So you can read the intent behind the tag of "gay" on these stories? Amazing power you have there. And I like how you equate the use here with southern yokels murdering people, I'm sure Taco is dragging some dead queers behind his John Deere tractor right now. What if the intent was just as a humorous joke for those of us who still have a sense of humor? Then can we just rest upon it as a joke, and not offensive, since offence was not intented?
It isn't even offensive by your definition then.
Its a word, period. Nothing more. You supply the meaning, and you supply your reaction to it. Sure, words change their meanings over time, and sadly people supplanted two very good words (Gay and queer), and took them out of common usage, unless we want to fact the consiquences of letting some sensative people get offended.
To solve this, I say we actually take a poll of gay/.ers and see how many of THEM are offended. Not how many straight, modern, liberal (meaning, to PC spec, feminized) men are offended. I'm sick of outside groups declaring their offence on behalf of other people. It's like forcing that Florida team to change their name (From the Seminols, I think), when the actual tribe had no problem with it. If the offendees aren't offended, then what right does anyone have to step up and be offended FOR them? After this poll, we need to see if a majority (or supermajority) is offended, and not just a handful of vocal advocates too.
I could go on. This is the reason I stopped being a liberal, its a hot button for me. Its a word. I'm sure no gay men lost their livelihood from these story tags, nor did they lose their lives. Meaning it is completely harmless. Those tags made a good number of people chuckle, and a far far smaller number get into hypersensative mode. Basically trying to rain on the majorities party.
No one got hurt, or will get hurt, therefore there is no story. Move along.
Er... don't stomp on the only day that/. isn't completely self-righteous.
Offence is completely in offendee, you choose to be offended, especially if you aren't in the target audience. You can't be offended FOR someone, it is absurd being that there isn't an objective particle of offence in the world.
And perhaps the tag just means happy/full of joy? Why does "gay" have to mean homosexual? Queer is strange, gay is happy. Live with it. Or perhaps, even, it was a statement of fact, men in pink are generally gay, our beloved (ahem!) editors/admins are men, they dressed their manhood in pink. They might be gay. No value judgement.
Thats odd. So... when I go camping for a week I'm flirting with death?
Oh No! Fire boils water. Blankets and conserving body heat keeps one warm. Computers are not necissary for life, or even happiness. Sometimes I go a day or two without using mine, its better for your mental health (for reasons other than EMF). Fire = light. Canned food doesn't need to be refrigerated. Books and magazines trump TV/radio.
Its sad that people think that their gadgets are necessary for life. We survived for a hundred thousand years without gizmos and electricity, and I doubt that our biology has changed in any way to need the presence of our silly gizmos.
First off, I'm playing devil's advocate, since I really am unconvinced that democracy is a good thing, so I'm sorry it bled through.
The thing is, say that Utah has a loser definition of murder than, say, California, yet someone from california is murdered in Utah. With something as serious as death, why can Utah define my (most fundamental) rights, and not the community in which I live?
A nation vote works just fine, arguments about the electoral college aside, for getting the general national opinion. We elect our representatives by their views, they endorse them. We get what we want, if the masses agree. If we don't then either we elected the wrong person, or more people didn't like our view. This does seem fair to me. If your rep doesn't have the same view of murder as you, then it is time to re-organize your views.
Also the constitution is a very vague document. Right now our government has nothing to do with how the drafters/founders saw it as being, but it still remains in the realm of the constitution. The constitution didn't even see Black people as full people, nor non-land-owners, or women. So saying it represents any full view, even now, is falacious.
I do think that the states should decide more than they do now, and that the fedral gov't should lose some degree of its all-seeing power. But there are certain issues that effect people on the whole, and I think this is where it comes in. Sure, let states decide to teach I.D., or ban abortion, in the end they will suffer or not. But murder is different, as is rape, in that all of us will agree that these are wrong. I guess it is the fact that we can all agree.
Again, I don't beleive in this fully, but my views are irrelevant, and more unpopular than these.
Unless you want to call this benevolent the public, as a whole. The more weighty the issue, the better it is to have more people behind it, and murder and rape are probably the largest issues there can be, as is anything involving a loss of life or physical freedom.
I don't see what DRM has to do with murder and rape. But, seeing your point, somewhat, I am not a large advocate of our current governments decisions. Just because I am not against a central decision making body, does not make me 100% for the current governmental paradigm either. I'm rather for a sane government.
We beleive in freedom here. And to us freedom means getting everything we want, our way, without any rules barring it, since we always know what is best for us, and always have. I'm being sarcastic, of course... Perhaps.
I agree with profs setting rules for their domain, to an extent. Students should still have some leeway in learning their way, since people do have different styles of learning. But certain things are justifiable, such as limiting laptops, PDAs and such.
I have seen student activism go too far. I was in a psychology of sexuality class once, and one student went to the dean because he couldn't be in a group with his SO, and he embellished his case about the obscenity of the class to get his vengence. The dean listened, and destroyed the unique class format the prof set up. Granted, this was a controvesal class (going to swingers clubs for a final, free trips to strip clubs, etc), but it was also educational, and handled in a proffesional manner.
