are cheaper, and easily available used. Most of my video tastes are not skewed towards the modern, and I doubt that Blu-Ray will EVER offer me incentive to upgrade some of my favorite movies to that format. Will Evil Dead 2 really show improvements over DVD? The Godfather? Apocalypse Now!? I doubt it.
Of all the people I know, perhaps 3 have Blu-Ray players, and actually buy Blu-Ray DVDs (and two of them is because of the PS3). For most, there is no real reason to bother. It isn't very exciting. And to be honest, most of the praise they get smacks of cognitive dissonance, and post-hoc rationalizing (read "buyers remorse"). There really isn't enough difference to stand on street corners and preach.
Yes, it can be seen as a public health law, but as you said; "I really don't like smoke and a lot of other people agree," this is not the reasoning behind public health laws, this is the reasoning behind vice laws. Prohibition, I'm sure, was also billed as a public health law (amendment), but in hindsight we can all see it was nothing but another silly vice law. If the reasoning behind the law is mere distaste, it can't be seen as a public health issue.
If it was, I could have a case for banning perfume and cologne, because they make me gag. Or spandex, for the same reason.
Yes, the second hand foil can be brought up, but it isn't as conclusive as people would have you think. It also doesn't work for some of the more extreme laws, like banning smoking in cars, or rental properties. The latter is just moronic, the former falls squarely into the taste issue, and thus is nothing but a vice law (unless someone can state a study claiming that second hand smoke has a long radioactive-like half-life.
Also them, we run into the "tax it to hell" class of laws. The tax laws are specifically made to "make people quit", invalidating your "public vs. private" distinction. Yes, an argument could be made, IF, the money from them were going to tobacco related problems, and not everything else in the books.
"I can drink all night, have a high blood alcohol percentage, and not be affected, while others can be well under the legal limit and be severely impaired. Biological differences FTW."
Biology is a wonderful thing... You.08 and my.08 are not the same. I have a couple alcoholics in my family who can drink a fifth of bourbon at a sitting, and hold a normal conversation, their blood alcohol must be off the charts though... If i drink a fraction of that, I'd probably pass out, vomit, etc... If I drink a six pack of PBR, though, I'm generally unaffected. Sure, I wouldn't trust myself to drive, but I'm definitely not drunk, and pretty much nobody I know can tell I even drank. Things affect people differently.
Looking at the classical alcohol consumption of historical Europe, we'd consider every singe one of them a drunk these days. Hell, us Americans would probably still consider much of modern Europe to be a bunch of lushes.
Nice... I never thought of WoW (or the Diablo series) as a Skinner box before... Very nice, and apt. It even has a random reward/reinforcement schedual (the most effective)...
One problem with this is that it also exists as a good social networking tool. Its like solitaire with chat functionality for me. Also loot works as a status symbol, which plays to our need to exist within a good social hierarchy. And then we also have good old fashioned escapism...
Hmmm... how many psychological needs does any given MMO exploit? This would be an interesting study. Consider this a textual up mod, since I already posted here.
No, the gameplay is already "ruined". These bots are just a reflection of that. The game has a well known and highly annoying characteristic and people are just "routing around that".
Not everyone wants to become a shut in just so they can "level up".
Not everyone is out for the "Ever-crack" experience. --
In your opinion. I enjoyed leveling up my toons, I even enjoyed the grinding to an extent. I actually really enjoy WoW (ignoring the raiding scene), so I don't think its ruined, or broken. If you don't like grinding, don't PLAY, its a simple as that.
There also is no rush to "level up". One of my friends has been playing for a year and a half, and hasn't hit the level cap yet, he's only level 63 (out of 70), and has no real plan to ever hit 70. He's playing mainly for the enjoyment of the story, and world, and as a way to stay in contact with his friends. Before I quit, I had a character I played for maybe 5 hours a week, and got it up to 45 in a month, with just casual gameplay. I don't understand why one needs to rush, nor become a "shut in".
If your not playing WoW for the "WoW experience", then DON'T PLAY. Simple as that.
