And yes, for the record, even though I was doing good things (making all those pretty commercials you see on TV and all those shiny ads in the magazines), I still feel dirty sometimes =)
By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root, I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself.
I know what all the marketing people are thinking right now too. "Oh, you know what Bill's doing? He's going for that anti-marketing dollar. That's a good market. He's very smart." Oh man, I am not doing that, you fucking evil scumbags.
"You know what Bill's doing now, he's going for the righteous indignation dollar, that's a big dollar, a lot of people are feeling that indignation, we've done research, huge market. He's doing a good thing." Godammit, I'm not doing that, you scumbags, quit putting a godamn dollar sign on every fucking thing on this planet.
What my roomate used to do is this: when they start talking, take the phone from your ear, put it to your mouth, and just SCREAM!!!!
Hmmm...my grandmother used to keep a loud old police whistle next to the phone for dealing with obscene and prank callers. Perhaps we should adapt this strategy to telemarketers as well...
Oh well, I suppose it wouldn't be in a science book's editor's interest to turn a young budding scientist into a young budding animal rights activist.
You speak as if the two are mutually exclusive.
Science has continually worked against anthrocentrism - the belief than humans are somehow "special" in the universe. The philosophy of animal rights is simply the application of this anti-anthrocentrism to ethical questions.
Read the RISKS digest, as comp.risks or at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks. Everyone who works with computers should read this regularly, it is much less painful to learn from other people's mistakes.
PGN put a bunch of the classic items together in a book a few years ago, called Computer-Related Risks.
Before you argue against higher abstraction, please check if your line of reasoning could have been used as an argument for assembler and against higher-level languages. If so, maybe something is wrong with it...
But there are places where assembler is the correct choice. Each language has its place, yea and verily, even onto Visual Basic. (That place is no where near me, fortunately...)
Personally, I think that killing sprees cause children to play more video games!
Hmmm...considering that so many kids around here (Maryland) weren't being let outside to play during the sniper attacks...they probably were playing more video games.
Our forefathers fought long and hard to rid ourselves of the savagery of the multiparty system that plagued Europe...
Uh, no. Officially, the US is not a two party system. The Constitution makes no reference to parties. "Our forefathers" didn't fight off a multi-party system, they started with a no-party system, and corrupted it.
dullards are pretty much all extra-mainstream parties offer
I read an article that you can fit every person/family in the world with their own
house, and the area it would take would be able the size of Texas.
Area of Texas: 678,054 sq. km. About 113 square meters per person...not too crowded, right?
Now add in the land it takes to grow food to feed those people in a sustainable manner - about.25 acres, or 1000 square meters, per person, IIRC.
Now add in all the non-food crops we use.
Now add in the land it takes to process their sewage.
Now add in the land it takes to produce energy, mine raw materials, and get people and things from one place to another.
Overpopulation? Never!
The question is not how much space human bodies take up if you stack them like cordwood. It's about resource usage - and overpopulation is already here. Humanity's use of resources is non-sustainable.
The point is that very few resources are actually limited.
Every resource is limited. We have finite access to water, to land area, to minerals, to energy. The limits may (or may not be) large, but we live on a planet of finite size.
Technology almost always fills whatever needs arise.
If we think of nature resources as money, technology usually gives us a credit card. "I can't be broke! I still have $5,000 left on my Visa!"
And relying on a deus ex machina is hardly intelligent, survivial-oriented behavior.
We'll stabilize population way before then, but this planet could support hundreds of billions of people.
This planet cannot sustainably support its current population of humans.
Re:Your dressed casually to the first day of work?
on
Cool Work Shirts?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
who wears anything but a suit to the first day of work?
I've never worn a suit to work. I don't own a suit.
Coat and tie, yes (only worn to funerals, court appearances, job interviews, and other ceremonial occasions), but I've managed to get by without a suit for 32 years now.
(Ok...when I was 9 or so I did get a 3-piece for Easter one year. But I wore it with a clip-on tie...)
no citizen shall be denied equal protection of rights, and importantly, that federal law is supreme when Congress speaks to a question of law (trumping state law). So citizens have an expectation that states will have a bascially consistent set of laws under which they can live.
Not quite. The Constituion manadates (in Amendment XIV) that the states respects the rights of citizens (before that, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government), and provide equal protection under the law. There's no Constitutional mandate for laws to be similar to other states.
The state says that it's ok, but the federal government says it isn't. And what happens? People get arrested for using and distributing it. Federal law has supremacy over local/state law
Only in those areas where the feds have jurisdiction - and that definitely doesn't include drug prohibition. Federal actions in this regard are blatantly unconstitutional.
But after the transfer is complete... The trio-links are broken, resulting in 3 perfectly synchronized systems.
Which one is you?
At the instant the link is broken, they all have as much claim to be "me" as I have right now to be the person who was sitting here a minute ago. But from that instant, they all begin to diverge - they could all claim to be the "me" of before the transformation, but they could not claim to be each other after the transformation.
