Any person with a IQ above room temperature will get the hint.
I don't know about you, but I keep the room temperature between 18 and 22 degrees Celsius. People with IQs that low barely know how to breathe. Of course, that hovers around the 295 Kelvin mark, but do you know how hard it is to find someone with an IQ approaching 200, let alone 300? Now I don't know about any other useful temperature units...except for some arbitrary system with no simple correlation between different units (even ones for measuring the same things!) and goofy names like furlong, inch, stone, grain, and Fahrenheit.
While bathing has been around as a social and hygenic event for millenia, don't be so sure about hygiene in general. It was only in the mid-1800s that doctors were discovering that washing your hands between autopsies and deliveries would reduce infant mortality by 50%! And yet, nowadays, we find such ideas absurd.
I wasn't making any associations between anyone, merely the invalid concept that the only time someone is making a choice of their own free will is when they decide to go against what they were raised to believe or do. That criteria is still entirely dependant on the beliefs of another, and sounds a lot like knee-jerk rebellion. In fact, the reference I used in regards to not bathing was "free thinkers". Are you trying to say that only athiests are free thinkers? (I don't think you are, but you don't appear to have read my comment very well.)
I understand why athiests don't practice religion or beleive in a god. They've assessed it by whatever criteria mattered to them, and it didn't meet their standards. The assumption that the gp made that someone who beleived in god (and was raised to do so) couldn't do the same thing and come to a different conclusion is the part I take objection to.
About isotopic dating. First, I believe strontium dating is used as well, since different isotopes with different half-lifes will have different windows in which they're accurate, and I understand the general about radioactive isotopic dating. This doesn't address the unknown quantity on my part (and possible assumption on scientists' part) that no new isotopes were introduced to the system which would skew the results over certain time periods. That and the circular reference for where the item was found (which I put on the level of rumour) are the two issues I have with dating.
If your parents took you as a child, you pretty much didn't make that decision on your own. It was engrained in you as a child. If you never attended church as a child, and started going on your own as an adult, then you can make the claim that you made a choice.
Hmm, my parents taught me to bathe as a child. I'd like to believe I prefer being clean, but if I believed as you did, I'd have to assume it was only engrained in me. I suppose it's only the free thinkers who don't bathe (or those whose parents didn't teach them to bathe), and shame on me for promoting bathing in my kids.
This is the same kind of thinking that calls the gothic subculture non-conformity, even though all those people wear black leather/latex, black lipstick and nail polish, pale makeup, and dark hair. At least they don't dress like their parents...
I agree with almost all of what you said. Although religious faith is important to me, that doesn't mean it needs to be taught in a science class.
As for evolution, I see only two potential flaws that aren't adressed by the theory.
First, at what point is evolution possible? This is one of the indirect questions often raised when people discuss Titan. What conditions are required for life to be possible, and is it possible for it to start without a push from somewhere else? Keep in mind that there a number of theories, espeically in math, where a defined starting point is required before the algorithms will function. This is the hole that ID tries to fill, and fails because it isn't scientific. Until something comes along that proves one way or the other whether we need that push, evolution is the winner in this argument.
Second, how accurate are our measurements for dating? I've heard before (I don't work in the field, so I put it on about the same level as rumour), that one of the big criteria for dating samples are where they are in the strata. This is cyclical. "It's between point A and point B, which we've dated, so it must be from between those two points chronoligically." I can think of flaws in that technique all day. If that data is to be taken into account at all, it should be noted in a separate area from measured data. Also, how much material of a specific isotope would it take to throw off isotope dating? Something that would fit into a large asteroid in reasonable proportions? Do we have any idea if the isotopic ratios we see in carbon and strontium, among others, are the norm for the inner planets, our solar system, our galaxy? Or are we just assuming that any introduction of foreign matter (which happens every day) isn't going to skew the results? I haven't bothered to look this up, I wouldn't even know the right questions to ask to search it in a reasonable timeframe, but assumptions can introduce crucial flaws in any theory. That said, even with some serious errors in fossil dating, there are no competing scientific theories to displace evolution on this basis.
I don't mind creationists or ID proponents looking for scientific evidence to prove their beliefs, but until you have it, accept that it isn't science, it's faith, and keep your arguments on firmer ground. If you really want your kids taught differently (and possibly less accurately), don't put them in public schools.