Thats my problem, playing with people with characters from ebay. Nothing like having an uber-geared 70 in your party, who can't even find where a button is, much less know how to use their class. I've been in parties (when I used to play) where the 70 priest in raid gear had to ASK how to get to common instances, and then didn't even know how to heal, in an instance they they were massively over-geared for.
Also the type of person who gets frustrated at the first wipe, and leaves. I don't get why they even bother to play, its like they pay money to NOT play the game. Its like paying in for a poker tournament, and then just sitting at the table with a drink and watching.
That's what I was thinking. This isn't a bot that lets you ruin the experience for other players. It's a bot that lets you level up without playing the game for hours on end.
But... they do ruin my experience, they throw the economy out of whack. They also force me to compete (PVP) against players who have an artificial advantage (as in they didn't have to build their characters). They also hurt the end-game experience, since they have no clue on how to actually play their class, since they never have. The main thing is the economy though, they cause prices to rise heavily, so a player who doesn't have unlimited free time, a bot of his own, or the lack of moral qualms to buy Chinese gold, is hurt in the end. You can never complete against people lacking in scruples.
On a more subjective level, I can't tolerate cheaters. People who cheat in a game are immature wankers whose very presence hurts the enjoyability of a game. If your too stupid to play the game, why are you even bothering?
Freedom of expression is outlined as a fundamental human right because of a need to protect UNPOPULAR speech.
Guns are designed to kill, that doesn't mean they should be banned.
This code should not be banned. code is expression, and expression should not be stifled.
Sure, you have the right to say it, but with that right comes the responsibility of accepting the consequences of exercising this right. With EVERY right comes a responsibility, for some reason we don't want to acknowledge this anymore. All of our rights are social rights, more than individual rights, meaning we use them with in the context of society, and must be mindful of their effects on others. This is why these rights are for the (plural) People, and not (singular) person. If you using your right to speach cause harm to another, then you have consequences. Like screaming "fire!" in a packed theater, or libel and slander.
This code is causing harm to Blizzard, and thus they have the right to protect themselves. Also Blizzard is a private entity, and have the right to control their software. Freedom of speech does not apply in privately run places. I can kick you out of my house for insulting me, I can ban you from my forum for any reason I want, I can write an OS that doesn't allow arbitrary code, and if I state it in the license, and you make an exploit, you are in violation of contract, free speech be damned.
I don't think this is a free speech issue, but more of a property and contract issue.
I agree, though I think their behavior verges on that of griefers. Their meta-game is hurting others game play, and in the long run makes Blizzard lose money. I think both the exploit people, and the all-out griefers are detrimental to any community (look at/. trolls, to see how this goes hand in hand), and it is within the rights of anyone owning that community to remove them. I'm okay with anyone playing a game for different reasons than me, but the second they start hurting my game-play, they should be removed.
I never understood cheaters. Isn't the bigger accomplishment being skilled, rather than looking skilled but really being quit pathetic?
I was going to include the workplace thing in there, but decided the post was long and ranty enough.
I used to live in a smallish town, where they banned smoking mainly because waitresses and bartenders got together. Them, like stewardesses, I have some sympathy for. But a case can be made that no one forces them to work there, but that argument isn't as strong as it used to be with today's economy. Also it can also be applied broadly, which starts leading to some contradictions.
Proving your immaturity. Who said the point of drinking was to get drunk? If it is, I must fail at drinking, since I often enjoy a single glass of wine, or a nice pint of beer with dinner. Sometimes when I feel very good about myself, I splurge on nice aged bourbon (Elija Craig) or a good Irish whiskey on the rocks. I've been known to make a double bourbon last for a half hour, the same with a good martini (dry, dirty). Sometimes even, *gasp*, I have an Oz of port for desert.
Drinking is much more than getting drunk. Yes, sometimes its fun, but it isn't the point.
I've been drinking since I was 6 (Wisconsin and a German/Irish family), and no one stopped me. I've been drinking with friends since I was 15, and no one gave me problems, as long as I didn't cause them.
Yes, our vice laws are dumb. I agree. I do think we should lower the drinking age, as well. But your issue isn't valid. I can see the parents point, your actively risking your life, you've received training, therefore you ARE an adult in everyway.
