I'd say 1 in 1000 is still way to high, I'd be more comfortable with 1 in 5000 or more.
Statistically, you're many times more likely to be a victim of one of the criminals who was let go than to be thrown in jail for something you didn't do.
Sure if these 300 people released were much more violent and dangerous than your average criminal. Remember that your average American criminal isn't that dangerous. For most of them, the most you can expect is to be a victim of having to smell pot smoke, or seeing junkies. The rest is generally petty thieves and other "minor" criminals, and when it comes down to that I have a feeling that I am not alone in preferring getting robbed to sitting 20 years in jail for a crime I didn't commit (the knowledge of such might actually be worse than the whole jail bit). I'd also prefer minor assault, or most anything over being imprisoned.
Most criminals don't inflict anything as bad as 20 years of imprisonment on their victims.
Also, you have to look at the question of faith in the system. How many exonerated death row inmates does it take to shake the foundational faith in the system? One was enough for me to switch from being pro-death penalty to against it.
I think we need to draw a divide between older, more traditional art (music, graphic art, theater), and modern, more technological art (movies, games). The traditional forms require next to no resources to perform, and can be done with NO investment (playing on old tin barrels, sculpting with earth and found objects, using natural pigments, etc...). The traditional arts are very cheap to produce at their core. The more modern forms require a huge front-end to produce, and can't be done with non-specialized equipment. The modern arts require huge initial investments to get off the ground, even though originally they could be done (like the more traditional arts) in someone's garage for very little money up front.
Because musical instruments are not free. Because paint is not free. Because clay is not free.
Not free, but cheap, very cheap if you choose to go that route. Ignoring modern "commercial" arts, musical instruments are largely improvised, or very cheaply produced. See bone flutes, tin can percussion (ala Jamaican street music), dead animals stretched over wooden forms, the hillbilly string bass and washboard, etc... If you leave a musically inclined individual on a desert island, they will make music, if you leave a group of them, you will have a band. You don't need a million dollar studio, and a vintage Strat to make good music. Music is part of what defines us, it has been present throughout our entire history.
As for visual arts, this is another problem, people have been doing them since we became people. Music and art can be considered among the things that make us "not apes". Every singe one of us is an "artist" in a sense. Every doodle we make in the phone-book is art. Your three year old using a stick to make figures in the mud is an artist. Again, if you stick a human, who is so inclined, on a desert island, they will be making art in no time.
Art and music, unlike modern games and movies, is not primarily about profit, they preexist the term, or concept. If there was no copyright, and zero monetary incentive for doing art, the traditional arts would happen, and people would still be producing them on a large scale.
This argument devolves into "should artists have a day job", and "what ratio of professional artists do we need". I personally don't care if Brittany Spears (or who-ever) can produce music constantly, and without the constraints that effect the rest of us (who may or may not be as creative). It isn't my responsibility to allow musicians the ability to only produce music. I don't see this as a priority.
The more modern, and expensive forms, requiring specialized, and expensive, equipment are a different story. Yes, you need a very large wad of cash to make a movie, or a video game (though this wasn't always so, it is a rather modern development). So yes, eating up the profit motive would hurt gaming and Hollywood.
It wouldn't really hurt music or the fine arts. At least their cultural value, and incentives.
The existence of copyright isn't about money, it is about cultural good. The argument is what ratio of protection coerces artists to produce more, while still benefiting society.
I find this term amusing. If you don't deal with customers, or the outside, who really cares what you wear? How does wearing a T-shirt effect your job performance, which should be the only metric that matters in non-outward facing professions.
Sure, controversial shirts, that could distract from work are bad, but only because they distract from work. I doubt very much a TPB shirt could be considered controversial. A Che shirt, a bit more because of the current resurgent Red Threat attitude.
I never understood "business attire" for those who work in cubicle farms. If you want to wear shorts and sandles, and it doesn't hurt your performance, fine, it shouldn't matter.
Hell, I see no problem with going to the office with uncombed hair, a pair of ratty shorts, flip-flops, and a wife-beater, as long as you still perform well.
Honestly, the level of casual profanity from a person is directly connected to their lack of education and socio-economic status.
Odd, I have no anecdotal evidence to back up your claim. I know people from poor backgrounds with no education to speak of who rarely swear, and I know people from wealthy old-money backgrounds with several degrees who cuss like sailors.
I'm pretty sure that education has nothing to do with frequency of cussing. I've had experiences with very educated people, and professors, who'd sit around cussing like no ones business. Some of the most educated people I know out swear most of the least educated.
Socioeconomic background might play a slightly more significant roll, but in my (purely anecdotal) experience it doesn't play a much greater roll than education.
A lot of it is phase switching too. With certain groups of friends I cuss like a sailor, as do they, in other contexts I have a very tame vocabulary (as do my cussing friends). At a bar, I will drop f-bombs, in a professional setting I will use proper and precise language. You will find this a truism with just about anyone lacking mental impairment. The problem that the more prude, and judgmental (generally self-righteous) folks run into is judging people a momentary glance of their outward behavior. That guy next to you in a pub who drops f-bombs like crazy might just be doing it in one social context, but in their general life they are far more educated, wealthy, and erudite than you.
Another (anecdotal) truism I've noticed is that pretty much everyone swears. I have never meet anyone who was completely incapable of profanity. And the people who are, are generally zealots of some sort, and not "well educated" or "high class".
While I agree that they both are censorship, I disagree that they are both equally problematic.