Honestly, I don't think the human race yet has the terms to describe the problem, much less speculate about the answer.
Actually, I took a philosophy class in college that focused on exactly these ideas - personal identity, transformation, what if anything makes "you" you. There's a significant body of thought on the subject.
Of course, then you've got the Buddhist idea of anatman, "no-self", which holds that the idea of a seperate and permanent "self" is an illusion that causes us a whole lot of suffering. They've had about 2,500 years of dialogue on that, a whole bunch of words in Sanskrit and Pali and Chinese and Japanese and Tibetean to describe states of mind found in investigating that concept.
Your original post claimed that this would be your sole motivation.
How else will the author survive?
Most authors and musicians and artists of all stripes currently survive by working day jobs. It may be that, as technology creates the ability for that majority of artists to have their work seen by a wider auidience, it may destroy the possibility for a tiny minority to "strike it rich". (I doubt it, though; if enough people love an artists work, that artist will do fine regardless of restrictions on copying.)
OTOH, I've suggested for a while now that copyright should be replaced with a right to royalties; that copying a work should be treated similarly to the way that performing a song is today, that mechanical royalties for for-profit copying should be imposed.
But finally, it doesn't matter too much what you or I think should happen. Digital media is here, copying is inevitable. Copyright is dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet; and the sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can get on to building a post-copyright way to "promote the useful arts and sciences".
I have the freedom to allow my publisher exclusive rights to make copies,
You have an artificially-created legal temporary monopoly on copies. Don't confuse that with a freedom.
I'm sorry, if I knew that any book I wrote would be given away for free at a library and copied endlessly between everyone and their friends, I wouldn't even bother to write.
Good. If the only reason you're writing is to make a monetary profit, your words are sure to be a waste of paper (or whatever medium is involved).
Sure, if we allow artist to profit then they can create more. (However, a monopoly on copying is no longer - if it was ever - a sensible way to do that.) But any real artist is going to engage in some acts of creation regardless of monetary concerns.
What about my freedom to control
what happens to the things I produce?
You have no such freedom. You've never even had a semblance of such a freedom; all copyright ever created was an artificial right to a monopoly on making copies, which is a far cry from "control".
Sure there are lots of things freely available that are capable of killing people, but how many of those are designed to kill?
Firearms are designed to throw pellets very fast. That's all. The purpose of pellet-throwing - recreation, aggression, self-defense - is up to the person behind the pellet-thrower.
Why is it that to sell my car or house I have to transfer ownership and make sure EVERYBODY knows about it
Tax reasons. That's all.
but I can freely sell/trade/give away a gun without a single soul ('cept us, of course) knowing about it?
Registering firearms won't make you any safer. Gun control laws keep guns away from violent criminals about as well as drug laws keep heroin away from junkies. And just like drug laws, they do more to harrass and endanger good citizens than to actually control dangerous people.
The only thing registering firearms makes easier is confiscating firearms, which defintely makes you less safe.
Kinda ironic, that I have to not only register, but to also insure my POS car!
Only if you want to drive it on public roads. You can drive a car without registration or insurance, so long as you're doing it on your own property.
Where as after, merely, a background check, no tests etc. needed, I can walk away with a potentially lethal weapon!!
Your hands and feet are potentially lethal weapons - indeed, more violent crime is committed using these "personal weapons" then any other weapon. You probably also have knives, hammers, power tools, gasoline, matches, rope, sticks, and several varieties of poison around your house, none of which required even a background check to purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
Who issues charters to these annoying telemarketing corporations?
Who used powers of eminent domain to facilitate the construction of the telephony infrastructure?
The government is already in this up to the eyebrows.
Telemarketing is no more a freedom than making obscene or threatening phone calls.
Good things??? I can only recommend Bill Hick's advice:
You speak as if the two are mutually exclusive.
Science has continually worked against anthrocentrism - the belief than humans are somehow "special" in the universe. The philosophy of animal rights is simply the application of this anti-anthrocentrism to ethical questions.
Hmm, I guess you didn't hear about the game early this season that ended with the field being tear-gassed to clear off rioting fans...
Read the RISKS digest, as comp.risks or at http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks. Everyone who works with computers should read this regularly, it is much less painful to learn from other people's mistakes.
PGN put a bunch of the classic items together in a book a few years ago, called Computer-Related Risks.
But there are places where assembler is the correct choice. Each language has its place, yea and verily, even onto Visual Basic. (That place is no where near me, fortunately...)
Hmmm...considering that so many kids around here (Maryland) weren't being let outside to play during the sniper attacks...they probably were playing more video games.
Uh, no. Officially, the US is not a two party system. The Constitution makes no reference to parties. "Our forefathers" didn't fight off a multi-party system, they started with a no-party system, and corrupted it.
You are aware, of course, that the greatest of all American presidents was elected from what was, at the time, a non-mainstream party?Chuckle...and if I ask you to prove that it's your property, what do you produce? A government-issued deed.
Private ownership of land is created by governments. If you want to get the government out of the issue, start by burning your property deeds.