America has many standards for adulthood. Oddly, in college, you aren't one until 25 (financially independent from parents), you can't drink until you are 21, you can't vote (via constitutional amendment) until you are 18, and the various ages of marriage and sexual consent vary by what state your in (as low as 14). Age and adulthood will always be a boondoggle, since there is no objective way of making a line. You might have been "mature" at 16, but a lot of people weren't. Hell, a lot of people aren't mature at 21, go to your local uni for proof.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your analysis, sadly... This is how the world works, and how we became a nation of whores.
When money/profits are more important than ethics (or basic humanity), we really don't have much going for us anymore. When debates like this are even within the realms of comprehension, it is a sad, sad, reflection on us.
I'll accept the -1 flamebait with pride for this.
There is no such thing as a red or blue state. Its a media construct, that somehow became confused with a statement of truth. Look at the voting margins between Dems and Reps in any so-called Red or Blue state, and you'll be hard pressed to find a margin greater than 10%. The Red vs. Blue thing, if anything, is probably showing that people are moving more towards the middle, but this would remain invisible, since the lunatic fringes of each ideology are louder than the growing horde of moderates.
Arizona, for example, is a VERY "red" state. But... We have a Democratic governor (who strongly endorsed Obama, almost to the point of quitting to help him), and around half of our counties have very liberal tendencies. Outside of Phoenix, two out of three of our "big" cities are very Democratic.
Sadly the Electoral system isn't very good for showing diversity of opinion, which leads to both polarization and moderation being shown as "red" or "blue".
Also... Red doesn't always equal religious... Only 43% of people in Arizona described themselves as religious in the 2000 census. Not to say that the remainder are atheists, but obviously not religious wackos either.
. Collective bargaining is something you are completely free to try, if you can convince your employer to go for it. What they're against is the idea that employers should be forced to allow it.
Agreed, with caveats. If employees can coerce the employer to their conditions, I'm fine with that, its nice and symmetric. I don't think law makers should encourage unions, OR work to discourage them. It should be a employee/employer game, not a government one.
If you are an unskilled laborer, and there is someone else out there who will do your job for less than what you will do it for, your employer should be completely free to get rid of you and hire that person. You do not have a right to that particular job or to any particular wage. You are entitled to whatever you can bargain for with your employer. If you and all your coworkers get together and insist on collective bargaining, and your employer thinks it'd be better to go for that than to go through the hassle of firing the lot of you and hiring a whole new staff, that's great. You're completely free to do that.
I do have a problem with the pure seniority model as well. I don't think time worked is nearly as important as competence and skills. But then again, using your line of reasoning, if you can get your employer to buy it... Its fine and dandy. I think the use of the word "free" is a little much though, since as a union (freely negotiated with employer) you can check that freedom with your own collective actions. So it isn't completely free, but constrained with consequences, like all other things.
I do think there is some protections that should be granted though, like firing people for reasons that have nothing to do with their accepted wage, or ability to do the job, reasons such as gender, sexual orientation, and race. We probably disagree there...
Known or highly probably advances, yes. Unknown, or theoretical advances no.
Should we use all our resources willy-nilly, thinking that we will have a Star Trek like replicator by the time their all gone? Or burn all our oil and whatnot just because someday soon we'll have cold fusion? Or, more controversally, ignore something like global warming (not to get in that argument, take this as a thought experiment) because we assume future generations will have a way of dealing with it.
Resource management problems, and the illusion of infinite supply/replacements has brought relatively advanced civilizations to their knees before. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for example.
That study said it was conditional to some events, and some types of people, not universal. It was combating the idea that "venting" was universally significant, and not that the opposite was.
The basic point is, people cope differently, and we must cater to this. There is no single universal RIGHT way to deal with traumatic experiences.
To sound rather draconian...
Ex-Soldiers ARE amongst the people who pick our future decision makers. More importantly, the people who surround them and know them are. My parents still are anti-war, because of a Vietnam, and the effects it had on their friends, society. Thus damaged soldiers are a good way of tempering our pro-war zealotry in the future. Compare the social effects of the Vietnam (and all earlier wars), to the rather tame, and psychologically subdued, wars after it. The first Gulf War was almost invisible, and quickly forgotten, while WWII, Korea, and Vietnam still leave some lasting scars. A lot of this is because of the conditions that the soldiers faced, and the effects they had on them.