Professor, powertrip? Hmm... Isn't that in the job, they are TEACHING YOU, and they are doing it on their terms, in a way that they think is most effective in doing this.
I'm sure a fair amount of students get angry with the ban on cell-phones (sadly under enforced, I say flunk the bastards), or voice recording (in some classes). The profs job is to organize the classroom in such a manner that maximizes the impact and educational worth of the lesson. If this one views laptops as a distraction, then sobeit, it is fully within her power.
And, I know this is the wrong place to bring this up,/. being the technophile paradise that it is, but what is wrong with a certain degree of luddism? I think a bit more of it would do our society good. We love technology, but don't want to think of the consiquences of it. People are beginning to think that technology is the pancea we've been looking for, when in fact it can have serious negative consiquences. Pointing out these consiquences, and limiting the use of it, is not a bad thing.
The community and the state (and the people!) are given the power to define all of the following:
1. Murder 4. Theft 5. Rape
No, actually the very idea of having these communally defined is rather absurd. I don't intent to be flamebait or a troll, but I might be moderated as such.
The taking of a human life is a serious, serious, affair. I don't see why Walla Walla's rules should be any different from Phoenix', Texas', or Arkansas. So Texas decides that Murder is only killing White folk above a certain income, lets say, is this okay in your system? Murder is the taking of a human life (excluding some limited murder as self-defence cases). I don't see how community standards plays a roll in this. Ditto with theft, and especially rape. Forcing non-consensual on any individual is wrong, no matter where you live or their community standards.
I'm sure I can think of some communities (such as Colorado City in Norther Arizona) that would LOVE to define their own definition of what is unlawful murder or rape, though this definition would violate what most of us agree are human rights, or morally appropriate. But we should just let them define this themself? Rape is not sleeping with your 10 year old cousin in our community, murder is not killing someone of another faith who disagrees with us vocally.
As for taxes, I agree. But, with the caveat, you lose whatever fedral benefits you would have gotten with those taxes. No roads, no heathcare, no defense, etc...
Last time I critiqued a libetarian idea negatively I got modded flamebait, lets see if I can start a trend.
My middle button (on OS X) is mapped to expose all windows, which is a very nice feature for switching between windows, much more convenient than hitting F9, meaning its functionality is killed in FF.
Though it would be nice if there was an easy way to kill a tab, outside of of ctrl-w. A nice single click solution...
What is so good about democracy? Do the people really have anything to say?
That aside, 99.9% of people have no clue about DNS, or even what it stands for, and thus their opinions on it would do no good, and probably do harm. The people with an interest in DNS are corporate entities, mostly, and letting them have to much control might also be a bad thing, being that they exist only for their own interest, and not that of the system. So if screwing the system comes into their own best interest, they will show no hesitation of doing so.
So, if mass-people control will not help, and corporate control will not help, what will? Either government control (and being that it is a global system, a global aggragate entity such as the UN), or a multinational NPO (such as ICANN). Right now the NPO is seemingly broken, so the logical alternative is a multinational governmental body, such as the UN.
I think the solution is probably just a reworking of ICANN, to keep it from showing favor to any single FPO, such as Verisign. Rework charters, rules, etc. Or probably just burn ICANN, and start from scratch.
As for the "deregulated managment" at the price of reliability, my knee-jerk reaction is to disagree. How would you deregulate it, but yet keep it as fair as it even is now? Please don't tell me the market will work it out, I already covered the problem with that. Do you have an actual solution statement behind that phrase, I would like to hear it, before rejecting it.
Someone earlier has suggested a purely technical solution, I would stand behind this, but again this went unexplained.
This argument is kind of pointless, I doubt either of us will budge, though you did give me something to think about.
I could see a shift to mild-acceptance, so the money used to incarcerate, and hunt street-level junkies could be saved, and put towards rehab, clean needles, and trying to get the high-level sources of heroin. Much like much of Europe. But the goal should always be to keep as many people off of it, as possible, and to try to cut the strings of addiction in existant users.
In the end, and "get'em" attitude will fail, since junkies (and I do know this, emotional arguements aside) are people too, wretched perhaps, but the goal of any sane society is to raise everyone to an acceptable level, we can argue the methodology of this, but I have a feeling that we would disagree, perhaps vehemently.
Some people, not a majority, and perhaps not a signifigant portion.
Let them get a diagnosis, and get something that does not have serious social consequences. A minority of people is not an excuse for street drugs, since a majority of people who get hooked have no reason too, and only cause problems for society.
To draw an example, I know a signifigant amount of people who smoke pot, and only a single one of them smoked it for pain (post-polio), while the rest were purely recreational. Heroin, I'm sure is the same. Its about the hit to the pleasure-center, and not a medical disorder. For the minority with the disorder, I would endorse methadone, or more probably some more standard pain-killer with less addictive consequences.
Please don't assume that I am against the minority with a pain condition that can be medically verified. Let the opiates flow to them in a pure, and well controlled stream.
Self improvement is wrong, I agree. If you cannot live happily in the real world, by all means reach for the needle instead of learning to cope. Sure. I think we should also hand out handguns to people with chronic depression.