I could, right now, write a reply that consists only of the f-word, I chose not to, and this is fine, and even admirable. This was my decision, no one forced it on me.
If I decided to write said alternative reply, and Slashdot, or the Government stepped in and stopped me, this would be a different problem, since a third party was infringing on my ability to act as I wish.
The first case is a case of self-restraint and responsibility, the second is a case of censorship in the classical "bad" sense. The first case is ethically and morally pure, and something more people should do (out of their own motivations), the second is ethically dubious, and probably nothing more than a display of tyranny.
Though if/. decided to censor the f-word, it would be completely within their rights being a private enterprise. Private censorship can be distasteful too, but often has a proper place (like barring cussing and sexual comments from a children's website). It also is a matter of choice, since your using their property, so they can guide the discussion.
Actually the only problem I have with censorship is when a outside, public, entity enforces it against the will of any party involved.
s the ACLU going to go to court and support the Constitutional right be a fool too? It makes about as much sense.
Freedom of speech is protected, being a fool is not. In some cases being a fool would overlap with actual rights, and in some cases it wouldn't. If someone can be a fool for cussing, then yes, it is protected. If being a fool is something like driving drunk, then, no, it isn't.
find it amazing that people will say a Christian doesn't have the right to spread/proselytize their religion, or the symbols of Christianity offend them, and want all symbols of Christianity wiped out, while they will fight for the right to offend someone else with their profanity. It's nothing but pure hypocrisy.
That was a straw man, btw. I have seen no evidence that the ACLU wants to remove all signs of Christianity. They, justifiably, want to see the endorsement of Christianity removed from Government in line with the Separation Clause. This, to me, is fine.
They also, somewhat less justifiably, but still arguably valid, want to promote equality in the public display of religion. If the Satanists (or whatnot, to take this to an absurd level) can't proudly display their religion, then Christians can't either.
To me Christians advocating the wanton display of their religion while trying to block other groups from displaying their faith, or lack of faith, is the ultimate hypocracy. If a Christian actively promotes their faith, they should have no problem (and no legal basis) for being hostile towards the various other groups who wish to display their world view. This is especially true with various atheist and free thinking organizations, since they seem to get more than their 20 minutes of hate from hypocritical Christian organizations.
Personally I think religion should be like sex. You can believe whatever the hell you want in the privacy of your own home, but there is a line that is crossed when it devolves into public display. It shouldn't be illegal to proselytize your pet metaphysical system, but it sure as hell is distasteful.
I'd rather have 100 people wandering around saying "fuck" than one religious wacko telling me how I really should believe in their Jesus guy, and how I'm a terrible bad person who will suffer eternal torture at the hands of their loving God if I don't agree.
But yes, laws to protect ideas are good. Disregarding those laws are bad.
Overly simplistic reasoning there. Some laws to protect ideas are good, and some are bad. Would a law that allows IP cops to enter your house at whim and make sure you have no pirated content be a good law? By your reasoning, yes.
Disregarding laws that you perceive as unjust is fine and dandy in my book. If you want to pirate content whose creator is dead, I have no ethical qualms (since death negates basically all of the pro-IP arguments), if you want to pirate something that is very old, and the author owns no rights to it, that too is fine by me. If you want to pirate something to get around restrictive abuses of consumers rights (try before you buy, or to keep content producers from attacking your computer, or to be able to use your media as you please) I am also fine by that.
Consumers also have rights that shall not be abused by producers. It needs to be balanced. We are very unbalanced, in this regard, to the extreme right now.
As for pirating things just to have them for free, we agree that this is an abuse, and the law coincidently (it often seems) with the ethical approach.
And, everyone arguing otherwise is free to release THEIR ideas for free. But they don't.
You realize you are posting this on/., the bastion of Open Source, Creative Commons, and other "free" licenses. You are posting this on a forum whose very software is free (as in beer and speech). I'm guessing that a large portion of people who produce "content" here do release it for free (when not constrained by their corporate overlords). Hell, when I used to mess around with art and photography I released every single bit of it via Creative Commons.
Hell, this post is copyrighted, and I will allow you to use it freely. How's that?
If replicators did work like that in the real world, economies would collapse overnight.
So? If everyone had a replicator, and could instantly, and freely have all their basic needs, and most silly wants, who would actually need an economy? An economy exists to serve the needs of man (in a world of limited resources), it is not an end to itself.
Though I think I read a short story somewhere with this as a topic. While needs would be free and readily available, there still would be a market for "patterns" for new items. Unless, of course, we're talking "super-replicators" which can make any of your desires without pesky engineering skills, so I can merely "wish" for my 100 ton giant robot, instead of having to supply the device with the "how do I make a 100 ton giant robot" bit.
I think another story, or the same one perhaps, also said there would still be economy in hand-crafted, unique, items. Everyone wants to be special and own something one of a kind to denote their status.
Though the question is, how do you pay those people who make replicator plans for 100 ton robots, and hand made pots?
Might have been more, my memories of those times are growing a bit hazy. It was lucrative enough to fetch me a new modem while staying on top of the printing costs. We had a decent bulk deal with a local printer, since we also used them to run up our underground paper...
Oddly enough (and completely insanely in todays world) me and one of my friends in high school, at about that time, made some decent money selling floppies of the Anarchists Cookbook. I think we asked for like $3 for the floppy, and $5 for it printed.
I think that today we'd be promptly expelled, locked up, and put on various lists.
