But more importantly, you CANNOT just sit in a parking lot and use Wi-fi without deciding to ACTIVELY log on to the access point.
Not necessarily true. With my old iBook it would just autodiscover, and login to open wifi networks, without my help, or any other conscious action by me. Does this then make mac owners less culpable than others? I doubt it.
I don't understand how it could be a felony, if you leave your wifi open, people will use it. It takes all of 2 seconds to secure it. I'm also not going to play with silly analogies, since I really think the "if you left your door unlocked..." analogy is false. If there is any law involved in this, it should be civil. If this coffee shop only wants paying customers to use their access, then she should use some form of "ticket" solution. A coffee shop near my old college did this, when you purchased something they gave you an access number good for about an hour of internet use, this kept you buying things as long as you wanted to use access, and also barred people from "piggybacking".
Residential access is tougher, though a simple password is still the best thing to do. In college, also, I knew several people whose only form of access was through some unknown "lender". I never really had a problem with this, but then again I lean towards socialism. If they didn't want to have their access used, then they would have secured it. This is another issue, what if I DO want people to use it, is it still illegal for them to do so? I keep my wifi open, as long as it doesn't harm me, but are the people using it still illegal? I don't give implicit consent, just like people don't give implicit denial.
but I have actually. Free will "completely discredited"? Never heard that before.
It hasn't, or at least in any sense that I completely buy (I could lead you to sources that do completely discredit the idea if you want, but that is a discussion for another time). But will, and rationality, is constrained. Taking on will is the easiest, and most pedantic (so pardon me), your will is not completely free because of the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. Rationality is also constrained. First you assume that all people have the same ability to reason, but much of our rational abilities come from more environmental effects than a purely innate human ability to rationalize. Our education, and social upbringing play a rather large role in our critical thinking abilities. At very least, education and social pressures habituates us towards actually being rational. Another part of rationality is the quality of the data available to go into the actual processes of reason. If you are missing data, or aren't even aware of critical factors, all of your rational decisions are baseless. Reason is only as good as the data provided. Education and social influence conditions us towards proper data selection, lacking this our ability to make rational decisions is useless.
The people who do drugs had their rational faculties when they decided to do the drugs. Anything that happens after that is ultimately a result of that rational, free decision.
I address this above. I argue that a lot (not all) of the people who decide to use drugs do not have the proper ability to apply reason, nor do they have the habitualized trait to treat situations as rational. Humans are mostly irrational, unless taught otherwise. People start doing drugs, largely, for irrational reasons, or on purely primal motivations (it feels good, I will do it), without the weighing of consequences that would precede a rational decision. More so, I think that due to socio-economic situations they reach for drugs as an escapist mechanism to remove the institutionalized sense of despair that comes from endemic poverty, and the feeling of helplessness.
Not the government's problem. Or at least it shouldn't be.
On this we probably will never agree. The government should equalize the playing field for all members of society. But this, too, is another argument for another time.
That strikes me as elitist. IMO, we are free to do with our minds what we want, regardless of our socio-economic situation.
So people without access to decent education, who have very little hope, and where "drug culture" has become a well excepted form of escape have as much "free choice" as the middle and upper classes who have a decent education, stronger family role-models, and at least some illusion of cultural mobility? I'm not being elitist, I'm simply saying that ones social situation does serve to limit the immediately obvious options, and does help drive people into bad choices. Yes, they still have has much choice as the middle classes, but these choices are unequally weighed.
The idea(l) is that people can do to themselves what they please.
I agree, to a point. They can do as they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else (without consent), or hamper anyone else's freedoms or rights. Government exists to maximize the rights of all citizens, which requires drawing constraints around some of those rights. I don't think drug use is as clear cut as some think, I don't think that they should be universally banned, nor do I think they should be universally allowed. As to what this middle ground is, I have no idea, I just know that we are currently doing something wrong, but that complete "no strings attached" legalization is also probably a mistake.
While I'm on this topic, I have some questions for you. Can you show me how drug prohibition has worked? Or is this more about drawing a line in the sand? Can you show me how drug prohibition hasn't ruined more lives than it's saved?
This is your approach towards a strawman. I never claimed that I agree with the status-quo either, I just think that their pure legality is an overstatement. The status quo is obviously ineffectual, and probably doing more harm than good, but this does not mean its opposite must be good.
I know, it's a stretch. However, it doesn't really matter which way you look at it. I still feel that my body is my body, and I may do with it as I please. Similarly, I also believe that suicide should be 100% legal.
I agree, as long as it does not negatively effect society, or harm others. And with suicide, I do agree, though I think that people make that decision because of irrational reasons. As with all things, education, treatment, and a look at the root social causes are going to be needed to effect any positive change on problems such as suicide and drug use. They are irrational choices.
They didn't? They didn't decide to take that first dose? Or the nth one? Well in that case we have a different problem. Someone is out there on the loose forcing needles into people vein's without their consent. I think the police should stop them immediately.
Your right, they should, and do stop them, and they should do it more. These people sticking needles into peoples arms are called "pushers" or "dealers". They're selling drugs to kids, and highschool students, and the uneducated poor who don't know any better. People who do drugs (especially the harder ones) don't have their rational faculties, people who sell drugs prey on this, which in my eyes is a form of "forcing needles into their veins".
The idea that everything is a rational choice is vital to a free society where people have free will.
So because the idea is vital to a system we set up, it must be true? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. I'd recommend taking some cognative science, and social psychology classes, our idea of "free will" is in the process of being almost completely discredited. Just because you want it to be real, doesn't make it. You can clap your hands all you want, and fairies will never exist.
Perhaps, but I think a free(er) society is worth striving for.
I agree with you on this one. Though I buy the more Millsian version, your freedom should be unlimited until it limits someone else's.
You think drugs cause these problems. I think the users cause these problems. You think problem is the drugs themselves. I think the problem is the concious choice certain people make to use them. Your solution is to remove drugs from society. My solution is to remove from society the people who make bad choices that result in harm to another person./em
Your putting artificial chemicals in your brain, that changes identity. Its hard to really separate people from the drugs they use, since they change the basic functioning and wiring of their brains. I admit the problem is deeper than "heroin addict = crime" or such, there are many other socioeconomic and psychological issues on the table, some causing the drug use, some facilitating he behaviors coming from he drug use, it isn't easily reductable.