The thing, in the end, has nothing to do with the indvidual, it has to do with the price to society. People on junk generally do not have the rather hefty means to feed their monkey. And purity has little to due with this, nor does legality. When it comes to pressing the pleasure-center button, it can tend to become more desirable than gainful and legal employment. Thus, these people end up on the public dole, or doing shortcut means for drug use. Thus it becomes a public matter to regulate.
Yes, to the food/activity argument, things change brain chemistry. You reading my post will, looking at the sunset, having a child born, falling in love, eating a good taco, all these do too. But not in a serious way that affects your behavior, or society at large in a deleterious way. I like cocoa, it influences the opiate content of my brain in a way much like heroin (opiates), but to a much lesser extent, with no long term addiction, or problems. You name a food that will get me addicted for a long-term, and harm my ability to participate in society.
Yes, some junkies have legally interacted in society. But a far larger portion have not. Having unprotected sex with someone with HIV/AIDS is not 100% infectious, but is it a good idea? Nothing is 100%, does that make everything okay?
And for a philosophical question (which is where I'm really going from, in the beginning), how is being attatched to anything (especially artificial) things a good or desirable thing? And how can I, in good faith, stand by and watch it happen?
Where I grew up methamphetamines were, and are, the big thing. I've seen it kill, and mess up many a promising life by getting there early in life. It is insideous. Sure, a case can be made for functioning tweakers, a small minority, but a majority of them don't stay functional very long, it is unstable. And a when they cease to be functional it becomes our problem, our being all of us.
All junkies need help, be it alcohol, heroin, amphetamines, or OTC pills. Granted I don't think the draconian "war-on-drugs" is a viable answer, but neither is legalization. There is middle ground. Treatment, education, and changing social influence. Much harder.
First, I never did a 1:1 equation of alcohol to heroin, I was just saying that legal does not = good, and that stigma does exist for a reason other than legality. Stigma exists because of the effects of addiction, legal or non.
Sure, maintenance works. Never denied that, being that it wasn't the topic at hand. And successful mainenance would have the goal, one would think, of cutting the habit. Otherwise it seems rather pointless, even by your own logic, since there isn't even a high involved.
My solution isn't to prohibit alcohol, since that isn't the topic, and I never made any noise towards that end. Again, alcohol was an example of something completely different.
I really don't hate heroin addicts, I've know too many of them (and addicts of other 'hard' drugs) to hate them, pity them would be a better choice of words.
Whats coming to them is completely by their own hands, and the job of a responsible and intelligent citizen would be then to help them. Helping them would include your beloved maintenance, with intent to cut the addiction, not to prolong it indefinatly.
And the public goal should be education to keep people away from it.
Now, as an aside (to this aside) how the hell did I get modded as flamebait? Appearently thinking that drugs are not acceptable towards quality of life is not popular to/. mods. Explains a lot of odd/. behavior, I guess.
I think there is a large difference between dancing, movies, or stamp collecting, and purposely messing with addictive substances which alters your brain chemistry. If I quit stamp collecting, there is no physical withdrawls, now is there? Sure, I might miss it, but it won't lay me out. I don't physically NEED to collect stamps, nor is it altering my brain chemistry.
If you made the claim for pot, I wouldn't argue, since it is non-addictive, and has life-effects no worse than alcohol. But heroin remains the most addictive drug around (besides perhaps methamphetimines), and it can still (no matter how pure) lead to a social burden.
Yes, because they are in chronic pain, pain which hurts their livelyhood, and quality of life. Your average junky is just a tool who is to weak to live life as it is. And being that opiates are severely addictive, they probably won't quit the smack to see that life is actually quite a nice place. And because the fact that it is addictive their quality of life will still suffer. Opiates to build tolerance on their own, so said legal junky will still need more and more.
and wouldn't be stigmatized by being an addict.
Sure, like alcoholics aren't? Good example there, alcohol = legal drug, and a large portion of the population is directly harmed by it. Be it through drunk drivers, domestic abuse, or just the general unpleasantness that exists in being around them. Stigma exists for a reason, not because it is illegal.
They could live entirely normal lives.
Ignoring a fact that they are incapible of actually living a normal life. I live a normal life, I can tolerate the world without mainlining my pleasure centers to oblivion. I guess normal in the sense of that famous rat with a wire to its pleasure centers that starved to death.
I went through a severe caffeine withdrawl in college once, it was probably the first time since I was 9 that I went 12 hours without any caffeine. My solution was tylenol, and a quick run to the local coffee shop for a double espresso, and a bag of freshground.
After that, the solution was to always keep some coffee (or if worst comes to worse, pop) ready at hand. Seems to have worked, never got the lethargy or headache again.
But then again, I doubt I'm at risk, or carry this gene, I'm pretty far from a "slow metabolizer", I can eat like a pig, and never gain a pound, and get plenty of exercize.
This is one of those damn fad things. Dietary issues are full of them. I'll wait a year or ten before taking EITHER study seriously, since they will surely flip-flop 6 million times before anyone thinks they know anything. And I take genetic findings with a big grain of salt, since people have claimed to have found a "gene" for everything now. Also, there are many factors, as someone else has stated, that could play into this.