One problem with your post, I trust BP as much as I trust whatever biblical nutjob wrote TFA. Actually a bit less, since BP has something to gain by misrepresenting facts (which they have already), and TFA's author is just a harmless nut.
Another problem is that, while your math might be leagues above the author, you too are basing it all on squishy suppositions. Math is only as good as the source of your data.
or you drastically overestimate the available bandwidth of oral storytelling in a tribal society.
Wait, so we're also going to forget how to write, how to make paper using dead tree matter, and how to make ink from various pigments and ash? You also seem to think that all the technical books in the world will somehow magically evaporate.
Yes, some esoteric knowledge that is not immediately useful will probably disappear over time, though will probably be sitting in our libraries waiting for the moment that programming in COBAL is once again useful, but a lot of it will still be alive, and very in demand/useful.
It is environmental, sorry to imply otherwise, but my point was that it is an example of a motive towards altruism that isn't driven by (at least immediate) "self-interest", though I'm sure we can draw this back further and claim that, yes, even unthinking habitual responses evolved out of self-interest. But when we get to this level I would like to wave my hands and proclaim that the argument has become rather silly.
I grew up in a family that gave to the needy (my dad buys sleeping bags, then drives around town handing them to anyone who looks like the need them. He also buys pallets of bottled water at Costco to give to shelters during the summer, etc...), so I give to the needy. It is just something I do reflexively.
I don't even really think about it.
I'm sure I might get some small modicum of pleasure from it in retrospect, but that is completely tertiary to the act. I do it because my upbringing tells me that it is what people should do.
Not everything in our life is a biological prerogative, nor is everything a rational weighing of consequences.
Personally I don't understand this debate one bit. What purpose does it serve?
o your saying that to be a true conservative you have to have the same opinion as you on Constitutional interpretation? Boils down to the same thing. By your reasoning there was never a true conservative (at least as far as the second amendment) until pretty much the modern era when the NRA started lobbying to redefine the 2nd Amendment.
I also think your confusing Conservatives with Libertarians. Not all Conservatives are Libertarians, though all (capitalized) Libertarians are Conservatives. But then again, not all libertarians (lower case) are Conservative, nor are they all (capitalized) Libertarians.
Not all Conservatives believe in the Reagon-esque "small enough to drown in a bath-tub) theory of government.
Actually if you ask just about anyone (liberal, conservative, or other) with any interest or knowledge of politics they will agree with your definition of the constitution. Its just the reading and interpretation that differs.
(sorry for the doubt post, I have no clue why/. decided to post AC)
So the only people who can be considered conservative are people who hold your views? Please see the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Also the world isn't black and white. Most reasoned and rational people don't fall into one dogma or the other. People who fully buy a party line are dangerous, ignorant, and probably intellectually lazy. One of the most conservative people I know (hawk, studied under some of the most influential neo-cons, etc...) is in favor of public healthcare. I am a self-diagnosed socialist (in the classical sense, not the modern right-wing definition of anyone left of center, or left of a certain extremist fringe), but strongly support anti-immigration laws, etc... I have a libertarian "tea party" friend who admits to some degree of gun-control (background checks, and barring violent felons). I honestly don't know a single "ideologically pure" individual.
Ideological purity is VERY frightening, most atrocities in the history of the world spring from it.
The OP was off as far as capitalization, though it can be argued that there is a difference between the constitutional use of the term "the people" as opposed to "persons". "The People" generally referred to society and the state, whereas "persons" referred to the rights of us plebes.
What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?
They are where they have always been, sitting quietly in the margins, ostracized by basically everyone. They are probably being called something derogatory by someone right now, like "socialist" or "fascist", or whatever label we want to apply to people who we don't agree with.
Everyone is someone's extremist, since all an extremist is, in modern American political discourse, is someone who you don't agree with.
Unfortunately, in reality it usually denotes someone who receives all of his "wisdom" from a filtered academic environment that is more concerned with making reality fit a particular system than handling it as-is, in all of its shifting complexity
My experiences in academia (as a student) didn't bear this out. Granted I went to school for something esoteric and wildly impracticable (philosophy), but I only really encountered these problems in a handful of departments, sociology the fine arts, and business/economics.
As for the teaching things to fit into a specific ideology, this is unavoidable, especially in the sciences. Your limited in teaching what the current ideology is, or the alternative is teaching some form of relativism or solipsism (basically the same thing, when it boils down to it). But then again the sciences (most of them, the social sciences less so) have a hardwired uncertainty built into them, so they are a bit safer than most.
Oh lord, the "elite" word has been dragged out again.
I would always rather have the academic elite running things, than ordinary slobs like most of America. Who would you rather have representing America, some NASCAR watching slob with a high school degree who can barely read at a 7th grade level (on the rare he actually chooses to read), who receives all of his "wisdom" from television news, and talk radio, and some mega-commercial-church pulpit; or someone with many years of education, who tries to rely on handed down wisdom from people much smarter than him?
Especially true in science. The scientific opinion of 90% of Amercians is worth absolutely nothing, as opposed to... you know... the opinions of actual scientists.
I agree with you, piracy, for the most part, is wrong. But, on the other hand, DRM, for the most part, is also wrong. If a signinifgant portion of pirates wouldn't have purchased the product in the first place, then DRM is only punishment for those who DO buy the product, it is treating EVERYONE as guilty. The cure is worse than the disease.
I can easily argue that DRM is wrong, without ever touching on the idea that piracy is fine and dandy.