I generally don't support a "nanny-government", but I do think that the government does have the responsibility (as its very nature) to protect the members of society that allows it to exist. And often times I think that the line between the personal, and the public interest more obfuscated than we want to let on. That said, the current punishment regime for drug offenses (and most other ones) is wrong, punishment should be mainly education and treatment, with laxer laws. The money saved could be put towards helping with the social, and educational, situations that help lead towards drug use.
I really don't understand this point of view, whatsoever. Most of the people I know who "decided" to become worthless junkies didn't really decide anything at all. They are generally uneducated, poor, and enmeshed in a flawed social strata or group. A lot of them don't, and never will, fully understand what they are doing to themselves, their loved ones, and society as a whole. The idea that everything is a rational choice is a myth, which should have gone away long ago.
I would like you to venture about the local "bad area" of your town at 2am, and tell me how drug use doesn't hurt you afterward, especially when your in the ER with a stab wound because some junkie really wanted your wallet. Tell that to their families and friends who they screwed over since discovering that they really don't want to be human beings anymore. Drugs (some of them, okay) are bad, they have bad social effects, and serve to keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated.
Yes, we shouldn't treat having a couple of grams of marijuana like a crime worse than rape or murder. Heck, I would even say legalize marijuana, but this statement will not be applicable to things such as methamphetamines or heroin. These effect the rest of society, and thus I have no problem with society banning them.
The absolute freedom ideology annoys me. Its idealistic, not based in reality. My rights end where yours begin, this is the price I pay for reaping the benefits of society. Drugs consistently cause people to hurt other people, and society as a whole (non productivity, crime, entrenched poverty), so how could you justify them. Hopefully, though doubtfully, you support extensive social programs to care for those people who have been fried from drugs, and to support the recovery of those who "freely" decided to imprison themselves.
On a more philosophical level, why would you want to support anything that serves to dehumanize other people? Why drugs? What single good thing could be said about heroin or tweak? If someone chooses them, they obviously are not rational to begin with.
You might be correct 40% of the time, but I think a lot of people who "tattle" (to sound like we're all in 3rd grade) are of the "whistle blower" type. I've reported many crimes, and I'm not affiliated with law enforcement in any way, I have yet to testify against anyone, but would do so willingly in any of those cases. Why? Not because I think the penal system is necessarily good thing, but because some people can't act civilly, and thus should be removed. Sadly our system (in the US, or elsewhere) does not rehabilitate people, and serves mostly as a "out of sight out of mind" psychological panacea, and as a system to create criminals in order to perpetuate itself, but in some cases it is the only solution.
If you witnessed a rape, please tell me that you wouldn't, first, report it, then, testify against the rapist. I would do so, without thinking, since in these cases at least the flawed system serves as detainment.
As for your actual premise, no. Why should we accept violence against anyone, since this is what the sole purpose of this site is. You may not agree with undercover operations, but saying that revenge against them is acceptable is reprehensible. I agree that the more banal undercover operations are rather dubious (small time prostitution stings, and small drug stings), but there is a valid use of undercover officers, such as breaking up large scale drug rings, and even investigating unfair business situations.
I have pondered this. It is a well known social psychological fact that anonymity loosens peoples inhibitions, especially towards the more vile acts of humanity. Removing anonymity would "re-humanize" people on the internet, and make the ultimately culpable for their actions. But, of course, you are correct, it is not a wise idea, since in a few (very few) cases it allows people to say important things that they would not be allowed to say in society.
There is a way around this, though. I have been using the handle "Omestes" for 10 years or so, and thus feel connected to this persona, it has a reputation, and people have expectations for it, just like my real life identity. This keep the anonyminity factor in check, for the most part, since it would be damaging, and out of character for me posting under this persona to run about and call people "fag" for no reason. If I did this consistently, though, I also would grow a reputation, a negative one, and people would avoid it. It would lose trust.
Thus I think we need persistent "handles". On WoW, for example, have each character tied to the actual account, and thus actions would be tied to one identity, and all bans/ignores/complaints would reflect on this one account. Sort of like how the new X-Box live keeps individual scores/actions down to one account, regardless of the game, or in-game persona. These super-persona's should be rated by the amount of grief they are attributed. There should be a way to filter them by this (much like a gradiated version of Karma), and when it goes low enough offer various flavors of ban. Most of all make this public. Have public lists of who has the best/worst civil rankings.
With freedom comes responsibility. Just because you are "free" to do something, does not mean you should.
For some reason this has been completely forgotten in modern society.
Actually I don't think that calling people "fag" in a videogame goes under freedom of speech, legally. If Blizz decided to ban all the griefers, no ones civil liberties would be harmed.
So your argument is "Your a better man for being called a fag by hormonal 13 years who pee into their Mountain Dew bottles"? I disagree. I think that Blizzard, and other MMO makers, lose some degree of profit from harboring hostile player atmospheres. I know I finally quit playing, in part, because I started getting sick the growing amount of idiots out there, and my server wasn't too bad, even (Cenarian Circle [RP]), but the various PvP and RP/PvP servers I played on were just a place for anonymous idiots to inflict themselves on others for fun. Several of my friends refuse to play WoW because of the shear amount of uncouth children running about. Being called a "fag" 60 times an hour is not fun, I don't really care if it makes me a "tougher" person, I'm too old to really care about that anymore. I want to have fun, not build character.
Not saying that there isn't good people on WoW, over the year or so that I played I managed to get a nice friends list, and join a guild filled with very adult people. I did manage to have some very nice conversations while sitting around in Stranglethorn being bored at 3am. But the more populous places were almost unplayable, like the Crossroads.
I'd say this would fall into the "tragedy of the commons" ideology. Just because you can be a moron, doesn't mean you HAVE TO be a moron. Arguments of character building aside, why should I accept being called a "fag", ever? How is this acceptable in a polite society?