Besides, something has to kill me. I enjoy drinking coffee, and if it turns out to be the death of me, sobeit. Its all about quality of life, not quantity.
Re:It's today's version of the slide projector
on
A History of Flickr
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Err... I think your missing the point. Taking a photo is about skill, and most real photographers despise photoshop, and only use it to ajust contrast, levels, etc... And then, only grudgingly.
One of my friends is a freelance photographer, and he will spend an hour and a half setting up a shot with his light meter, when most of what he is setting up for could be worked out in photoshop in ten minutes, but he would rather have the feeling of doing art, and not something that any slob could do in 10 minutes. He has skill, they don't.
I happen to agree. Photoshopped pictures does not equal art. Not saying photoshop isn't a valuable tool, I find it handy for what I do with it, collages and colorizations/photocorrection. But in art and professional photography it is best used sparingly.
And the parent is correct, even with photoshop, and filters, photoshop doesn't handle duotone as well as a decent B&W film. Mostly because you frame, and handle your stops/focus different. Photoshop is only as good as the original photo.
I've noticed that this artificial necessity is a constant rationalization of technology. "I can't live with out it!", where people have for about a million years, and were perfectly happy, perhaps even happier than we are today.
I think 90% of social structures (resturants, churches, movies, pubs, libraries, etc...) need faraday cages, or some other form of signal blocking. I'm so sick of idiots yelling at their phones in public, or dropping out of real conversation just to look at their little gadgets. It is outright rude.
If your talking to someone HERE, and NOW, then you talk to them. No matter how many times your little gizmo yells at you. Its polite, it is something from an older age called manners. People used to have them, but technology has done its best to kill them.
And, to be more OT, why is constant connectivity a good thing? I knew I had misanthropic tendancies, but I guess they are worse than I thought, since I really find no need to be in constant contact with people, news, slashdot, my friends, parents, neighbors, government, EVERYONE. I like the quiet time, even at work. I like quiet, uninterupted, conversations with friends, reading a good book far from a telephone or gidget. I like getting lost on little trails in the woods. Appearently I am a minority. What is so good about constantly being interupted?
Listen to a random sample of average cell conversations, or chat logs, or even analyze the topics of your own conversations. How much of the communication is pure noise? I've noticed that cellphones bring out the urge to spill all of our minutia to uncaring others. People sit around talking about shopping, their classes, how they need to buy more shoes, that they went to the dentist, the current state of their bowels. But rarely anything meaningful. They just want others to live their lives vicariously.
Also, contrary to the article, it is damaging our social structure, and making us more and more clanish. When I was going to a community college back in the mid-late 90's, after classes people would go outside, light a cigarette, and talk to their classmates, now people immediatly open their phones and talk to people they already know, never needing to confront strangers. One would think that this lack of novelty would lead to a more closed minded society, where we never need to confront opinions other than the ones we are familior with already.
Wow, that turned into a rant. Sorry. Needless to say, I don't own a cell-phone, turn off AIM periodically (much to the shock of my friends), and only check my email (private) once a day. I sometimes keep the ringer off on my phone (mostly weekends, or holidays), with the answering machine volume off, and check the messages once a day. I get more done, and I think my mental health is better (no tech caused ADD).
Hmmm... looking at paper is distracting. Where did we lose the ability to multi-task? It never hurt us in the past, and I see no evidence that technophilia = improvement in grades.
I think all of this is just that, technophilia. Our culture lusts after technology, we must have it everywhere, even if it serves no purpose whatsoever, or makes things worse. We think flashing buttons and glowing screens are unequivocally better than not. Look how many people "NEED" their cell phones these days, as compaired to the 1.5 Million+ years of human history. Meh.
Wrong place to complain though, mod down at will. I refuse to support technological presence for it owns sake.
I don't see why for someone who has been attending lectures with laptops right from primary school, & who doesn't browse or do other things during the lecture, a laptop isn't as less distracting as pen & paper.
Perhaps not as distracting, but more inefficient, depending on your learning style. I take notes as large flow charts, with graphics and odd symbolic notations (like logical symbols). The linear form of computer input does not allow me to take notes like this, as easily as a pen and paper. With a pen and paper my only note-taking limitation is the space of paper, with a computer it forces you into a (mostly) text-only, linear form.
Also, at times, I do find it distracting, especially in wired or wifi happy atmospheres. I spend more time hunting wikipedia or google, than taking notes, even if this is under the guise of the topic of the class at hand. (I spent one whole class browsing the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, for one term, and missed the whole lecture, for example).
And, at times other people using laptops can be distracting, as well. Especially when they are not taking notes. Try sitting behind some kid watching videos online, playing a emulator, or looking at porn, during a lecture. Granted, inattention can be distracting without a computer, but it is rarer, and only through audible snoring.
Slashdot Mirror
So you can read the intent behind the tag of "gay" on these stories? Amazing power you have there. And I like how you equate the use here with southern yokels murdering people, I'm sure Taco is dragging some dead queers behind his John Deere tractor right now. What if the intent was just as a humorous joke for those of us who still have a sense of humor? Then can we just rest upon it as a joke, and not offensive, since offence was not intented?