Though, to temper my own idiocy, I don't think we should strive for psychologically injuring our soldiers, war does a good enough job at that. None of my friends who survived the modern Iraq engagement came out very well. War does a good enough job at hurting people, to wish to further this is madness. Even with psychological help, my friends are still injured by it, though perhaps in a less traumatic way.
I don't want ANYONE to suffer more than they have to. I don't think neglecting our soldiers for some future good, is really an ethical decision. The ends never justify the means. The sooner we learn this, the sooner we take war with a serious grain of skepticism, and disdain. Using our returning soldiers for our own agenda, is just as bad as the problem you want to address (using our soldiers to further your political ends). Your still just using someone for your own reasons, and benefit.
Though if they virtualized combat (ala Ender's Game), or had a miracle drug to completely desensitize our soldiers, I would also be against it. I want our soldiers to be human, and to experience what they do, for good or ill. the second war becomes a video game, that's when we will elect to be in a permanent war. Only with first hand knowledge (i.e. human experience) can we weigh the consequences of our actions. My friends (and all others like them) who were in Iraq and Afghanistan are why I'm anti-war, not because of some ideological premise. If war was only waged machine against machine, I'd be all for it, its the human factor that matters, only. But denying care to soldiers, again, for a silly point is idiotic, and morally incomprehensible.
The people you need to sensitize are the decisionmakers and the people who pick them. Don't pick on the soldiers. Leave them alone.
What we need is full reporting of war, subjecting the public to ALL aspects of it, all the gore, all the violence, everything. I remember watching some local footage of "Shock and Awe", and seeing some kids head, with half of it missing... That is war. Only if us comfortable folk at home can see it as it is, then can we decide if its worth it. When coverage is overly sanitized, then the real impact is muted to the point to be nonexistent. Show our dead soldiers, and their dead fighters (I hestitate to call them soldiers) and innocents, with no sanitization... Then the public can judge, and then the issue becomes real to us.
Your post was just a Wikipedia article on a fringe idea based on selected statistics, and not some inevitability.
Building our strategy on possible future events is still a rather shaky way of going about things. Which is still opposed your first post, as far as I can tell from your intents.
Yes, thorium may or may not be a viable replacement for our current array of energy problems. Though I rather doubt that we'd ever concentrate all our eggs in a single basket. Even betting on this, is a rather faulty bet, in my opinion though, since we would still have supply-side problems, and perhaps (probably) many many unforeseen other bottlenecks to any future technologies.
I like the idea of shaping the future, and not just staying the course and praying for the best in the future.
Maybe. But when people start enforcing my "rights" by telling me what I am not allowed to do, I start to worry that their concept of individual rights might be a wee bit shaky.
And you would be right. There is no such thing as "real" rights, there is no observable a priori basis for them. Rights are basically a social convention, and this completely arbitrary. In the end it boils down to something you claim as such, and are capable of convincing others of, and finally being able to protect once established as such.
Yes, I too hate Unions because some people under them make more money than I think they should...
That, btw, might be the dumbest reason to hate unions. I'm generally pro-union (my father is a life-long Teamster, with a nice pension, and rather limited bad stories), and I can find several cases of union abuse, and places where they go wrong (being from Detroit, you can too), but just because someone gets paid more than you want them too, is not one of them. Yes, some of that might come out of your pocket, but then again, you have the ability to go to a cheaper store, if the difference means that much.
I generally find unions to be more good than not, though they can be bad (as can all things).
The "LAW" will not protect workers. If you read /., you know that most people of a libertarian bent are fully against the law protecting anyone from employers. Most conservatives agree. On that end, the only thing one can do is organize, and protect their own interests from their employer. Really the goal is to put the employees, and the employer, on equal grounds. Sometimes unions forget this, of course, and boost themselves OVER their employer, forgetting that they need the latter, as much as the latter needs the former.
I do think that unions are unfairly slandered though (a lot of money goes towards this). I also think that we have the general "squeaky wheel" bias going on here, where only the BAD things they do get publicized, while the ones that tick along normally are completely ignored, leaving us with only a negative impression (probably the sane impression would be a neutral one). They also, as seems your case, builds a sense of resentment. In the trucking industry the difference between pay-scales can be rather extreme between union shops and non-union ones.