I do enjoy my foe list, though I just set it at -1 to bump down some folk who I consider trolls, or just don't feel like reading, but not ban them. I just like them a bit further down the page. I also read at 0, with the karma bonus on, so the odds of them being censored are practically nill (who really has bad karma?)
I suppose I COULD censor foes, but that would be silly, since I'm guess that even the people on the list bring something interesting to the table, even if in its negative.
Censorship is generally bad, I would have said universal, but there are glaring things that should be removed, such as child porn, but off the top of my head that is the only thing on the list. The internet is diverse enough to allow us to censor the rest on the fly, you don't like x, then your probably not going to seek out x, which is both a problem and a good thing. A good thing because it allows us to self-censor the web, and thus not inflict our opinion of appropriateness on others. A bad thing because it armors us against opposing views, thus fostering groupthink.
Moderation works well 90% of the time on/. But how often to do see unpopular opinions modded troll? Go to a politics or apple discussion and notice how many comments with troll mods REALLY are trolls, and not just differences of opinion. How many things are moderated up just for claiming "I know I'll get modded down for this but..."... And how many comments with a "read the rest of this comment..." footer modded informative, just for being lengthy?
On a small scale, though, it is good enough. But i doubt it would translate well to the hugeness, and diversity, of the full web. Though sites like StumbleUpon do rather well...
Wait, meaning he could have loaded his gun with bullets from different batches of rounds?
Am I misreading this? It just says that some of the fragments had different chemical profiles, meaning they come from different sources. So, why couldn't he have used different sources for his bullets? How does this make a conspiracy, still?
The TRUTH is not a middle ground -- that is opinion.
When we do not have direct access to facts, and must rely on various representatives presenting them, we need a strategy to find meaning in both statements. Especially when said representatives are not fully trustworthy (no one in the media is), nor do they have fully access to facts (which are not even truth, in themselves). Generally both Bill O and Olbermann have access to the same data (press-releases, White House spin, etc...), but both of them construe this data to point to contradictory positions, meaning that this "TRUTH" you speak of is mainly a matter of interpretation.
I happen to agree more with Olbermann, but I know my biases, and am overly cautious of letting them get in the way. Agreeing with something does not make it true, especially the mere wanting of something to be true.
Sure, I mispoke, slightly, it might not be JUST down the middle, but still I am careful (or try to be) to weigh the oppositions opinion as much as the people I agree with.
Anyone who allies themselves with a side of a false dichotomy, with pride, shouldn't be slandering people who are trying to figure out their own path. Why the hell would anyone want to call themselves a "liberal" or a "conservative"? This just means you find one set of cliche dogmatic statements to be preferable to an equally cliche set of dogmatic statements. I'd prefer to weigh each issue on its own merit, and often times I do fall into the realms of the "left", and other times into the "right", sometimes I even agree with the fringe parties, such as the libertarians and the greens, depending on the issue. Being a moderate does not entail neutrality.
Good reply! Pleasantly outside of what I was expecting (namely "STFU!").
I agree, it isn't fair to shunt the group-think purely on the doubt crowd, not long ago I was in that crowd (moderately, the main doubt was our ability to generalize human causation from a shady record of a VERY old constantly fluctuating planet), and do see several dogmatic "greens" speaking out.
I guess it is like all things, both sides have their "fringes" that are overly represented thanks to being louder and more visual. In my philosophy classes we used to call it the "volume over validity" school of argument.
Wrong. Sexual Harassment is about the people in power USING that power to sleep with their underlings, consensual sex is still okay. Its a matter of coercion and abuse of power, not just mere sex.
Minor nitpick, doesn't change the factual content of your post though, you are correct.
Why do people whitewash Clinton so much? I liked him, but he was impeached for perjury, which I don't (and no one should) like, not sex.
As a perpetual optimist, I'm hoping America is capable of electing a black man,
Should I really care if he's black? I'm getting sick of both the Obama and Clinton camps saying "wouldn't it be nice if we elected x". I don't care. To be honest I'm not voting for either of them, both of them seem to be doing the "popular" thing very well, but for me that is a major turn-off. I'm leaning towards Kucinich and Edwards (Kucinich has no chance whatsoever of ever being elected, sadly, and the Media hates Edwards, for whatever reason), and Giulioni on the right. Ron Paul seems to play the same role as Gravel did, comic relief to make the "big guys" look more serious, and to give the whole thing an illusion of "fairness".
But then again I'm not a libertarian, nor even a mainstream lefty. As long as people vote, I really don't care who they vote for. That said, Obama is better than Hillary, and I still would vote for him over 90% of the Republicans, except Guiliani, then I'd have a hard time casting a ballot either way.
I really did like him, but he strikes me as a "The Bill O'Reilly of the Left", especially since he constantly bashes on Fox and Bill O'Rielly, yes at times this might be valid, but all the time strikes me as rather childish. Also I hate how the "#1 Story" is always something about American Idol, or Britany Spears, or some other idiotic bit of irrelevant pop-culture. He's as blatantly biased as the journalists on Fox, and even if I agree with him more, this does not make it any less obnoxious.
I prefer Jim Leher, hidden out in the no-mans land of PBS. Actually I prefer watching Bill O for an hour, then watching Olbermann, I know that the truth lies someplace in the middle, where both of them would get pissed off and launch into amusing rants.
The sad thing is that I almost took you seriously. incredulousness starts wearing thin in the global climate arena, especially since I have heard statements like yours spoken with a straight face. Wishful thinking is nicer than cold hard facts (or warm ones, in this case), so we all want to find ways to justify it. Such as the poster above you doubting mass extinctions, and then comparing the geological record, and paleontological evidence to the bible, all as a means to doubt scientifically accepted facts on the consequences of global warming.
That, incidentally, is the new prong of attack I've noticed from the "doubting" camp. Its getting hard to doubt warming itself, and slightly harder to doubt its human causation, so now the argument is "so what, the world might be nicer!". I have no idea why this issue has become a psychologically entrenched issue, why some sense of "self-hood" is at stake.
I'm getting rather sick of the anti-science crowd, who used its effects daily, and even buys most of the fundamentals of science, but refuses to accept other bits because "it is just science" when it fails their self interest.