/.ers and see how many of THEM are offended. Not how many straight, modern, liberal (meaning, to PC spec, feminized) men are offended. I'm sick of outside groups declaring their offence on behalf of other people. It's like forcing that Florida team to change their name (From the Seminols, I think), when the actual tribe had no problem with it. If the offendees aren't offended, then what right does anyone have to step up and be offended FOR them? After this poll, we need to see if a majority (or supermajority) is offended, and not just a handful of vocal advocates too.
It isn't even offensive by your definition then.
Its a word, period. Nothing more. You supply the meaning, and you supply your reaction to it. Sure, words change their meanings over time, and sadly people supplanted two very good words (Gay and queer), and took them out of common usage, unless we want to fact the consiquences of letting some sensative people get offended.
To solve this, I say we actually take a poll of gay
I could go on. This is the reason I stopped being a liberal, its a hot button for me. Its a word. I'm sure no gay men lost their livelihood from these story tags, nor did they lose their lives. Meaning it is completely harmless. Those tags made a good number of people chuckle, and a far far smaller number get into hypersensative mode. Basically trying to rain on the majorities party.
No one got hurt, or will get hurt, therefore there is no story. Move along.
Er... don't stomp on the only day that /. isn't completely self-righteous.
Offence is completely in offendee, you choose to be offended, especially if you aren't in the target audience. You can't be offended FOR someone, it is absurd being that there isn't an objective particle of offence in the world.
And perhaps the tag just means happy/full of joy? Why does "gay" have to mean homosexual? Queer is strange, gay is happy. Live with it. Or perhaps, even, it was a statement of fact, men in pink are generally gay, our beloved (ahem!) editors/admins are men, they dressed their manhood in pink. They might be gay. No value judgement.
Long live the evil bit!
/. this year.
God, I don't beleive I remember that...
Seriously though, the pink thing isn't good, though perhaps I did need my eyes to bleed for a bit. Thinkgeek killed
Though using their actual websearch (MSN) it shows you a full page of links to download Firefox. A WHOLE page!
Thats odd. So... when I go camping for a week I'm flirting with death?
Oh No! Fire boils water. Blankets and conserving body heat keeps one warm. Computers are not necissary for life, or even happiness. Sometimes I go a day or two without using mine, its better for your mental health (for reasons other than EMF). Fire = light. Canned food doesn't need to be refrigerated. Books and magazines trump TV/radio.
Its sad that people think that their gadgets are necessary for life. We survived for a hundred thousand years without gizmos and electricity, and I doubt that our biology has changed in any way to need the presence of our silly gizmos.
Technology is like crack.
First off, I'm playing devil's advocate, since I really am unconvinced that democracy is a good thing, so I'm sorry it bled through.
The thing is, say that Utah has a loser definition of murder than, say, California, yet someone from california is murdered in Utah. With something as serious as death, why can Utah define my (most fundamental) rights, and not the community in which I live?
A nation vote works just fine, arguments about the electoral college aside, for getting the general national opinion. We elect our representatives by their views, they endorse them. We get what we want, if the masses agree. If we don't then either we elected the wrong person, or more people didn't like our view. This does seem fair to me. If your rep doesn't have the same view of murder as you, then it is time to re-organize your views.
Also the constitution is a very vague document. Right now our government has nothing to do with how the drafters/founders saw it as being, but it still remains in the realm of the constitution. The constitution didn't even see Black people as full people, nor non-land-owners, or women. So saying it represents any full view, even now, is falacious.
I do think that the states should decide more than they do now, and that the fedral gov't should lose some degree of its all-seeing power. But there are certain issues that effect people on the whole, and I think this is where it comes in. Sure, let states decide to teach I.D., or ban abortion, in the end they will suffer or not. But murder is different, as is rape, in that all of us will agree that these are wrong. I guess it is the fact that we can all agree.
Again, I don't beleive in this fully, but my views are irrelevant, and more unpopular than these.
Never said that, never implied that.
Unless you want to call this benevolent the public, as a whole. The more weighty the issue, the better it is to have more people behind it, and murder and rape are probably the largest issues there can be, as is anything involving a loss of life or physical freedom.
I don't see what DRM has to do with murder and rape. But, seeing your point, somewhat, I am not a large advocate of our current governments decisions. Just because I am not against a central decision making body, does not make me 100% for the current governmental paradigm either. I'm rather for a sane government.
You forget that this is /.
We beleive in freedom here. And to us freedom means getting everything we want, our way, without any rules barring it, since we always know what is best for us, and always have. I'm being sarcastic, of course... Perhaps.
I agree with profs setting rules for their domain, to an extent. Students should still have some leeway in learning their way, since people do have different styles of learning. But certain things are justifiable, such as limiting laptops, PDAs and such.
I have seen student activism go too far. I was in a psychology of sexuality class once, and one student went to the dean because he couldn't be in a group with his SO, and he embellished his case about the obscenity of the class to get his vengence. The dean listened, and destroyed the unique class format the prof set up. Granted, this was a controvesal class (going to swingers clubs for a final, free trips to strip clubs, etc), but it was also educational, and handled in a proffesional manner.
