Meh, people tend to be in a daze after they get off the phone. I notice this when talking to people who are not driving, I imagine it's even worse when driving.
You keep saying that. People who smoke are not doing "nothing but cause harm", be it to themselves or others. They're doing something, which they enjoy, and serves some need. Just because you don't (seem to) understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps you play video games. There's just as many studies that say video games cause harm as there are studies that say cigarettes cause harm. In many parts of the community it is as widely accepted that video games cause harm as it is that cigarettes cause harm. Should Microsoft be prevented from selling Xboxes? It's just non-sense to suggest that the government should have the power to restrict trade based on willing and consenting knowledge of harm. It's anti-liberal.
People who can't take a little ribbing should grow thicker skin or get off the freakin' internet. The freedom of all of us should not suffer because of their infirmity.
Why should the government get in the way? Sky diving and skiing are dangerous.. there's no doubt about it.. do you really think the government should stop people engaging in these activities? It's their life, if they want to drink poison, why should the government get in the way?
change the fact that the producer is responsible for the product's existence in the first place.
Uhhh.. I can't imagine how it would.. or how you would think it would.. or anything that could.
You're the kind of person who wants a label on coffee to indicate that it is hot. We all know it is hot.. but oh noes, there might be someone who doesn't know, so let's put a label on it.. then, once the product is clearly labeled, you're still not happy. You want the mere possibility of scalding to be eliminated, and so, when I go to McDonalds, I have to drink my coffee luke fucking warm.
It's really not hard. Some people *want* to hurt themselves. Some companies are happy to sell them products that do this. It's none of your business.
For a start, I don't think "impersonate" means what you think it means.
Secondly, anyone who believes what a doctor tells them, especially predictions that doctors make, has not been paying much attention.
Thirdly, anyone who commits suicide, for whatever reason, is responsible for their own suicide. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. Please, do try, I really want to hear it. Suicide is the willful taking of one's own life. willful. That means you want to die, and you make it happen. No-one forces you to do it. You do it yourself. It's your decision. I can't make this any plainer.
I hate to go all Godwin here, but can you please put your stupid prejudices aside for one minute and think about what you would expect an honest German soldier in WWII to do? If they had all refused to fight, there would have been no war. That's the reason why the US (and other countries) adopted the "question orders" policy. A soldier that follows orders blindly is just immoral.
Yes, I think people who choose to poison themselves are taking responsibility for how short a life they have. What, exactly, is your problem? Live you own damn life.
The idealism of copyright is that people want stuff that is non-rivalrous (you can copy it, I can copy it, so apparently no-one will ever pay for more than one copy). To encourage "artists" to create the stuff that people want, you give them exclusive rights to make copies, and magically the non-rivalrous good becomes a rivalrous good and now the market system works and the people get what they want.
The thing is, people don't know what they want. If we're talking about the market for potatoes, sure, we all know a good potato from a bad one, but we're not. We're talking about "artistic" goods. If the people knew what they wanted, they'd just make it themselves. So how do they decide what is "art" and what is not? Why, marketing of course. The "artists" just pump out crap and the people consume.
Compare this to the old patronage system. You go to an artist, you say "I want X" and when they make Y you say, "no, I want X" and you keep saying it until you get X. If the artist can't give you X, you go find an artist who can. That is a market.
Back in the days where people were like "gee, I don't know if cigarettes are bad for me" you could blame the tobacco companies for not doing enough to find out how dangerous their product is. But now, everyone knows that cigarettes cause cancer. The link is firmly established in the public's psyche. Yet people still smoke.
If you don't know by now that eating junk food is bad for you then you should listen to your mother more. It's called junk food for a reason.
Sky diving is dangerous. Skiers get broken legs. Everyone knows this stuff, and yet they still do it.
Driving is dangerous, yet we do it every day. Driving is likely the most dangerous thing the average civilian will ever do, and they do it every day. Life is risk. We're all going to die someday. Get over it.
It's nothing to do with the Internet. If I told you, face to face, to go hang yourself, and you did it, I would face no charges. You're responsible for your own suicide, I find it very hard to believe that you could possibly argue otherwise.
As for being heartless, last time I checked, that's not a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Prioritizing the driving is a simple as ignoring the conversation when required.
So you're saying married men are better phoning drivers?
Meh, people tend to be in a daze after they get off the phone. I notice this when talking to people who are not driving, I imagine it's even worse when driving.
Whenever you see a guy swerving all over the road, he's more likely texting than he is drunk.
"this book" .. by that do you mean "On Intelligence".. in which case I agree, but umm.. maybe you weren't trying to reply to me.
Slashdot's comment system is fucked, I recommend you switch to "classic" view as soon as possible.
It's a lot like Vista......
http://www.opencog.org/wiki/OpenCogPrime:WikiBook
Some interesting stuff.