While all that you said is true, it still doesn't give RMS (or you) the right to insist that I call Linux GNU/Linux. Hell, under the GPL, I could repackage everything distributed by GNU, give them whatever arbitrary names I wanted, and distribute that with my own (renamed) version of Linux. Now give me a good reason (and ego-stroking isn't a good reason) for why I should take a simple and descriptive name and make it longer and unwieldy. And giving credit where it's due is pretty flimsy because anyone who actually cares about where their software comes from already know about the preponderance of GNU software included with most, if not all, Linux distros.
I'm all for RMS, you, or anyone else insisting we should change the OS name to include GNU. That's what freedom is. Just don't assume that I have to do so.
I don't know what you mean by incorrect science teaching, and would like some clarification. For instance, I was taught the Bohr model for atomic configuration, the Rutherford model, and the electron cloud model (can't remember the exact name, but the one where the inner electrons are mostly irrelevant, and the outer electrons control reactivity and molecular arrangement). While none of these is as accurate as some quantum theories about how electrons, atoms, and molecules operate, none are incorrect, per se. They are merely incomplete. But how many kids in grade 6 are going to understand the math behind any of the quantum theories, anyway? Using more basic models to increase your grasp of a subject so you can more easily grasp the more advanced models is a common technique in science, as is using simpler models when they adequately describe the problem set (Newtonian vs. Einsteinian physics). Hopefully your education wasn't outright wrong, but merely incomplete. I wouldn't guarantee that in most public education schools in North America, though.
Well, I think the idea itself is pretty cool. If we can keep the signal sufficiently directional (shouldn't be too hard) and focussed (again, not a huge problem) it could be like using a magnifying glass on a bug. I would like to see if their idea works (and how close it is to my idea), but it's also nice to know that it's cheap enough that it would be difficult to stop anyone else from starting a similar project to 'protect' their airspace.
While 20M pounds sounds like a lot of money, it's a significant amount less than a fighter jet. From a military standpoint, this is pretty cheap, especially if the volume of space it can cover is significant.
Also, I don't know how much power a good ham radio can transmit, but isn't it in the tens or hundreds of watts? That increases the output of the array I suggested by an order or two of magnitude.
How about a large group of transmitters, not unlike, say a bunch of mirrors (optical energy), or a radio telescope array that can transmit as well as recieve? 10000 2-watt transmitters with low diffusion might be about as effective as a 20 kilowatt transmitter with low diffusion, but the only way to be sure (and to know what its effective range and limitations are) is to test it...
And yes, there is good evidence to suggest the mirror thing works.
Imagine a version of Windows with no notepad, wordpad, IE, Windows Explorer, Windows Media Player, screensaver, network browser, task manager, disk defragmenter, TCP stack, Instant Messenger, backup tool, cd player, email client, remote desktop, scripting tool, command prompt or shell.
I think we can all agree that the minimum requirements of an OS are to allow you to do basic management of your hardware, and run one or more programs in a sane manner. I think we can also toss in a basic text editor, just for kicks. That gives us notepad, Windows Explorer (a.k.a. UI shell), task manager, command prompt and shell. Well, when you include all that in Windows, it almost becomes useful. In fact, that looks pretty damn near like the list for Windows 3.1, which wasn't exactly considered a commercial flop.
Now, imagine if MS provided the other tools, and an api listing which could be duplicated (and replaced) by other software vendors. Browser by Firefox! TCP stack by BSD! (Oh, wait...) Email by pine! Media player by WinAmp! This isn't entirely unreasonable. People would fall over themselves to match the specs released by MS for the chance at real integration into the OS. This would require an open api by MS, at least in those areas, and the ability to uninstall their software, which I just don't see happening.
I don't know all the details, and can't be bothered to discover them, but when you introduce your course with disparaging remarks of the opposing view (which may well be the majority view of those in power there), you open yourself to getting shut down on something other than the merits (or lack thereof) of the course you want to teach.
On a somewhat tangential note, has the act of pointing and laughing at someone who doesn't agree with what the evidence indicates ever worked to change people's minds? And if they're just doing it because it's fun to point and laugh at these people, why are you surprised this course was dropped?
Why not let us make our own decisions about what to watch--and let the networks make their own decisions about what to air?