Professor, powertrip? Hmm... Isn't that in the job, they are TEACHING YOU, and they are doing it on their terms, in a way that they think is most effective in doing this.
/. being the technophile paradise that it is, but what is wrong with a certain degree of luddism? I think a bit more of it would do our society good. We love technology, but don't want to think of the consiquences of it. People are beginning to think that technology is the pancea we've been looking for, when in fact it can have serious negative consiquences. Pointing out these consiquences, and limiting the use of it, is not a bad thing.
I'm sure a fair amount of students get angry with the ban on cell-phones (sadly under enforced, I say flunk the bastards), or voice recording (in some classes). The profs job is to organize the classroom in such a manner that maximizes the impact and educational worth of the lesson. If this one views laptops as a distraction, then sobeit, it is fully within her power.
And, I know this is the wrong place to bring this up,
Grr... blowing my mod points...
The community and the state (and the people!) are given the power to define all of the following:
1. Murder
4. Theft
5. Rape
No, actually the very idea of having these communally defined is rather absurd. I don't intent to be flamebait or a troll, but I might be moderated as such.
The taking of a human life is a serious, serious, affair. I don't see why Walla Walla's rules should be any different from Phoenix', Texas', or Arkansas. So Texas decides that Murder is only killing White folk above a certain income, lets say, is this okay in your system? Murder is the taking of a human life (excluding some limited murder as self-defence cases). I don't see how community standards plays a roll in this. Ditto with theft, and especially rape. Forcing non-consensual on any individual is wrong, no matter where you live or their community standards.
I'm sure I can think of some communities (such as Colorado City in Norther Arizona) that would LOVE to define their own definition of what is unlawful murder or rape, though this definition would violate what most of us agree are human rights, or morally appropriate. But we should just let them define this themself? Rape is not sleeping with your 10 year old cousin in our community, murder is not killing someone of another faith who disagrees with us vocally.
As for taxes, I agree. But, with the caveat, you lose whatever fedral benefits you would have gotten with those taxes. No roads, no heathcare, no defense, etc...
Last time I critiqued a libetarian idea negatively I got modded flamebait, lets see if I can start a trend.
I concur.
My middle button (on OS X) is mapped to expose all windows, which is a very nice feature for switching between windows, much more convenient than hitting F9, meaning its functionality is killed in FF.
Though it would be nice if there was an easy way to kill a tab, outside of of ctrl-w. A nice single click solution...
I will get he flamebait you didn't for this:
What is so good about democracy? Do the people really have anything to say?
That aside, 99.9% of people have no clue about DNS, or even what it stands for, and thus their opinions on it would do no good, and probably do harm. The people with an interest in DNS are corporate entities, mostly, and letting them have to much control might also be a bad thing, being that they exist only for their own interest, and not that of the system. So if screwing the system comes into their own best interest, they will show no hesitation of doing so.
So, if mass-people control will not help, and corporate control will not help, what will? Either government control (and being that it is a global system, a global aggragate entity such as the UN), or a multinational NPO (such as ICANN). Right now the NPO is seemingly broken, so the logical alternative is a multinational governmental body, such as the UN.
I think the solution is probably just a reworking of ICANN, to keep it from showing favor to any single FPO, such as Verisign. Rework charters, rules, etc. Or probably just burn ICANN, and start from scratch.
As for the "deregulated managment" at the price of reliability, my knee-jerk reaction is to disagree. How would you deregulate it, but yet keep it as fair as it even is now? Please don't tell me the market will work it out, I already covered the problem with that. Do you have an actual solution statement behind that phrase, I would like to hear it, before rejecting it.
Someone earlier has suggested a purely technical solution, I would stand behind this, but again this went unexplained.
My favorite, I think I culled it from here a long long time ago...
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you will not have to listen to his incessant whining about how hungry he is."
This argument is kind of pointless, I doubt either of us will budge, though you did give me something to think about.
I could see a shift to mild-acceptance, so the money used to incarcerate, and hunt street-level junkies could be saved, and put towards rehab, clean needles, and trying to get the high-level sources of heroin. Much like much of Europe. But the goal should always be to keep as many people off of it, as possible, and to try to cut the strings of addiction in existant users.
In the end, and "get'em" attitude will fail, since junkies (and I do know this, emotional arguements aside) are people too, wretched perhaps, but the goal of any sane society is to raise everyone to an acceptable level, we can argue the methodology of this, but I have a feeling that we would disagree, perhaps vehemently.
Some people, not a majority, and perhaps not a signifigant portion.
Let them get a diagnosis, and get something that does not have serious social consequences. A minority of people is not an excuse for street drugs, since a majority of people who get hooked have no reason too, and only cause problems for society.
To draw an example, I know a signifigant amount of people who smoke pot, and only a single one of them smoked it for pain (post-polio), while the rest were purely recreational. Heroin, I'm sure is the same. Its about the hit to the pleasure-center, and not a medical disorder. For the minority with the disorder, I would endorse methadone, or more probably some more standard pain-killer with less addictive consequences.