I also find it odd that these companies with draconian DRM, and large rants about how piracy is killing the industry are still making money hand over fist (I'm guessing that most of the gaming industry are making record profits right now, inspite of piracy). They are just mad that they aren't making as much money as they like. This springs from a mindset that they are entitled to my money, which isn't correct.
You broke the rights and wishes of the owners of the game... You don't have a right to use anyones software without permission.
This is where your diatribe breaks down. I have no obligation whatsoever to respect the wishes of the people who produce a product. I don't give one crap about what you, as a producer, want. I have no reason to. If I was to use your product in a way against your wishes, tough. I bought it, it is mine, I can do what I want with it. If I want to hack it so all of your carefully designed characters are naked Hillary Clintons, sobeit. If I want to hack it so I can play it on unsupported hardware, sobeit. If I want to use it to go skeet shooting, sobeit.
Imagine buying a book with a EULA saying you can only read it in a darkly lit room, past 7pm, and only while listening to Pink Floyd. Absurd, correct? Why isn't it equally absurd for software companies to have such silly restrictions?
Your hopes, dreams, and wishes are completely inconsequential to me.
As for piracy, I admit to being guilty of it from time to time. I use piracy (not so much anymore since there are relatively few things even worth that amount of effort) to try before I buy. My laptop had a strange GPU, so it was very hard to know whether any game in particular would work on it, and pretty much no stores allow returns. Thus I either pirated the game on a limited basis, or didn't buy at all. If the game ran, and was actually worth the money, I would give them cash, and generally keep the pirated copy since it was stripped (against someones silly wishes) of DRM and other flaws.
Did I do anything wrong? Legally, perhaps, ethically, though, I have no problem sleeping at night.
Lately I pirated Torchlight and Audiosurf, to see if they were worth forking over money for. I bought them both roughly a week later. Still not losing much sleep. If your game is crap, I might not buy it in the end. Which is fine by me too.
I personally don't give a crap if anyone makes money off of me. They have to work for it. I am not obligated to give anyone anything. If the full software industry died tomorrow, I wouldn't lose a tiny bit of sleep. Though I'm pretty sure that will never happen, no matter how bad piracy is.
I meant sustainable in the ecological sense, not the economic sense (though I doubt it is sustainable in that sense either). You cannot maintain a growth state for an infinite period of time, while relying on finite resources. This is pretty much a logical truism.
When this comes into play is debatable, but it becoming a problem isn't.
As I stated, I don't see any indication that any of that would come to pass if we tried to stem global warming. Many of the solutions to potential AGW are already necessary for many other reasons.
Could you please give a line of evidence supporting this apocalyptic scenario?
Yes, as I stated earlier, some giant behemoths will evolve or die, but their resources will be replaced with different resources to breed giant behemoths in different sectors (i.e. Exxon dies, but big solar replaces them).
As for humanitarianism, I see the opposite happening. Developing nations are going to problematic in a world weening itself from the trappings of the original industrial revolution, thus a massive investment in 3rd world infrastructure would be needed, which would pump cash into problem economies. Infrastructure, btw, is a much better form of humanitarian aid than just about anything else we are supporting. I'd rather donate $1mil to infrastructure than $20mil directly to food handouts.
Many will die no matter what we do. If AGW is true we've dug ourselves in beyond the level which we can easily extract ourselves. If AGW isn't true, we're still only hurting ourselves in the long run, albeit not as dramatically. If we keep acting like we do now, we're still in trouble, if we change we're in trouble, if AGW is true and we do nothing we're in big trouble.
No, solutions to AGW are not necessarily good even if AGW turns out to be true. And if it turns out to be false and we impoverish and decimate humanity over a myth we'll be the prize fools of all time
I have yet to see any credible logic that leads to the conclusion that adopting some environmental, or sustainable practices would "impoverish and decimate" humanity. Yes, it would probably remake a large portion of the global economy, and some dinosaurs would be forced to adapt or die (which, imo, is generally a good thing),and a lot of the current big players might wither and die, and the world would ultimately look very different. I don't see the seeds for global economic death though.
A lot of the solutions to the potential of AGW are needed for other less immediate reasons. Killing fossil fuels is pretty much a necessity for a variety of reasons, both environmental and not. Cutting back pollution and emissions are pretty much universally accepted as necessary. And it is nearly impossible to make an argument against sustainability, and reducing ecological footprints.
If AGW was proven with any degree of certainty to be absolutely false, people would still clamor for the same solutions. I personally wouldn't care one iota if AGW was proven true or false, I would still advocate 90% of the solutions that would go towards reducing AGW even if it was true.
There is a trade off, and I can see both sides have valid points. I, personally though, would risk taking a decent hit to the global (1st world) standard of living if it increasing the standard of living for future generations.
I see no reason to have even the smallest bit of loyalty to the status-quo. And I have no reason to doubt that, after a small adjustment period, the world will tick on as if no change ever happened. Instead of having monolithic psychopathic big oil, we'll have monolithic psychopathic big solar or nuclear. People are crafty, and economies are generally fluid. If we make a new industry, money will flow. See the internet boom of the 90's.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Now we are back to square one.
Indeed. It just depends on how we define "extraordinary".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not the the person you think I am, you weren't replying to me, I'm just some random person hopping in.
Twenty years for petty theft? Now you're just being silly. That's a murder sentence, or aggravated armed robbery at the very least.
Hyperbole is the greatest thing to ever happen on this planet.