One of my friends fathers hates unions only for the reason he worked his whole life in a non-union shop, and made around 50% less than his union counterparts, and entered his golden years with hardly anything, while his co-workers left with substantial pensions.
Flaimebait much?
No sane person likes ethanol. I do consider myself an environmentalist, too, and I can even see how moronic a solution ethanol is in the US. Therefore your point failed. Congrats.
I don't see environmentalism as about "bringing progress to a halt", but rather trying to ensure that our progress is SUSTAINABLE and doesn't bring harm to us in the future. Yes, it gets in the way of pure greed and development, but I don't have anything against that, since I don't see greed for greed's sake a virtue, nor do I see progress for progress' sake a virtue.
I don't see a problem with environmentalism acting as a check on industry and pure (exploitative) capitalism. If a corporation acts in a way that is more harmful than helpful, what is wrong with correcting this, especially when the harm happens in the long term (a time frame that ideological capitalism is VERY bad at self-regulating)? I do value the health of the world that my children and grandchildren will inherit from me, I see this as a healthy view of things. I also value the natural world for its own sake, and not merely as a collection of resources that someone can (and should) make money off of. The latter view has had some very large bad consequences throughout history, by the way.
I put my own health, and that of future generations, above some faceless corporations profit margin. Does this make me against progress? If yes, how is this a bad thing, then? Not all progress is a universal good.
I always suspected that the singularity/transhumanism was the Rapture for geeks, and now I have proof. Building your life around a mythical point is generally a bad idea, since faith has been known to be wrong. Its like the Christian Extremists (I'm not slandering the rest of you, no worries) who are supporting Israel to bring about the end of the world, and thus don't need to worry about the Earth's climate, or future generations at all.
History is full of droves of the "faithful" who dropped all their plantings and stood on the mountain tops waiting for some God to come down and save them, only to die of starvation a year or so later.
Its worse than being short-sighted, its being willfully short-sighted. Its like blowing your whole savings, cashing out your house, and maxing your credit cards at 45, since your sure you'll die by 50... Then comes your 51st birthday.
The next step is Vurt feathers? Or Strange Days? Or that immersion tech in Rant?
I don't actually know if this is a good idea, or even possible. Our brains are laid out differently, and sensory experience is perceived differently, and through different pathways. Thus I don't know if we can ever map one brains experiences directly to anothers.
Saying that this is possible (with some sort of individualized neural translation software), imagine the other difficulties.
To be banal, the next step in entertainment is either full 3D, or even more banally, downloaded content.
Perhaps I just don't have the refined senses of many people, but I hardly can tell the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD. One of my friends has a VERY nice set up, and I still can barely tell the difference. I can't state anything on the sound differences, since he has a very expensive surround sound set-up, that even makes DVDs sound killer.
Yes, I can tell a very slight graphics difference between them, but it is nothing close to the difference between DVD and VHS. If I'm really into the movie, I can't tell at all, to be honest. It isn't worth the investment for the TV, box, cables, sound system. If it was a bigger improvement, it might, but for the range of difference, I just can't justify spending that much.
Perhaps when my TV dies, and my DVD player dies, and my 1986 stereo system dies, then I might upgrade, for the right price. Though I will still buy DVDs for it, since they are cheaper, and easily available used. Most of my video tastes are not skewed towards the modern, and I doubt that Blu-Ray will EVER offer me incentive to upgrade some of my favorite movies to that format. Will Evil Dead 2 really show improvements over DVD? The Godfather? Apocalypse Now!? I doubt it.
Of all the people I know, perhaps 3 have Blu-Ray players, and actually buy Blu-Ray DVDs (and two of them is because of the PS3). For most, there is no real reason to bother. It isn't very exciting. And to be honest, most of the praise they get smacks of cognitive dissonance, and post-hoc rationalizing (read "buyers remorse"). There really isn't enough difference to stand on street corners and preach.
Yes and no... It can oxidize though, its more a "patina" than a rust, though. I'm not sure it degrades contact, but I'd guess it does.