Area of Texas: 678,054 sq. km. About 113 square meters per person...not too crowded, right?
Now add in the land it takes to grow food to feed those people in a sustainable manner - about .25 acres, or 1000 square meters, per person, IIRC.
Now add in all the non-food crops we use.
Now add in the land it takes to process their sewage.
Now add in the land it takes to produce energy, mine raw materials, and get people and things from one place to another.
The question is not how much space human bodies take up if you stack them like cordwood. It's about resource usage - and overpopulation is already here. Humanity's use of resources is non-sustainable.
If we think of nature resources as money, technology usually gives us a credit card. "I can't be broke! I still have $5,000 left on my Visa!"
And relying on a deus ex machina is hardly intelligent, survivial-oriented behavior.
This planet cannot sustainably support its current population of humans.
Yes. AIX runs some of them - that's what I work on these days.
I've never worn a suit to work. I don't own a suit.
Coat and tie, yes (only worn to funerals, court appearances, job interviews, and other ceremonial occasions), but I've managed to get by without a suit for 32 years now.
(Ok...when I was 9 or so I did get a 3-piece for Easter one year. But I wore it with a clip-on tie...)
Let's see...for $240, I could by three of your dress shirts, and work with people who think that expensive clothes make you a better person.
Or, I could buy a decent second-hand guitar, and wear t-shirts to work, and get to work with very smart people on very interesting projects.
I know which liefstyle I prefer...
Not quite. The Constituion manadates (in Amendment XIV) that the states respects the rights of citizens (before that, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government), and provide equal protection under the law. There's no Constitutional mandate for laws to be similar to other states.
Only in those areas where the feds have jurisdiction - and that definitely doesn't include drug prohibition. Federal actions in this regard are blatantly unconstitutional.
At the instant the link is broken, they all have as much claim to be "me" as I have right now to be the person who was sitting here a minute ago. But from that instant, they all begin to diverge - they could all claim to be the "me" of before the transformation, but they could not claim to be each other after the transformation.
Actually, I took a philosophy class in college that focused on exactly these ideas - personal identity, transformation, what if anything makes "you" you. There's a significant body of thought on the subject.
Of course, then you've got the Buddhist idea of anatman, "no-self", which holds that the idea of a seperate and permanent "self" is an illusion that causes us a whole lot of suffering. They've had about 2,500 years of dialogue on that, a whole bunch of words in Sanskrit and Pali and Chinese and Japanese and Tibetean to describe states of mind found in investigating that concept.
Your original post claimed that this would be your sole motivation.
Most authors and musicians and artists of all stripes currently survive by working day jobs. It may be that, as technology creates the ability for that majority of artists to have their work seen by a wider auidience, it may destroy the possibility for a tiny minority to "strike it rich". (I doubt it, though; if enough people love an artists work, that artist will do fine regardless of restrictions on copying.)
OTOH, I've suggested for a while now that copyright should be replaced with a right to royalties; that copying a work should be treated similarly to the way that performing a song is today, that mechanical royalties for for-profit copying should be imposed.
But finally, it doesn't matter too much what you or I think should happen. Digital media is here, copying is inevitable. Copyright is dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet; and the sooner we all accept that, the sooner we can get on to building a post-copyright way to "promote the useful arts and sciences".
You have an artificially-created legal temporary monopoly on copies. Don't confuse that with a freedom.
Good. If the only reason you're writing is to make a monetary profit, your words are sure to be a waste of paper (or whatever medium is involved).
Sure, if we allow artist to profit then they can create more. (However, a monopoly on copying is no longer - if it was ever - a sensible way to do that.) But any real artist is going to engage in some acts of creation regardless of monetary concerns.
You have no such freedom. You've never even had a semblance of such a freedom; all copyright ever created was an artificial right to a monopoly on making copies, which is a far cry from "control".
In the 1888s, London was terrorized by a man with a knife. Perhaps you've heard of him?
In the 1960s, Boston was terrorized by a man weilding articles of clothing as murder weapons.
Firearms are designed to throw pellets very fast. That's all. The purpose of pellet-throwing - recreation, aggression, self-defense - is up to the person behind the pellet-thrower.
Tax reasons. That's all.Registering firearms won't make you any safer. Gun control laws keep guns away from violent criminals about as well as drug laws keep heroin away from junkies. And just like drug laws, they do more to harrass and endanger good citizens than to actually control dangerous people.
The only thing registering firearms makes easier is confiscating firearms, which defintely makes you less safe.
Only if you want to drive it on public roads. You can drive a car without registration or insurance, so long as you're doing it on your own property.
Your hands and feet are potentially lethal weapons - indeed, more violent crime is committed using these "personal weapons" then any other weapon. You probably also have knives, hammers, power tools, gasoline, matches, rope, sticks, and several varieties of poison around your house, none of which required even a background check to purchase.
But no one is suggesting that all new tires sold have to be "tire printed" and put into a database just in case a car is later used in a crime.