I'd say 1 in 1000 is still way to high, I'd be more comfortable with 1 in 5000 or more.
Statistically, you're many times more likely to be a victim of one of the criminals who was let go than to be thrown in jail for something you didn't do.
Sure if these 300 people released were much more violent and dangerous than your average criminal. Remember that your average American criminal isn't that dangerous. For most of them, the most you can expect is to be a victim of having to smell pot smoke, or seeing junkies. The rest is generally petty thieves and other "minor" criminals, and when it comes down to that I have a feeling that I am not alone in preferring getting robbed to sitting 20 years in jail for a crime I didn't commit (the knowledge of such might actually be worse than the whole jail bit). I'd also prefer minor assault, or most anything over being imprisoned.
Most criminals don't inflict anything as bad as 20 years of imprisonment on their victims.
Also, you have to look at the question of faith in the system. How many exonerated death row inmates does it take to shake the foundational faith in the system? One was enough for me to switch from being pro-death penalty to against it.
I think we need to draw a divide between older, more traditional art (music, graphic art, theater), and modern, more technological art (movies, games). The traditional forms require next to no resources to perform, and can be done with NO investment (playing on old tin barrels, sculpting with earth and found objects, using natural pigments, etc...). The traditional arts are very cheap to produce at their core. The more modern forms require a huge front-end to produce, and can't be done with non-specialized equipment. The modern arts require huge initial investments to get off the ground, even though originally they could be done (like the more traditional arts) in someone's garage for very little money up front.
Because musical instruments are not free. Because paint is not free. Because clay is not free.
Not free, but cheap, very cheap if you choose to go that route. Ignoring modern "commercial" arts, musical instruments are largely improvised, or very cheaply produced. See bone flutes, tin can percussion (ala Jamaican street music), dead animals stretched over wooden forms, the hillbilly string bass and washboard, etc... If you leave a musically inclined individual on a desert island, they will make music, if you leave a group of them, you will have a band. You don't need a million dollar studio, and a vintage Strat to make good music. Music is part of what defines us, it has been present throughout our entire history.
As for visual arts, this is another problem, people have been doing them since we became people. Music and art can be considered among the things that make us "not apes". Every singe one of us is an "artist" in a sense. Every doodle we make in the phone-book is art. Your three year old using a stick to make figures in the mud is an artist. Again, if you stick a human, who is so inclined, on a desert island, they will be making art in no time.
Art and music, unlike modern games and movies, is not primarily about profit, they preexist the term, or concept. If there was no copyright, and zero monetary incentive for doing art, the traditional arts would happen, and people would still be producing them on a large scale.
This argument devolves into "should artists have a day job", and "what ratio of professional artists do we need". I personally don't care if Brittany Spears (or who-ever) can produce music constantly, and without the constraints that effect the rest of us (who may or may not be as creative). It isn't my responsibility to allow musicians the ability to only produce music. I don't see this as a priority.
The more modern, and expensive forms, requiring specialized, and expensive, equipment are a different story. Yes, you need a very large wad of cash to make a movie, or a video game (though this wasn't always so, it is a rather modern development). So yes, eating up the profit motive would hurt gaming and Hollywood.
It wouldn't really hurt music or the fine arts. At least their cultural value, and incentives.
The existence of copyright isn't about money, it is about cultural good. The argument is what ratio of protection coerces artists to produce more, while still benefiting society.
unprofessionally
I find this term amusing. If you don't deal with customers, or the outside, who really cares what you wear? How does wearing a T-shirt effect your job performance, which should be the only metric that matters in non-outward facing professions.
Sure, controversial shirts, that could distract from work are bad, but only because they distract from work. I doubt very much a TPB shirt could be considered controversial. A Che shirt, a bit more because of the current resurgent Red Threat attitude.
I never understood "business attire" for those who work in cubicle farms. If you want to wear shorts and sandles, and it doesn't hurt your performance, fine, it shouldn't matter.
Hell, I see no problem with going to the office with uncombed hair, a pair of ratty shorts, flip-flops, and a wife-beater, as long as you still perform well.
Professionalism is a sham.
Honestly, the level of casual profanity from a person is directly connected to their lack of education and socio-economic status.
Odd, I have no anecdotal evidence to back up your claim. I know people from poor backgrounds with no education to speak of who rarely swear, and I know people from wealthy old-money backgrounds with several degrees who cuss like sailors.
I'm pretty sure that education has nothing to do with frequency of cussing. I've had experiences with very educated people, and professors, who'd sit around cussing like no ones business. Some of the most educated people I know out swear most of the least educated.
Socioeconomic background might play a slightly more significant roll, but in my (purely anecdotal) experience it doesn't play a much greater roll than education.
A lot of it is phase switching too. With certain groups of friends I cuss like a sailor, as do they, in other contexts I have a very tame vocabulary (as do my cussing friends). At a bar, I will drop f-bombs, in a professional setting I will use proper and precise language. You will find this a truism with just about anyone lacking mental impairment. The problem that the more prude, and judgmental (generally self-righteous) folks run into is judging people a momentary glance of their outward behavior. That guy next to you in a pub who drops f-bombs like crazy might just be doing it in one social context, but in their general life they are far more educated, wealthy, and erudite than you.
Another (anecdotal) truism I've noticed is that pretty much everyone swears. I have never meet anyone who was completely incapable of profanity. And the people who are, are generally zealots of some sort, and not "well educated" or "high class".