You lost all creatablity with one statment
Yes, it can be seen as a public health law, but as you said; "I really don't like smoke and a lot of other people agree," this is not the reasoning behind public health laws, this is the reasoning behind vice laws. Prohibition, I'm sure, was also billed as a public health law (amendment), but in hindsight we can all see it was nothing but another silly vice law. If the reasoning behind the law is mere distaste, it can't be seen as a public health issue.
If it was, I could have a case for banning perfume and cologne, because they make me gag. Or spandex, for the same reason.
Yes, the second hand foil can be brought up, but it isn't as conclusive as people would have you think. It also doesn't work for some of the more extreme laws, like banning smoking in cars, or rental properties. The latter is just moronic, the former falls squarely into the taste issue, and thus is nothing but a vice law (unless someone can state a study claiming that second hand smoke has a long radioactive-like half-life.
Also them, we run into the "tax it to hell" class of laws. The tax laws are specifically made to "make people quit", invalidating your "public vs. private" distinction. Yes, an argument could be made, IF, the money from them were going to tobacco related problems, and not everything else in the books.
"I can drink all night, have a high blood alcohol percentage, and not be affected, while others can be well under the legal limit and be severely impaired. Biological differences FTW."
Biology is a wonderful thing... You .08 and my .08 are not the same. I have a couple alcoholics in my family who can drink a fifth of bourbon at a sitting, and hold a normal conversation, their blood alcohol must be off the charts though... If i drink a fraction of that, I'd probably pass out, vomit, etc... If I drink a six pack of PBR, though, I'm generally unaffected. Sure, I wouldn't trust myself to drive, but I'm definitely not drunk, and pretty much nobody I know can tell I even drank. Things affect people differently.
Looking at the classical alcohol consumption of historical Europe, we'd consider every singe one of them a drunk these days. Hell, us Americans would probably still consider much of modern Europe to be a bunch of lushes.
Nice... I never thought of WoW (or the Diablo series) as a Skinner box before... Very nice, and apt. It even has a random reward/reinforcement schedual (the most effective)...
One problem with this is that it also exists as a good social networking tool. Its like solitaire with chat functionality for me. Also loot works as a status symbol, which plays to our need to exist within a good social hierarchy. And then we also have good old fashioned escapism...
Hmmm... how many psychological needs does any given MMO exploit? This would be an interesting study. Consider this a textual up mod, since I already posted here.
No, the gameplay is already "ruined". These bots are just a reflection
of that. The game has a well known and highly annoying characteristic
and people are just "routing around that".
Not everyone wants to become a shut in just so they can "level up".
Not everyone is out for the "Ever-crack" experience.
--
In your opinion. I enjoyed leveling up my toons, I even enjoyed the grinding to an extent. I actually really enjoy WoW (ignoring the raiding scene), so I don't think its ruined, or broken. If you don't like grinding, don't PLAY, its a simple as that.
There also is no rush to "level up". One of my friends has been playing for a year and a half, and hasn't hit the level cap yet, he's only level 63 (out of 70), and has no real plan to ever hit 70. He's playing mainly for the enjoyment of the story, and world, and as a way to stay in contact with his friends. Before I quit, I had a character I played for maybe 5 hours a week, and got it up to 45 in a month, with just casual gameplay. I don't understand why one needs to rush, nor become a "shut in".
If your not playing WoW for the "WoW experience", then DON'T PLAY. Simple as that.
Not so easy to buy skill at playing though ;).
Thats my problem, playing with people with characters from ebay. Nothing like having an uber-geared 70 in your party, who can't even find where a button is, much less know how to use their class. I've been in parties (when I used to play) where the 70 priest in raid gear had to ASK how to get to common instances, and then didn't even know how to heal, in an instance they they were massively over-geared for.
Also the type of person who gets frustrated at the first wipe, and leaves. I don't get why they even bother to play, its like they pay money to NOT play the game. Its like paying in for a poker tournament, and then just sitting at the table with a drink and watching.
That's what I was thinking. This isn't a bot that lets you ruin the experience for other players. It's a bot that lets you level up without playing the game for hours on end.