Please don't assume that I am against the minority with a pain condition that can be medically verified. Let the opiates flow to them in a pure, and well controlled stream.
Self improvement is wrong, I agree. If you cannot live happily in the real world, by all means reach for the needle instead of learning to cope. Sure. I think we should also hand out handguns to people with chronic depression.
The thing, in the end, has nothing to do with the indvidual, it has to do with the price to society. People on junk generally do not have the rather hefty means to feed their monkey. And purity has little to due with this, nor does legality. When it comes to pressing the pleasure-center button, it can tend to become more desirable than gainful and legal employment. Thus, these people end up on the public dole, or doing shortcut means for drug use. Thus it becomes a public matter to regulate.
Yes, to the food/activity argument, things change brain chemistry. You reading my post will, looking at the sunset, having a child born, falling in love, eating a good taco, all these do too. But not in a serious way that affects your behavior, or society at large in a deleterious way. I like cocoa, it influences the opiate content of my brain in a way much like heroin (opiates), but to a much lesser extent, with no long term addiction, or problems. You name a food that will get me addicted for a long-term, and harm my ability to participate in society.
Yes, some junkies have legally interacted in society. But a far larger portion have not. Having unprotected sex with someone with HIV/AIDS is not 100% infectious, but is it a good idea? Nothing is 100%, does that make everything okay?
And for a philosophical question (which is where I'm really going from, in the beginning), how is being attatched to anything (especially artificial) things a good or desirable thing? And how can I, in good faith, stand by and watch it happen?
Where I grew up methamphetamines were, and are, the big thing. I've seen it kill, and mess up many a promising life by getting there early in life. It is insideous. Sure, a case can be made for functioning tweakers, a small minority, but a majority of them don't stay functional very long, it is unstable. And a when they cease to be functional it becomes our problem, our being all of us.
All junkies need help, be it alcohol, heroin, amphetamines, or OTC pills. Granted I don't think the draconian "war-on-drugs" is a viable answer, but neither is legalization. There is middle ground. Treatment, education, and changing social influence. Much harder.
First, I never did a 1:1 equation of alcohol to heroin, I was just saying that legal does not = good, and that stigma does exist for a reason other than legality. Stigma exists because of the effects of addiction, legal or non.
/. mods. Explains a lot of odd /. behavior, I guess.
Sure, maintenance works. Never denied that, being that it wasn't the topic at hand. And successful mainenance would have the goal, one would think, of cutting the habit. Otherwise it seems rather pointless, even by your own logic, since there isn't even a high involved.
My solution isn't to prohibit alcohol, since that isn't the topic, and I never made any noise towards that end. Again, alcohol was an example of something completely different.
I really don't hate heroin addicts, I've know too many of them (and addicts of other 'hard' drugs) to hate them, pity them would be a better choice of words.
Whats coming to them is completely by their own hands, and the job of a responsible and intelligent citizen would be then to help them. Helping them would include your beloved maintenance, with intent to cut the addiction, not to prolong it indefinatly.
And the public goal should be education to keep people away from it.
Now, as an aside (to this aside) how the hell did I get modded as flamebait? Appearently thinking that drugs are not acceptable towards quality of life is not popular to
I think there is a large difference between dancing, movies, or stamp collecting, and purposely messing with addictive substances which alters your brain chemistry. If I quit stamp collecting, there is no physical withdrawls, now is there? Sure, I might miss it, but it won't lay me out. I don't physically NEED to collect stamps, nor is it altering my brain chemistry.
If you made the claim for pot, I wouldn't argue, since it is non-addictive, and has life-effects no worse than alcohol. But heroin remains the most addictive drug around (besides perhaps methamphetimines), and it can still (no matter how pure) lead to a social burden.
Err...
and pain patients use opiates their entire lives.
Yes, because they are in chronic pain, pain which hurts their livelyhood, and quality of life. Your average junky is just a tool who is to weak to live life as it is. And being that opiates are severely addictive, they probably won't quit the smack to see that life is actually quite a nice place. And because the fact that it is addictive their quality of life will still suffer. Opiates to build tolerance on their own, so said legal junky will still need more and more.
and wouldn't be stigmatized by being an addict.
Sure, like alcoholics aren't? Good example there, alcohol = legal drug, and a large portion of the population is directly harmed by it. Be it through drunk drivers, domestic abuse, or just the general unpleasantness that exists in being around them. Stigma exists for a reason, not because it is illegal.
They could live entirely normal lives.
Ignoring a fact that they are incapible of actually living a normal life. I live a normal life, I can tolerate the world without mainlining my pleasure centers to oblivion. I guess normal in the sense of that famous rat with a wire to its pleasure centers that starved to death.
Why did I respond? I already regret this.
I went through a severe caffeine withdrawl in college once, it was probably the first time since I was 9 that I went 12 hours without any caffeine. My solution was tylenol, and a quick run to the local coffee shop for a double espresso, and a bag of freshground.
After that, the solution was to always keep some coffee (or if worst comes to worse, pop) ready at hand. Seems to have worked, never got the lethargy or headache again.
But then again, I doubt I'm at risk, or carry this gene, I'm pretty far from a "slow metabolizer", I can eat like a pig, and never gain a pound, and get plenty of exercize.