While I agree that they both are censorship, I disagree that they are both equally problematic.
I could, right now, write a reply that consists only of the f-word, I chose not to, and this is fine, and even admirable. This was my decision, no one forced it on me.
If I decided to write said alternative reply, and Slashdot, or the Government stepped in and stopped me, this would be a different problem, since a third party was infringing on my ability to act as I wish.
The first case is a case of self-restraint and responsibility, the second is a case of censorship in the classical "bad" sense. The first case is ethically and morally pure, and something more people should do (out of their own motivations), the second is ethically dubious, and probably nothing more than a display of tyranny.
Though if /. decided to censor the f-word, it would be completely within their rights being a private enterprise. Private censorship can be distasteful too, but often has a proper place (like barring cussing and sexual comments from a children's website). It also is a matter of choice, since your using their property, so they can guide the discussion.
Actually the only problem I have with censorship is when a outside, public, entity enforces it against the will of any party involved.
s the ACLU going to go to court and support the Constitutional right be a fool too? It makes about as much sense.
Freedom of speech is protected, being a fool is not. In some cases being a fool would overlap with actual rights, and in some cases it wouldn't. If someone can be a fool for cussing, then yes, it is protected. If being a fool is something like driving drunk, then, no, it isn't.
find it amazing that people will say a Christian doesn't have the right to spread/proselytize their religion, or the symbols of Christianity offend them, and want all symbols of Christianity wiped out, while they will fight for the right to offend someone else with their profanity. It's nothing but pure hypocrisy.
That was a straw man, btw. I have seen no evidence that the ACLU wants to remove all signs of Christianity. They, justifiably, want to see the endorsement of Christianity removed from Government in line with the Separation Clause. This, to me, is fine.
They also, somewhat less justifiably, but still arguably valid, want to promote equality in the public display of religion. If the Satanists (or whatnot, to take this to an absurd level) can't proudly display their religion, then Christians can't either.
To me Christians advocating the wanton display of their religion while trying to block other groups from displaying their faith, or lack of faith, is the ultimate hypocracy. If a Christian actively promotes their faith, they should have no problem (and no legal basis) for being hostile towards the various other groups who wish to display their world view. This is especially true with various atheist and free thinking organizations, since they seem to get more than their 20 minutes of hate from hypocritical Christian organizations.
Personally I think religion should be like sex. You can believe whatever the hell you want in the privacy of your own home, but there is a line that is crossed when it devolves into public display. It shouldn't be illegal to proselytize your pet metaphysical system, but it sure as hell is distasteful.
I'd rather have 100 people wandering around saying "fuck" than one religious wacko telling me how I really should believe in their Jesus guy, and how I'm a terrible bad person who will suffer eternal torture at the hands of their loving God if I don't agree.
But yes, laws to protect ideas are good. Disregarding those laws are bad.
Overly simplistic reasoning there. Some laws to protect ideas are good, and some are bad. Would a law that allows IP cops to enter your house at whim and make sure you have no pirated content be a good law? By your reasoning, yes.
Disregarding laws that you perceive as unjust is fine and dandy in my book. If you want to pirate content whose creator is dead, I have no ethical qualms (since death negates basically all of the pro-IP arguments), if you want to pirate something that is very old, and the author owns no rights to it, that too is fine by me. If you want to pirate something to get around restrictive abuses of consumers rights (try before you buy, or to keep content producers from attacking your computer, or to be able to use your media as you please) I am also fine by that.
Consumers also have rights that shall not be abused by producers. It needs to be balanced. We are very unbalanced, in this regard, to the extreme right now.
As for pirating things just to have them for free, we agree that this is an abuse, and the law coincidently (it often seems) with the ethical approach.
And, everyone arguing otherwise is free to release THEIR ideas for free. But they don't.
You realize you are posting this on /., the bastion of Open Source, Creative Commons, and other "free" licenses. You are posting this on a forum whose very software is free (as in beer and speech). I'm guessing that a large portion of people who produce "content" here do release it for free (when not constrained by their corporate overlords). Hell, when I used to mess around with art and photography I released every single bit of it via Creative Commons.
Hell, this post is copyrighted, and I will allow you to use it freely. How's that?
If replicators did work like that in the real world, economies would collapse overnight.
So? If everyone had a replicator, and could instantly, and freely have all their basic needs, and most silly wants, who would actually need an economy? An economy exists to serve the needs of man (in a world of limited resources), it is not an end to itself.
Though I think I read a short story somewhere with this as a topic. While needs would be free and readily available, there still would be a market for "patterns" for new items. Unless, of course, we're talking "super-replicators" which can make any of your desires without pesky engineering skills, so I can merely "wish" for my 100 ton giant robot, instead of having to supply the device with the "how do I make a 100 ton giant robot" bit.
I think another story, or the same one perhaps, also said there would still be economy in hand-crafted, unique, items. Everyone wants to be special and own something one of a kind to denote their status.
Though the question is, how do you pay those people who make replicator plans for 100 ton robots, and hand made pots?
Might have been more, my memories of those times are growing a bit hazy. It was lucrative enough to fetch me a new modem while staying on top of the printing costs. We had a decent bulk deal with a local printer, since we also used them to run up our underground paper...
Ah... to be young.
Oddly enough (and completely insanely in todays world) me and one of my friends in high school, at about that time, made some decent money selling floppies of the Anarchists Cookbook. I think we asked for like $3 for the floppy, and $5 for it printed.