But... they do ruin my experience, they throw the economy out of whack. They also force me to compete (PVP) against players who have an artificial advantage (as in they didn't have to build their characters). They also hurt the end-game experience, since they have no clue on how to actually play their class, since they never have. The main thing is the economy though, they cause prices to rise heavily, so a player who doesn't have unlimited free time, a bot of his own, or the lack of moral qualms to buy Chinese gold, is hurt in the end. You can never complete against people lacking in scruples.
On a more subjective level, I can't tolerate cheaters. People who cheat in a game are immature wankers whose very presence hurts the enjoyability of a game. If your too stupid to play the game, why are you even bothering?
Freedom of expression is outlined as a fundamental human right because of a need to protect UNPOPULAR speech.
Guns are designed to kill, that doesn't mean they should be banned.
This code should not be banned. code is expression, and expression should not be stifled.
Sure, you have the right to say it, but with that right comes the responsibility of accepting the consequences of exercising this right. With EVERY right comes a responsibility, for some reason we don't want to acknowledge this anymore. All of our rights are social rights, more than individual rights, meaning we use them with in the context of society, and must be mindful of their effects on others. This is why these rights are for the (plural) People, and not (singular) person. If you using your right to speach cause harm to another, then you have consequences. Like screaming "fire!" in a packed theater, or libel and slander.
This code is causing harm to Blizzard, and thus they have the right to protect themselves. Also Blizzard is a private entity, and have the right to control their software. Freedom of speech does not apply in privately run places. I can kick you out of my house for insulting me, I can ban you from my forum for any reason I want, I can write an OS that doesn't allow arbitrary code, and if I state it in the license, and you make an exploit, you are in violation of contract, free speech be damned.
I don't think this is a free speech issue, but more of a property and contract issue.
I agree, though I think their behavior verges on that of griefers. Their meta-game is hurting others game play, and in the long run makes Blizzard lose money. I think both the exploit people, and the all-out griefers are detrimental to any community (look at /. trolls, to see how this goes hand in hand), and it is within the rights of anyone owning that community to remove them. I'm okay with anyone playing a game for different reasons than me, but the second they start hurting my game-play, they should be removed.
I never understood cheaters. Isn't the bigger accomplishment being skilled, rather than looking skilled but really being quit pathetic?
I was going to include the workplace thing in there, but decided the post was long and ranty enough.
I used to live in a smallish town, where they banned smoking mainly because waitresses and bartenders got together. Them, like stewardesses, I have some sympathy for. But a case can be made that no one forces them to work there, but that argument isn't as strong as it used to be with today's economy. Also it can also be applied broadly, which starts leading to some contradictions.
I stated this wrong, I should have stated I think there is anthropogenic warming, but I am open to evidence on the contrary.
That wouldn't even qualify me as drunk.
Proving your immaturity. Who said the point of drinking was to get drunk? If it is, I must fail at drinking, since I often enjoy a single glass of wine, or a nice pint of beer with dinner. Sometimes when I feel very good about myself, I splurge on nice aged bourbon (Elija Craig) or a good Irish whiskey on the rocks. I've been known to make a double bourbon last for a half hour, the same with a good martini (dry, dirty). Sometimes even, *gasp*, I have an Oz of port for desert.
Drinking is much more than getting drunk. Yes, sometimes its fun, but it isn't the point.
You drank anyways no?
I've been drinking since I was 6 (Wisconsin and a German/Irish family), and no one stopped me. I've been drinking with friends since I was 15, and no one gave me problems, as long as I didn't cause them.
Yes, our vice laws are dumb. I agree. I do think we should lower the drinking age, as well. But your issue isn't valid. I can see the parents point, your actively risking your life, you've received training, therefore you ARE an adult in everyway.
America has many standards for adulthood. Oddly, in college, you aren't one until 25 (financially independent from parents), you can't drink until you are 21, you can't vote (via constitutional amendment) until you are 18, and the various ages of marriage and sexual consent vary by what state your in (as low as 14). Age and adulthood will always be a boondoggle, since there is no objective way of making a line. You might have been "mature" at 16, but a lot of people weren't. Hell, a lot of people aren't mature at 21, go to your local uni for proof.