Sure, I admit that science isn't the be-all-end-all of life, or understanding. I don't think science offers ALL the answers, but it is the best tool we have, it is good enough, and it is exceedingly good at making statements and predictions about the world. If you want to stand against the accepted scientific paradigm, you better offer some convincing arguments, on ITS terms.
My favorite argument so far, in this topic, is against peer-review. Yes, it, as a system, life science itself, is not perfect, but its the best system we have. 90% of the time it works, and given enough time its success rate approached 100%.
Out of curiosity, what emotional stake do doubters have in this issue? Is it not, even if it turns out wrong, better to be safe than sorry? How is cutting carbon emissions a bad thing, it would be locally positive, even if not globally (which too would probably be possitive), I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to start a flame war.
Can't people be alone with their own thoughts for more than 30 seconds at a whack?
I've noticed this too. The first time I went to college (sometime in the mid-90s) people would leave class, light up a cigarette, then chit-chat with their classmates. Second time I went (around a year or so ago) people would leave class, and have their cellphones dialing before they even left the door. Overhearing these conversations, I realized that they really aren't even saying anything, they're just recounting their day to someone, bit by bit. I worry more about how our communications are losing content, its becoming more and more that we communicate because we can, to hear ourselves talk.
I agree with the planning bit too. I love it when people call me to tell me where they are, while their coming over. "Hey, I'm on the 17, just passing Greenway, I'll be there in 3 minutes"... Why do I need to know this?
No, I'm not talking about older phones, I have a hard time holding a conversation for over a minute or so even on new phones, like RAZR, or PHAZR, or whatever the hell they want to call them. Strangely I can hear rather well on them, but I have a harder time comprehending what people say, a problem I don't have with landlines. I don't quite understand why this would be so, but it is.
Actually I don't have much of a problem with telemarketers, around elections it gets pretty bad, and the Firemen/Police/Dogcatchers unions like me, but generally it is rather quiet. Unlisted number, Do-Not-Call List, and paranoia about handing out personal information keep it to a minimum.
I just prefer email as my main form of communication (beside face to face, of course), then I can get back to people at my own time. I've been tempted to get a decent smart phone, but somehow keep the voice service deactivated so I can just use it as portable email box.
I don't have one, nor will I be getting on in the long foreseeable future. And having people let me use their portiphone is obnoxious, since they're too small to talk on comfortably, and the sound quality is generally so poor I can't understand what anyone is saying. There also is something about being reachable 100% of the time that annoys me, I already can't stand it when my home phone rings, it feels like someone is trying to break in.
My ideal is VOIP, period. Sadly I can't even handle this where I live, Qwest doesn't like fixing their residential lines, so dial-up it is.
But then again 90% of my friends don't have cellphones, or don't carry them around in my vicinity. I can't stand sitting their while someone talks on the phone, in the middle of doing whatnot with a real person.
Thank you. I think the only reason Halo is such a phenomena is because its the first decent FPS on console (since Golden Eye, which was also crap compared to other FPSs of the time). It let non-"hardcore" gamers kill each other in dorm rooms without having to worry about network settings, which I think was the only draw. It was the new generation of games first contact with FPSs (again, like Goldeneye), so they make a big deal of it.
I did enjoy its story, granted, but it never stood up, in terms of game play and graphics, to PC FPSs released at the same time (Doom3, Halflife 2, UT2kx, etc...)
If I'm used to good looking graphics no amount of motion control is going to make up for graphics that do more to push me out of the experience then pull me in
Meh. I'm used to good graphics, being a recovering PC gamer (we have the console kids whipped, still), but I still chose a Wii over the rest of the "next-gen" consoles. I don't expect to have HLII on my Wii, nor would I buy it if it came out since the graphics WOULD pull me out, but games like Warioware and Rayman (or even Twilight Princess) work remarkably well. I'm going to use the Wii for what its good for, fun. I'll keep my hardcore, graphical, fragfests on the PC (and perhaps 360, when they get cheap).
Use the console for what its good at. If you expect graphical goodness you'll be disappointed, if you don't you'll be fine.
Posting with a hangover is bad for thoughtful statements on/.
Unlike most of the other people replying to you, I agree.
If the government was working under the assumption that our enemies had access to detailed satellite imagery under the Cold War, why would they suddenly expect something different now? I'm sure they had defense of critical sites in mind during the Cold War, when the Soviets had access to the layout of sites, so why would these alternative strategies be suddenly obsolete?
Yes, the intelligence aspect would be harder than forcing private enterprise and individuals to block out any information, but intelligence would be stronger in the long run, since dedicated individuals still will find a way to obtain site information, even with American censorship. As stated, it would be impossible to block the data we already have in the public domain, and furthermore block international satellite imagery from entering the public domain.
I disagree, though, that the the publics WANT of this information plays that big a role. I want a nuclear reactor in my basement, and a tank, but that does not mean I should be granted access to either. I think the bigger issue is that the government does not want to adapt to new technologies, preferring instead to ban them, or restrict them. The world has changed, and you really can't fight that. We have the imagery, and that won't change, no matter how hard the government bangs the censorship hammer. We all have to adapt to new technology, and discover new strategies for security within the emerging paradigm. You can never go back.
Hey... At least my birds actually talk. What can your cat do?:P
Crap on the floor, thats about it at the moment. Unless you consider biting my ankles when I go to the bathroom at 3am as a sign of intelligence.
but just because we may be at the top in intelligence, humans are still animals. Hell chimps are 99% genetically identical.
Prepare to get modded to hell. I agree though, and would go farther and claim that trying to map human intelligence to animals is rather misplaced. What is intelligence anyways? When we use the term we generally mean "human-like intelligence", or how close a given species is to being human. Does intelligence have to make something MORE HUMAN? This is the fight I get into with AI people, their machines might become intelligence, but I fail to see how this transfers into "human like", as if the two were logically connected. But thats neither here nor there.
I'd recommend reading Douglas Hofstader's "I am a Strange Loop", he does run into the "intelligence = humanity" fallacy a bit, but otherwise I agree 100%.
Slashdot Mirror
But more importantly, you CANNOT just sit in a parking lot and use Wi-fi without deciding to ACTIVELY log on to the access point.