You keep saying that. People who smoke are not doing "nothing but cause harm", be it to themselves or others. They're doing something, which they enjoy, and serves some need. Just because you don't (seem to) understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps you play video games. There's just as many studies that say video games cause harm as there are studies that say cigarettes cause harm. In many parts of the community it is as widely accepted that video games cause harm as it is that cigarettes cause harm. Should Microsoft be prevented from selling Xboxes? It's just non-sense to suggest that the government should have the power to restrict trade based on willing and consenting knowledge of harm. It's anti-liberal.
People who can't take a little ribbing should grow thicker skin or get off the freakin' internet. The freedom of all of us should not suffer because of their infirmity.
Why should the government get in the way? Sky diving and skiing are dangerous.. there's no doubt about it.. do you really think the government should stop people engaging in these activities? It's their life, if they want to drink poison, why should the government get in the way?
change the fact that the producer is responsible for the product's existence in the first place.
Uhhh.. I can't imagine how it would.. or how you would think it would.. or anything that could.
You're the kind of person who wants a label on coffee to indicate that it is hot. We all know it is hot.. but oh noes, there might be someone who doesn't know, so let's put a label on it.. then, once the product is clearly labeled, you're still not happy. You want the mere possibility of scalding to be eliminated, and so, when I go to McDonalds, I have to drink my coffee luke fucking warm.
It's really not hard. Some people *want* to hurt themselves. Some companies are happy to sell them products that do this. It's none of your business.
The immediate preceding comment was also modded troll.. probably by the same moderator.
To some people: troll = I disagree.
Nonsense? From The Register? Ya don't say.
People have a right to get addicted to whatever the hell they like. They also have responsibility for their actions caused by such addictions.
Stop trying to control everybody.
They better get their sale concluded before next year.
You have no concept of history do you?
Last time I checked, cigarettes were marked with plenty of warnings and labels that make it abundantly clear that they are bad for you.
For a start, I don't think "impersonate" means what you think it means.
Secondly, anyone who believes what a doctor tells them, especially predictions that doctors make, has not been paying much attention.
Thirdly, anyone who commits suicide, for whatever reason, is responsible for their own suicide. I don't see how you can argue otherwise. Please, do try, I really want to hear it. Suicide is the willful taking of one's own life. willful. That means you want to die, and you make it happen. No-one forces you to do it. You do it yourself. It's your decision. I can't make this any plainer.
I hate to go all Godwin here, but can you please put your stupid prejudices aside for one minute and think about what you would expect an honest German soldier in WWII to do? If they had all refused to fight, there would have been no war. That's the reason why the US (and other countries) adopted the "question orders" policy. A soldier that follows orders blindly is just immoral.
Yes, I think people who choose to poison themselves are taking responsibility for how short a life they have. What, exactly, is your problem? Live you own damn life.
The idealism of copyright is that people want stuff that is non-rivalrous (you can copy it, I can copy it, so apparently no-one will ever pay for more than one copy). To encourage "artists" to create the stuff that people want, you give them exclusive rights to make copies, and magically the non-rivalrous good becomes a rivalrous good and now the market system works and the people get what they want.
The thing is, people don't know what they want. If we're talking about the market for potatoes, sure, we all know a good potato from a bad one, but we're not. We're talking about "artistic" goods. If the people knew what they wanted, they'd just make it themselves. So how do they decide what is "art" and what is not? Why, marketing of course. The "artists" just pump out crap and the people consume.
Compare this to the old patronage system. You go to an artist, you say "I want X" and when they make Y you say, "no, I want X" and you keep saying it until you get X. If the artist can't give you X, you go find an artist who can. That is a market.
Back in the days where people were like "gee, I don't know if cigarettes are bad for me" you could blame the tobacco companies for not doing enough to find out how dangerous their product is. But now, everyone knows that cigarettes cause cancer. The link is firmly established in the public's psyche. Yet people still smoke.
If you don't know by now that eating junk food is bad for you then you should listen to your mother more. It's called junk food for a reason.
Sky diving is dangerous. Skiers get broken legs. Everyone knows this stuff, and yet they still do it.
Driving is dangerous, yet we do it every day. Driving is likely the most dangerous thing the average civilian will ever do, and they do it every day. Life is risk. We're all going to die someday. Get over it.
Wow, really? Can you name the law? Didn't think so.
"Preying on".. wtf does that even mean? They're eating the child? I guess that would be a crime.
"being mean" is not a crime.
It's nothing to do with the Internet. If I told you, face to face, to go hang yourself, and you did it, I would face no charges. You're responsible for your own suicide, I find it very hard to believe that you could possibly argue otherwise.
As for being heartless, last time I checked, that's not a crime.
Huh? They're required to refuse illegal orders. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse for immoral behaviour either.
You are aware that every kid is America is being treated for attention deficit disorder and depression, right?