I think that today we'd be promptly expelled, locked up, and put on various lists.
One problem with your post, I trust BP as much as I trust whatever biblical nutjob wrote TFA. Actually a bit less, since BP has something to gain by misrepresenting facts (which they have already), and TFA's author is just a harmless nut.
Another problem is that, while your math might be leagues above the author, you too are basing it all on squishy suppositions. Math is only as good as the source of your data.
And how much of a government "bailout" they will need to defer the cost.
or you drastically overestimate the available bandwidth of oral storytelling in a tribal society.
Wait, so we're also going to forget how to write, how to make paper using dead tree matter, and how to make ink from various pigments and ash? You also seem to think that all the technical books in the world will somehow magically evaporate.
Yes, some esoteric knowledge that is not immediately useful will probably disappear over time, though will probably be sitting in our libraries waiting for the moment that programming in COBAL is once again useful, but a lot of it will still be alive, and very in demand/useful.
It is environmental, sorry to imply otherwise, but my point was that it is an example of a motive towards altruism that isn't driven by (at least immediate) "self-interest", though I'm sure we can draw this back further and claim that, yes, even unthinking habitual responses evolved out of self-interest. But when we get to this level I would like to wave my hands and proclaim that the argument has become rather silly.
You forget habit, or conditioned response.
I grew up in a family that gave to the needy (my dad buys sleeping bags, then drives around town handing them to anyone who looks like the need them. He also buys pallets of bottled water at Costco to give to shelters during the summer, etc...), so I give to the needy. It is just something I do reflexively.
I don't even really think about it.
I'm sure I might get some small modicum of pleasure from it in retrospect, but that is completely tertiary to the act. I do it because my upbringing tells me that it is what people should do.
Not everything in our life is a biological prerogative, nor is everything a rational weighing of consequences.
Personally I don't understand this debate one bit. What purpose does it serve?
o your saying that to be a true conservative you have to have the same opinion as you on Constitutional interpretation? Boils down to the same thing. By your reasoning there was never a true conservative (at least as far as the second amendment) until pretty much the modern era when the NRA started lobbying to redefine the 2nd Amendment.
I also think your confusing Conservatives with Libertarians. Not all Conservatives are Libertarians, though all (capitalized) Libertarians are Conservatives. But then again, not all libertarians (lower case) are Conservative, nor are they all (capitalized) Libertarians.
Not all Conservatives believe in the Reagon-esque "small enough to drown in a bath-tub) theory of government.
Actually if you ask just about anyone (liberal, conservative, or other) with any interest or knowledge of politics they will agree with your definition of the constitution. Its just the reading and interpretation that differs.
(sorry for the doubt post, I have no clue why /. decided to post AC)
So the only people who can be considered conservative are people who hold your views? Please see the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Also the world isn't black and white. Most reasoned and rational people don't fall into one dogma or the other. People who fully buy a party line are dangerous, ignorant, and probably intellectually lazy. One of the most conservative people I know (hawk, studied under some of the most influential neo-cons, etc...) is in favor of public healthcare. I am a self-diagnosed socialist (in the classical sense, not the modern right-wing definition of anyone left of center, or left of a certain extremist fringe), but strongly support anti-immigration laws, etc... I have a libertarian "tea party" friend who admits to some degree of gun-control (background checks, and barring violent felons). I honestly don't know a single "ideologically pure" individual.
Ideological purity is VERY frightening, most atrocities in the history of the world spring from it.
The OP was off as far as capitalization, though it can be argued that there is a difference between the constitutional use of the term "the people" as opposed to "persons". "The People" generally referred to society and the state, whereas "persons" referred to the rights of us plebes.
What happened to the well-rounded individual who used to reside between the extremes and could think for himself?
They are where they have always been, sitting quietly in the margins, ostracized by basically everyone. They are probably being called something derogatory by someone right now, like "socialist" or "fascist", or whatever label we want to apply to people who we don't agree with.
Everyone is someone's extremist, since all an extremist is, in modern American political discourse, is someone who you don't agree with.
Unfortunately, in reality it usually denotes someone who receives all of his "wisdom" from a filtered academic environment that is more concerned with making reality fit a particular system than handling it as-is, in all of its shifting complexity
My experiences in academia (as a student) didn't bear this out. Granted I went to school for something esoteric and wildly impracticable (philosophy), but I only really encountered these problems in a handful of departments, sociology the fine arts, and business/economics.
As for the teaching things to fit into a specific ideology, this is unavoidable, especially in the sciences. Your limited in teaching what the current ideology is, or the alternative is teaching some form of relativism or solipsism (basically the same thing, when it boils down to it). But then again the sciences (most of them, the social sciences less so) have a hardwired uncertainty built into them, so they are a bit safer than most.
Oh lord, the "elite" word has been dragged out again.
I would always rather have the academic elite running things, than ordinary slobs like most of America. Who would you rather have representing America, some NASCAR watching slob with a high school degree who can barely read at a 7th grade level (on the rare he actually chooses to read), who receives all of his "wisdom" from television news, and talk radio, and some mega-commercial-church pulpit; or someone with many years of education, who tries to rely on handed down wisdom from people much smarter than him?
Especially true in science. The scientific opinion of 90% of Amercians is worth absolutely nothing, as opposed to... you know... the opinions of actual scientists.