Not necessarily true. With my old iBook it would just autodiscover, and login to open wifi networks, without my help, or any other conscious action by me. Does this then make mac owners less culpable than others? I doubt it.
I don't understand how it could be a felony, if you leave your wifi open, people will use it. It takes all of 2 seconds to secure it. I'm also not going to play with silly analogies, since I really think the "if you left your door unlocked..." analogy is false. If there is any law involved in this, it should be civil. If this coffee shop only wants paying customers to use their access, then she should use some form of "ticket" solution. A coffee shop near my old college did this, when you purchased something they gave you an access number good for about an hour of internet use, this kept you buying things as long as you wanted to use access, and also barred people from "piggybacking".
Residential access is tougher, though a simple password is still the best thing to do. In college, also, I knew several people whose only form of access was through some unknown "lender". I never really had a problem with this, but then again I lean towards socialism. If they didn't want to have their access used, then they would have secured it. This is another issue, what if I DO want people to use it, is it still illegal for them to do so? I keep my wifi open, as long as it doesn't harm me, but are the people using it still illegal? I don't give implicit consent, just like people don't give implicit denial.
Going to handle this slightly out of order.
but I have actually. Free will "completely discredited"? Never heard that before.
It hasn't, or at least in any sense that I completely buy (I could lead you to sources that do completely discredit the idea if you want, but that is a discussion for another time). But will, and rationality, is constrained. Taking on will is the easiest, and most pedantic (so pardon me), your will is not completely free because of the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. Rationality is also constrained. First you assume that all people have the same ability to reason, but much of our rational abilities come from more environmental effects than a purely innate human ability to rationalize. Our education, and social upbringing play a rather large role in our critical thinking abilities. At very least, education and social pressures habituates us towards actually being rational. Another part of rationality is the quality of the data available to go into the actual processes of reason. If you are missing data, or aren't even aware of critical factors, all of your rational decisions are baseless. Reason is only as good as the data provided. Education and social influence conditions us towards proper data selection, lacking this our ability to make rational decisions is useless.
The people who do drugs had their rational faculties when they decided to do the drugs. Anything that happens after that is ultimately a result of that rational, free decision.
I address this above. I argue that a lot (not all) of the people who decide to use drugs do not have the proper ability to apply reason, nor do they have the habitualized trait to treat situations as rational. Humans are mostly irrational, unless taught otherwise. People start doing drugs, largely, for irrational reasons, or on purely primal motivations (it feels good, I will do it), without the weighing of consequences that would precede a rational decision. More so, I think that due to socio-economic situations they reach for drugs as an escapist mechanism to remove the institutionalized sense of despair that comes from endemic poverty, and the feeling of helplessness.
Not the government's problem. Or at least it shouldn't be.
On this we probably will never agree. The government should equalize the playing field for all members of society. But this, too, is another argument for another time.
That strikes me as elitist. IMO, we are free to do with our minds what we want, regardless of our socio-economic situation.
So people without access to decent education, who have very little hope, and where "drug culture" has become a well excepted form of escape have as much "free choice" as the middle and upper classes who have a decent education, stronger family role-models, and at least some illusion of cultural mobility? I'm not being elitist, I'm simply saying that ones social situation does serve to limit the immediately obvious options, and does help drive people into bad choices. Yes, they still have has much choice as the middle classes, but these choices are unequally weighed.
The idea(l) is that people can do to themselves what they please.
I agree, to a point. They can do as they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else (without consent), or hamper anyone else's freedoms or rights. Government exists to maximize the rights of all citizens, which requires drawing constraints around some of those rights. I don't think drug use is as clear cut as some think, I don't think that they should be universally banned, nor do I think they should be universally allowed. As to what this middle ground is, I have no idea, I just know that we are currently doing something wrong, but that complete "no strings attached" legalization is also probably a mistake.
While I'm on this topic, I have some questions for you. Can you show me how drug prohibition has worked? Or is this more about drawing a line in the sand? Can you show me how drug prohibition hasn't ruined more lives than it's saved?
This is your approach towards a strawman. I never claimed that I agree with the status-quo either, I just think that their pure legality is an overstatement. The status quo is obviously ineffectual, and probably doing more harm than good, but this does not mean its opposite must be good.
I know, it's a stretch. However, it doesn't really matter which way you look at it. I still feel that my body is my body, and I may do with it as I please. Similarly, I also believe that suicide should be 100% legal.
I agree, as long as it does not negatively effect society, or harm others. And with suicide, I do agree, though I think that people make that decision because of irrational reasons. As with all things, education, treatment, and a look at the root social causes are going to be needed to effect any positive change on problems such as suicide and drug use. They are irrational choices.
They didn't? They didn't decide to take that first dose? Or the nth one? Well in that case we have a different problem. Someone is out there on the loose forcing needles into people vein's without their consent. I think the police should stop them immediately.
Your right, they should, and do stop them, and they should do it more. These people sticking needles into peoples arms are called "pushers" or "dealers". They're selling drugs to kids, and highschool students, and the uneducated poor who don't know any better. People who do drugs (especially the harder ones) don't have their rational faculties, people who sell drugs prey on this, which in my eyes is a form of "forcing needles into their veins".
The idea that everything is a rational choice is vital to a free society where people have free will.
So because the idea is vital to a system we set up, it must be true? Sounds like wishful thinking to me. I'd recommend taking some cognative science, and social psychology classes, our idea of "free will" is in the process of being almost completely discredited. Just because you want it to be real, doesn't make it. You can clap your hands all you want, and fairies will never exist.
Perhaps, but I think a free(er) society is worth striving for.
I agree with you on this one. Though I buy the more Millsian version, your freedom should be unlimited until it limits someone else's.
You think drugs cause these problems. I think the users cause these problems. You think problem is the drugs themselves. I think the problem is the concious choice certain people make to use them. Your solution is to remove drugs from society. My solution is to remove from society the people who make bad choices that result in harm to another person./em
Your putting artificial chemicals in your brain, that changes identity. Its hard to really separate people from the drugs they use, since they change the basic functioning and wiring of their brains. I admit the problem is deeper than "heroin addict = crime" or such, there are many other socioeconomic and psychological issues on the table, some causing the drug use, some facilitating he behaviors coming from he drug use, it isn't easily reductable.