This is one of those damn fad things. Dietary issues are full of them. I'll wait a year or ten before taking EITHER study seriously, since they will surely flip-flop 6 million times before anyone thinks they know anything. And I take genetic findings with a big grain of salt, since people have claimed to have found a "gene" for everything now. Also, there are many factors, as someone else has stated, that could play into this.
Besides, something has to kill me. I enjoy drinking coffee, and if it turns out to be the death of me, sobeit. Its all about quality of life, not quantity.
Err... I think your missing the point. Taking a photo is about skill, and most real photographers despise photoshop, and only use it to ajust contrast, levels, etc... And then, only grudgingly.
One of my friends is a freelance photographer, and he will spend an hour and a half setting up a shot with his light meter, when most of what he is setting up for could be worked out in photoshop in ten minutes, but he would rather have the feeling of doing art, and not something that any slob could do in 10 minutes. He has skill, they don't.
I happen to agree. Photoshopped pictures does not equal art. Not saying photoshop isn't a valuable tool, I find it handy for what I do with it, collages and colorizations/photocorrection. But in art and professional photography it is best used sparingly.
And the parent is correct, even with photoshop, and filters, photoshop doesn't handle duotone as well as a decent B&W film. Mostly because you frame, and handle your stops/focus different. Photoshop is only as good as the original photo.
Odd, it seems that soccer predates email.
I've noticed that this artificial necessity is a constant rationalization of technology. "I can't live with out it!", where people have for about a million years, and were perfectly happy, perhaps even happier than we are today.
I think 90% of social structures (resturants, churches, movies, pubs, libraries, etc...) need faraday cages, or some other form of signal blocking. I'm so sick of idiots yelling at their phones in public, or dropping out of real conversation just to look at their little gadgets. It is outright rude.
If your talking to someone HERE, and NOW, then you talk to them. No matter how many times your little gizmo yells at you. Its polite, it is something from an older age called manners. People used to have them, but technology has done its best to kill them.
And, to be more OT, why is constant connectivity a good thing? I knew I had misanthropic tendancies, but I guess they are worse than I thought, since I really find no need to be in constant contact with people, news, slashdot, my friends, parents, neighbors, government, EVERYONE. I like the quiet time, even at work. I like quiet, uninterupted, conversations with friends, reading a good book far from a telephone or gidget. I like getting lost on little trails in the woods. Appearently I am a minority. What is so good about constantly being interupted?
Listen to a random sample of average cell conversations, or chat logs, or even analyze the topics of your own conversations. How much of the communication is pure noise? I've noticed that cellphones bring out the urge to spill all of our minutia to uncaring others. People sit around talking about shopping, their classes, how they need to buy more shoes, that they went to the dentist, the current state of their bowels. But rarely anything meaningful. They just want others to live their lives vicariously.
Also, contrary to the article, it is damaging our social structure, and making us more and more clanish. When I was going to a community college back in the mid-late 90's, after classes people would go outside, light a cigarette, and talk to their classmates, now people immediatly open their phones and talk to people they already know, never needing to confront strangers. One would think that this lack of novelty would lead to a more closed minded society, where we never need to confront opinions other than the ones we are familior with already.
Wow, that turned into a rant. Sorry. Needless to say, I don't own a cell-phone, turn off AIM periodically (much to the shock of my friends), and only check my email (private) once a day. I sometimes keep the ringer off on my phone (mostly weekends, or holidays), with the answering machine volume off, and check the messages once a day. I get more done, and I think my mental health is better (no tech caused ADD).
Hmmm... looking at paper is distracting. Where did we lose the ability to multi-task? It never hurt us in the past, and I see no evidence that technophilia = improvement in grades.
I think all of this is just that, technophilia. Our culture lusts after technology, we must have it everywhere, even if it serves no purpose whatsoever, or makes things worse. We think flashing buttons and glowing screens are unequivocally better than not. Look how many people "NEED" their cell phones these days, as compaired to the 1.5 Million+ years of human history. Meh.
Wrong place to complain though, mod down at will. I refuse to support technological presence for it owns sake.
I don't see why for someone who has been attending lectures with laptops right from primary school, & who doesn't browse or do other things during the lecture, a laptop isn't as less distracting as pen & paper.
Perhaps not as distracting, but more inefficient, depending on your learning style. I take notes as large flow charts, with graphics and odd symbolic notations (like logical symbols). The linear form of computer input does not allow me to take notes like this, as easily as a pen and paper. With a pen and paper my only note-taking limitation is the space of paper, with a computer it forces you into a (mostly) text-only, linear form.
Also, at times, I do find it distracting, especially in wired or wifi happy atmospheres. I spend more time hunting wikipedia or google, than taking notes, even if this is under the guise of the topic of the class at hand. (I spent one whole class browsing the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy, for one term, and missed the whole lecture, for example).
And, at times other people using laptops can be distracting, as well. Especially when they are not taking notes. Try sitting behind some kid watching videos online, playing a emulator, or looking at porn, during a lecture. Granted, inattention can be distracting without a computer, but it is rarer, and only through audible snoring.