I agree with you, piracy, for the most part, is wrong. But, on the other hand, DRM, for the most part, is also wrong. If a signinifgant portion of pirates wouldn't have purchased the product in the first place, then DRM is only punishment for those who DO buy the product, it is treating EVERYONE as guilty. The cure is worse than the disease.
I can easily argue that DRM is wrong, without ever touching on the idea that piracy is fine and dandy.
I also find it odd that these companies with draconian DRM, and large rants about how piracy is killing the industry are still making money hand over fist (I'm guessing that most of the gaming industry are making record profits right now, inspite of piracy). They are just mad that they aren't making as much money as they like. This springs from a mindset that they are entitled to my money, which isn't correct.
You broke the rights and wishes of the owners of the game... You don't have a right to use anyones software without permission.
This is where your diatribe breaks down. I have no obligation whatsoever to respect the wishes of the people who produce a product. I don't give one crap about what you, as a producer, want. I have no reason to. If I was to use your product in a way against your wishes, tough. I bought it, it is mine, I can do what I want with it. If I want to hack it so all of your carefully designed characters are naked Hillary Clintons, sobeit. If I want to hack it so I can play it on unsupported hardware, sobeit. If I want to use it to go skeet shooting, sobeit.
Imagine buying a book with a EULA saying you can only read it in a darkly lit room, past 7pm, and only while listening to Pink Floyd. Absurd, correct? Why isn't it equally absurd for software companies to have such silly restrictions?
Your hopes, dreams, and wishes are completely inconsequential to me.
As for piracy, I admit to being guilty of it from time to time. I use piracy (not so much anymore since there are relatively few things even worth that amount of effort) to try before I buy. My laptop had a strange GPU, so it was very hard to know whether any game in particular would work on it, and pretty much no stores allow returns. Thus I either pirated the game on a limited basis, or didn't buy at all. If the game ran, and was actually worth the money, I would give them cash, and generally keep the pirated copy since it was stripped (against someones silly wishes) of DRM and other flaws.
Did I do anything wrong? Legally, perhaps, ethically, though, I have no problem sleeping at night.
Lately I pirated Torchlight and Audiosurf, to see if they were worth forking over money for. I bought them both roughly a week later. Still not losing much sleep. If your game is crap, I might not buy it in the end. Which is fine by me too.
I personally don't give a crap if anyone makes money off of me. They have to work for it. I am not obligated to give anyone anything. If the full software industry died tomorrow, I wouldn't lose a tiny bit of sleep. Though I'm pretty sure that will never happen, no matter how bad piracy is.
I meant sustainable in the ecological sense, not the economic sense (though I doubt it is sustainable in that sense either). You cannot maintain a growth state for an infinite period of time, while relying on finite resources. This is pretty much a logical truism.
When this comes into play is debatable, but it becoming a problem isn't.
As I stated, I don't see any indication that any of that would come to pass if we tried to stem global warming. Many of the solutions to potential AGW are already necessary for many other reasons.
Could you please give a line of evidence supporting this apocalyptic scenario?
Yes, as I stated earlier, some giant behemoths will evolve or die, but their resources will be replaced with different resources to breed giant behemoths in different sectors (i.e. Exxon dies, but big solar replaces them).
As for humanitarianism, I see the opposite happening. Developing nations are going to problematic in a world weening itself from the trappings of the original industrial revolution, thus a massive investment in 3rd world infrastructure would be needed, which would pump cash into problem economies. Infrastructure, btw, is a much better form of humanitarian aid than just about anything else we are supporting. I'd rather donate $1mil to infrastructure than $20mil directly to food handouts.
Many will die no matter what we do. If AGW is true we've dug ourselves in beyond the level which we can easily extract ourselves. If AGW isn't true, we're still only hurting ourselves in the long run, albeit not as dramatically. If we keep acting like we do now, we're still in trouble, if we change we're in trouble, if AGW is true and we do nothing we're in big trouble.
No, solutions to AGW are not necessarily good even if AGW turns out to be true. And if it turns out to be false and we impoverish and decimate humanity over a myth we'll be the prize fools of all time
I have yet to see any credible logic that leads to the conclusion that adopting some environmental, or sustainable practices would "impoverish and decimate" humanity. Yes, it would probably remake a large portion of the global economy, and some dinosaurs would be forced to adapt or die (which, imo, is generally a good thing),and a lot of the current big players might wither and die, and the world would ultimately look very different. I don't see the seeds for global economic death though.
A lot of the solutions to the potential of AGW are needed for other less immediate reasons. Killing fossil fuels is pretty much a necessity for a variety of reasons, both environmental and not. Cutting back pollution and emissions are pretty much universally accepted as necessary. And it is nearly impossible to make an argument against sustainability, and reducing ecological footprints.
If AGW was proven with any degree of certainty to be absolutely false, people would still clamor for the same solutions. I personally wouldn't care one iota if AGW was proven true or false, I would still advocate 90% of the solutions that would go towards reducing AGW even if it was true.
There is a trade off, and I can see both sides have valid points. I, personally though, would risk taking a decent hit to the global (1st world) standard of living if it increasing the standard of living for future generations.
I see no reason to have even the smallest bit of loyalty to the status-quo. And I have no reason to doubt that, after a small adjustment period, the world will tick on as if no change ever happened. Instead of having monolithic psychopathic big oil, we'll have monolithic psychopathic big solar or nuclear. People are crafty, and economies are generally fluid. If we make a new industry, money will flow. See the internet boom of the 90's.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Now we are back to square one.
Indeed. It just depends on how we define "extraordinary".