I generally don't support a "nanny-government", but I do think that the government does have the responsibility (as its very nature) to protect the members of society that allows it to exist. And often times I think that the line between the personal, and the public interest more obfuscated than we want to let on. That said, the current punishment regime for drug offenses (and most other ones) is wrong, punishment should be mainly education and treatment, with laxer laws. The money saved could be put towards helping with the social, and educational, situations that help lead towards drug use.
I really don't understand this point of view, whatsoever. Most of the people I know who "decided" to become worthless junkies didn't really decide anything at all. They are generally uneducated, poor, and enmeshed in a flawed social strata or group. A lot of them don't, and never will, fully understand what they are doing to themselves, their loved ones, and society as a whole. The idea that everything is a rational choice is a myth, which should have gone away long ago.
I would like you to venture about the local "bad area" of your town at 2am, and tell me how drug use doesn't hurt you afterward, especially when your in the ER with a stab wound because some junkie really wanted your wallet. Tell that to their families and friends who they screwed over since discovering that they really don't want to be human beings anymore. Drugs (some of them, okay) are bad, they have bad social effects, and serve to keep the poor and uneducated poor and uneducated.
Yes, we shouldn't treat having a couple of grams of marijuana like a crime worse than rape or murder. Heck, I would even say legalize marijuana, but this statement will not be applicable to things such as methamphetamines or heroin. These effect the rest of society, and thus I have no problem with society banning them.
The absolute freedom ideology annoys me. Its idealistic, not based in reality. My rights end where yours begin, this is the price I pay for reaping the benefits of society. Drugs consistently cause people to hurt other people, and society as a whole (non productivity, crime, entrenched poverty), so how could you justify them. Hopefully, though doubtfully, you support extensive social programs to care for those people who have been fried from drugs, and to support the recovery of those who "freely" decided to imprison themselves.
On a more philosophical level, why would you want to support anything that serves to dehumanize other people? Why drugs? What single good thing could be said about heroin or tweak? If someone chooses them, they obviously are not rational to begin with.
You might be correct 40% of the time, but I think a lot of people who "tattle" (to sound like we're all in 3rd grade) are of the "whistle blower" type. I've reported many crimes, and I'm not affiliated with law enforcement in any way, I have yet to testify against anyone, but would do so willingly in any of those cases. Why? Not because I think the penal system is necessarily good thing, but because some people can't act civilly, and thus should be removed. Sadly our system (in the US, or elsewhere) does not rehabilitate people, and serves mostly as a "out of sight out of mind" psychological panacea, and as a system to create criminals in order to perpetuate itself, but in some cases it is the only solution.
If you witnessed a rape, please tell me that you wouldn't, first, report it, then, testify against the rapist. I would do so, without thinking, since in these cases at least the flawed system serves as detainment.
As for your actual premise, no. Why should we accept violence against anyone, since this is what the sole purpose of this site is. You may not agree with undercover operations, but saying that revenge against them is acceptable is reprehensible. I agree that the more banal undercover operations are rather dubious (small time prostitution stings, and small drug stings), but there is a valid use of undercover officers, such as breaking up large scale drug rings, and even investigating unfair business situations.
I have pondered this. It is a well known social psychological fact that anonymity loosens peoples inhibitions, especially towards the more vile acts of humanity. Removing anonymity would "re-humanize" people on the internet, and make the ultimately culpable for their actions. But, of course, you are correct, it is not a wise idea, since in a few (very few) cases it allows people to say important things that they would not be allowed to say in society.
There is a way around this, though. I have been using the handle "Omestes" for 10 years or so, and thus feel connected to this persona, it has a reputation, and people have expectations for it, just like my real life identity. This keep the anonyminity factor in check, for the most part, since it would be damaging, and out of character for me posting under this persona to run about and call people "fag" for no reason. If I did this consistently, though, I also would grow a reputation, a negative one, and people would avoid it. It would lose trust.
Thus I think we need persistent "handles". On WoW, for example, have each character tied to the actual account, and thus actions would be tied to one identity, and all bans/ignores/complaints would reflect on this one account. Sort of like how the new X-Box live keeps individual scores/actions down to one account, regardless of the game, or in-game persona. These super-persona's should be rated by the amount of grief they are attributed. There should be a way to filter them by this (much like a gradiated version of Karma), and when it goes low enough offer various flavors of ban. Most of all make this public. Have public lists of who has the best/worst civil rankings.
With freedom comes responsibility. Just because you are "free" to do something, does not mean you should.
For some reason this has been completely forgotten in modern society.
Actually I don't think that calling people "fag" in a videogame goes under freedom of speech, legally. If Blizz decided to ban all the griefers, no ones civil liberties would be harmed.
So your argument is "Your a better man for being called a fag by hormonal 13 years who pee into their Mountain Dew bottles"? I disagree. I think that Blizzard, and other MMO makers, lose some degree of profit from harboring hostile player atmospheres. I know I finally quit playing, in part, because I started getting sick the growing amount of idiots out there, and my server wasn't too bad, even (Cenarian Circle [RP]), but the various PvP and RP/PvP servers I played on were just a place for anonymous idiots to inflict themselves on others for fun. Several of my friends refuse to play WoW because of the shear amount of uncouth children running about. Being called a "fag" 60 times an hour is not fun, I don't really care if it makes me a "tougher" person, I'm too old to really care about that anymore. I want to have fun, not build character.
Not saying that there isn't good people on WoW, over the year or so that I played I managed to get a nice friends list, and join a guild filled with very adult people. I did manage to have some very nice conversations while sitting around in Stranglethorn being bored at 3am. But the more populous places were almost unplayable, like the Crossroads.
I'd say this would fall into the "tragedy of the commons" ideology. Just because you can be a moron, doesn't mean you HAVE TO be a moron. Arguments of character building aside, why should I accept being called a "fag", ever? How is this acceptable in a polite society?
I do enjoy my foe list, though I just set it at -1 to bump down some folk who I consider trolls, or just don't feel like reading, but not ban them. I just like them a bit further down the page. I also read at 0, with the karma bonus on, so the odds of them being censored are practically nill (who really has bad karma?)
/. But how often to do see unpopular opinions modded troll? Go to a politics or apple discussion and notice how many comments with troll mods REALLY are trolls, and not just differences of opinion. How many things are moderated up just for claiming "I know I'll get modded down for this but..."... And how many comments with a "read the rest of this comment..." footer modded informative, just for being lengthy?
I suppose I COULD censor foes, but that would be silly, since I'm guess that even the people on the list bring something interesting to the table, even if in its negative.
Censorship is generally bad, I would have said universal, but there are glaring things that should be removed, such as child porn, but off the top of my head that is the only thing on the list. The internet is diverse enough to allow us to censor the rest on the fly, you don't like x, then your probably not going to seek out x, which is both a problem and a good thing. A good thing because it allows us to self-censor the web, and thus not inflict our opinion of appropriateness on others. A bad thing because it armors us against opposing views, thus fostering groupthink.
Moderation works well 90% of the time on
On a small scale, though, it is good enough. But i doubt it would translate well to the hugeness, and diversity, of the full web. Though sites like StumbleUpon do rather well...
Wait, meaning he could have loaded his gun with bullets from different batches of rounds?
Am I misreading this? It just says that some of the fragments had different chemical profiles, meaning they come from different sources. So, why couldn't he have used different sources for his bullets? How does this make a conspiracy, still?
The TRUTH is not a middle ground -- that is opinion.
When we do not have direct access to facts, and must rely on various representatives presenting them, we need a strategy to find meaning in both statements. Especially when said representatives are not fully trustworthy (no one in the media is), nor do they have fully access to facts (which are not even truth, in themselves). Generally both Bill O and Olbermann have access to the same data (press-releases, White House spin, etc...), but both of them construe this data to point to contradictory positions, meaning that this "TRUTH" you speak of is mainly a matter of interpretation.
I happen to agree more with Olbermann, but I know my biases, and am overly cautious of letting them get in the way. Agreeing with something does not make it true, especially the mere wanting of something to be true.
Sure, I mispoke, slightly, it might not be JUST down the middle, but still I am careful (or try to be) to weigh the oppositions opinion as much as the people I agree with.
Anyone who allies themselves with a side of a false dichotomy, with pride, shouldn't be slandering people who are trying to figure out their own path. Why the hell would anyone want to call themselves a "liberal" or a "conservative"? This just means you find one set of cliche dogmatic statements to be preferable to an equally cliche set of dogmatic statements. I'd prefer to weigh each issue on its own merit, and often times I do fall into the realms of the "left", and other times into the "right", sometimes I even agree with the fringe parties, such as the libertarians and the greens, depending on the issue. Being a moderate does not entail neutrality.
Good reply! Pleasantly outside of what I was expecting (namely "STFU!").
I agree, it isn't fair to shunt the group-think purely on the doubt crowd, not long ago I was in that crowd (moderately, the main doubt was our ability to generalize human causation from a shady record of a VERY old constantly fluctuating planet), and do see several dogmatic "greens" speaking out.
I guess it is like all things, both sides have their "fringes" that are overly represented thanks to being louder and more visual. In my philosophy classes we used to call it the "volume over validity" school of argument.
Wrong. Sexual Harassment is about the people in power USING that power to sleep with their underlings, consensual sex is still okay.
Its a matter of coercion and abuse of power, not just mere sex.
Minor nitpick, doesn't change the factual content of your post though, you are correct.
Why do people whitewash Clinton so much? I liked him, but he was impeached for perjury, which I don't (and no one should) like, not sex.
As a perpetual optimist, I'm hoping America is capable of electing a black man,
Should I really care if he's black? I'm getting sick of both the Obama and Clinton camps saying "wouldn't it be nice if we elected x". I don't care. To be honest I'm not voting for either of them, both of them seem to be doing the "popular" thing very well, but for me that is a major turn-off. I'm leaning towards Kucinich and Edwards (Kucinich has no chance whatsoever of ever being elected, sadly, and the Media hates Edwards, for whatever reason), and Giulioni on the right. Ron Paul seems to play the same role as Gravel did, comic relief to make the "big guys" look more serious, and to give the whole thing an illusion of "fairness".
But then again I'm not a libertarian, nor even a mainstream lefty. As long as people vote, I really don't care who they vote for. That said, Obama is better than Hillary, and I still would vote for him over 90% of the Republicans, except Guiliani, then I'd have a hard time casting a ballot either way.
I really did like him, but he strikes me as a "The Bill O'Reilly of the Left", especially since he constantly bashes on Fox and Bill O'Rielly, yes at times this might be valid, but all the time strikes me as rather childish. Also I hate how the "#1 Story" is always something about American Idol, or Britany Spears, or some other idiotic bit of irrelevant pop-culture. He's as blatantly biased as the journalists on Fox, and even if I agree with him more, this does not make it any less obnoxious.
I prefer Jim Leher, hidden out in the no-mans land of PBS. Actually I prefer watching Bill O for an hour, then watching Olbermann, I know that the truth lies someplace in the middle, where both of them would get pissed off and launch into amusing rants.
The sad thing is that I almost took you seriously. incredulousness starts wearing thin in the global climate arena, especially since I have heard statements like yours spoken with a straight face. Wishful thinking is nicer than cold hard facts (or warm ones, in this case), so we all want to find ways to justify it. Such as the poster above you doubting mass extinctions, and then comparing the geological record, and paleontological evidence to the bible, all as a means to doubt scientifically accepted facts on the consequences of global warming.
That, incidentally, is the new prong of attack I've noticed from the "doubting" camp. Its getting hard to doubt warming itself, and slightly harder to doubt its human causation, so now the argument is "so what, the world might be nicer!". I have no idea why this issue has become a psychologically entrenched issue, why some sense of "self-hood" is at stake.
I'm getting rather sick of the anti-science crowd, who used its effects daily, and even buys most of the fundamentals of science, but refuses to accept other bits because "it is just science" when it fails their self interest.
Sure, I admit that science isn't the be-all-end-all of life, or understanding. I don't think science offers ALL the answers, but it is the best tool we have, it is good enough, and it is exceedingly good at making statements and predictions about the world. If you want to stand against the accepted scientific paradigm, you better offer some convincing arguments, on ITS terms.
My favorite argument so far, in this topic, is against peer-review. Yes, it, as a system, life science itself, is not perfect, but its the best system we have. 90% of the time it works, and given enough time its success rate approached 100%.
Out of curiosity, what emotional stake do doubters have in this issue? Is it not, even if it turns out wrong, better to be safe than sorry? How is cutting carbon emissions a bad thing, it would be locally positive, even if not globally (which too would probably be possitive), I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to start a flame war.
Can't people be alone with their own thoughts for more than 30 seconds at a whack?
I've noticed this too. The first time I went to college (sometime in the mid-90s) people would leave class, light up a cigarette, then chit-chat with their classmates. Second time I went (around a year or so ago) people would leave class, and have their cellphones dialing before they even left the door. Overhearing these conversations, I realized that they really aren't even saying anything, they're just recounting their day to someone, bit by bit. I worry more about how our communications are losing content, its becoming more and more that we communicate because we can, to hear ourselves talk.
I agree with the planning bit too. I love it when people call me to tell me where they are, while their coming over. "Hey, I'm on the 17, just passing Greenway, I'll be there in 3 minutes"... Why do I need to know this?
No, I'm not talking about older phones, I have a hard time holding a conversation for over a minute or so even on new phones, like RAZR, or PHAZR, or whatever the hell they want to call them. Strangely I can hear rather well on them, but I have a harder time comprehending what people say, a problem I don't have with landlines. I don't quite understand why this would be so, but it is.
Actually I don't have much of a problem with telemarketers, around elections it gets pretty bad, and the Firemen/Police/Dogcatchers unions like me, but generally it is rather quiet. Unlisted number, Do-Not-Call List, and paranoia about handing out personal information keep it to a minimum.
I just prefer email as my main form of communication (beside face to face, of course), then I can get back to people at my own time. I've been tempted to get a decent smart phone, but somehow keep the voice service deactivated so I can just use it as portable email box.
I don't have one, nor will I be getting on in the long foreseeable future. And having people let me use their portiphone is obnoxious, since they're too small to talk on comfortably, and the sound quality is generally so poor I can't understand what anyone is saying. There also is something about being reachable 100% of the time that annoys me, I already can't stand it when my home phone rings, it feels like someone is trying to break in.
My ideal is VOIP, period. Sadly I can't even handle this where I live, Qwest doesn't like fixing their residential lines, so dial-up it is.
But then again 90% of my friends don't have cellphones, or don't carry them around in my vicinity. I can't stand sitting their while someone talks on the phone, in the middle of doing whatnot with a real person.
Yes, I'm a misanthrope.
Shhhh... Some people haven't realized that playing M rated games, and going to R rated movies don't make that actually mature.
Thank you. I think the only reason Halo is such a phenomena is because its the first decent FPS on console (since Golden Eye, which was also crap compared to other FPSs of the time). It let non-"hardcore" gamers kill each other in dorm rooms without having to worry about network settings, which I think was the only draw. It was the new generation of games first contact with FPSs (again, like Goldeneye), so they make a big deal of it.
I did enjoy its story, granted, but it never stood up, in terms of game play and graphics, to PC FPSs released at the same time (Doom3, Halflife 2, UT2kx, etc...)
If I'm used to good looking graphics no amount of motion control is going to make up for graphics that do more to push me out of the experience then pull me in
/.
Meh. I'm used to good graphics, being a recovering PC gamer (we have the console kids whipped, still), but I still chose a Wii over the rest of the "next-gen" consoles. I don't expect to have HLII on my Wii, nor would I buy it if it came out since the graphics WOULD pull me out, but games like Warioware and Rayman (or even Twilight Princess) work remarkably well. I'm going to use the Wii for what its good for, fun. I'll keep my hardcore, graphical, fragfests on the PC (and perhaps 360, when they get cheap).
Use the console for what its good at. If you expect graphical goodness you'll be disappointed, if you don't you'll be fine.
Posting with a hangover is bad for thoughtful statements on
Unlike most of the other people replying to you, I agree.
If the government was working under the assumption that our enemies had access to detailed satellite imagery under the Cold War, why would they suddenly expect something different now? I'm sure they had defense of critical sites in mind during the Cold War, when the Soviets had access to the layout of sites, so why would these alternative strategies be suddenly obsolete?
Yes, the intelligence aspect would be harder than forcing private enterprise and individuals to block out any information, but intelligence would be stronger in the long run, since dedicated individuals still will find a way to obtain site information, even with American censorship. As stated, it would be impossible to block the data we already have in the public domain, and furthermore block international satellite imagery from entering the public domain.
I disagree, though, that the the publics WANT of this information plays that big a role. I want a nuclear reactor in my basement, and a tank, but that does not mean I should be granted access to either. I think the bigger issue is that the government does not want to adapt to new technologies, preferring instead to ban them, or restrict them. The world has changed, and you really can't fight that. We have the imagery, and that won't change, no matter how hard the government bangs the censorship hammer. We all have to adapt to new technology, and discover new strategies for security within the emerging paradigm. You can never go back.
Hey... At least my birds actually talk. What can your cat do? :P
Crap on the floor, thats about it at the moment. Unless you consider biting my ankles when I go to the bathroom at 3am as a sign of intelligence.
but just because we may be at the top in intelligence, humans are still animals. Hell chimps are 99% genetically identical.
Prepare to get modded to hell. I agree though, and would go farther and claim that trying to map human intelligence to animals is rather misplaced. What is intelligence anyways? When we use the term we generally mean "human-like intelligence", or how close a given species is to being human. Does intelligence have to make something MORE HUMAN? This is the fight I get into with AI people, their machines might become intelligence, but I fail to see how this transfers into "human like", as if the two were logically connected. But thats neither here nor there.
I'd recommend reading Douglas Hofstader's "I am a Strange Loop", he does run into the "intelligence = humanity" fallacy a bit, but otherwise I agree 100%.