That's all well and good, so long as the network displays their standards and they're followed. This was my whole problem with the Janet Jackson thing. I personally have no problem with exposed breasts, but I'm not interested in hers. The problem I have, and which the network should have, is that the choice was removed from me, via being removed from the network. The network can't decide what I see, only what they show. But I can't decide what I'm going to watch unless they know what's going to be shown, and notify me of it. Janet has no right deciding for me, or for anyone but herself, what should be displayed on air.
This is all a theoretical situation for me, since I don't watch sports. But damned if I want her lead permeating the media to the point where I have no expectation of what's going to be aired at any given time. Fortunately, it seems to have gone the other direction with warnings after the commercial breaks, which makes me very happy.
Organic chemistry is anything with carbon in it. It needn't be in ring form, such as benzene. Chains, such as alcohols, sugars, and fats, are included.
Yep, I can't disagree with most of what you said this time around, either. The only problem is, if you look at just about every society out there (or those that aren't out there anymore), they have their criteria for what is appropriate and penalize those who don't play by the rules. And as you said, this applies to all but a small subset, the (proven) geniuses and (sometimes poser) artists.
I try not to judge by appearances, which is all I really have control over. I've met some pretty interesting people who dress like bums most times, and some very boring, untalented or downright evil people who dress very well and expensively. I might be swayed by their appearances initially, but at least I try to judge them on their inner qualities.
I'm personally not confident people in general will ever change, although I'd be happy if they did. I wouldn't be following right in Einstein's footsteps and getting a closet full of brown suits, but you have to admit it left him with more time for stuff that actually matters.
Well, I work in IT, and I have no problem wearing whatever is required for the job. Being in programming, I don't have to poke around in dirty machines, so I have no problem wearing whatever it takes to perform my job well. One of my duties is to provide a good impression to the clients. They're trusting me with a significant part of their business's success, and making it easier for them to do that is important. When I'm meeting clients for the first time, I make sure to wear dress pants, shirt, and shoes. If for some reason I have to meet executive-level clients, I'll switch to a full suit. If after the first meeting I see that the level of dress I'm following is higher than the client follows, I may scale back. Jeans and a button-down shirt is more than acceptable for the construction company we have as a client. At other places, the dress code never goes down - the client's attitude makes it fairly clear that's what they need to feel comfortable putting their trust in me and the company I work at.
I'm not a fan of this idea that what I wear is some indicator of who I am. I have nothing but disdain for pseudo-non-conformists who religiously conform to the dress codes of a minority and then spout off about their supposed individuality (goth, anyone?). I can wear clothing from sweats, t-shirt and no shoes right up to a tuxedo, and still feel like I'm being true to myself (although damned if I'm going to try programming for a day in a tux), and why shouldn't I? Clothes, like language, are a tool you can use to give an impression of yourself to the world. Sometimes that impression changes, and why shouldn't your language or clothing change to match?
I disagree entirely. I don't buy CDs. Or almost never. They just aren't worth the crap shot for something good, since you can almost never sample the full CD before you buy anyway (wasn't it Metallica who said that the order of songs on their CDs was important, and didn't want to allow singles downloads?), and some of the crap on a given CD isn't worth anything. When I do buy CDs, I try to get good used ones - fuck the RIAA, and if the artists get screwed too this way, well too bad. They still got their first sale, but they didn't get anything from me. But why am I still paying close to the same price for a product whose manufacturing costs has drastically reduced, and why would it cost the same for the data and no media at all (which is about where Apple's pricing comes in)? My plan is to sign up for an online streaming service (and possibly record the stream for my future pleasure, not unlike what I've done with radio), and note the musicians/songs that I especially like. Then I'll look for their used CDs, and if I think they're not greedy bastards I might send them cash via mail. Either way, FUCK RIAA! They're greedy bastards, selling grossly overpriced products, and punitively suing anyone who disagrees with them.
The MPAA is close on their heels, but is doing two key things different. First, they're making sure to provide real value over the "freely available" alternatives. Extra features, nice menus, higher quality (which I'll grant is one place where RIAA can't really compete due to relative file sizes). Second, they're selling stuff where they already made their money (or can't hope to make wads more money) at reduced prices. Prices range from ~$5 for some really old or truly crappy stuff to ~$20 for extremely hot stuff. I've been very happy with products I've bought from all ranges, mostly due to having been able to peruse the core content previously (via T.V., or having seen it in theatres years ago). I've spent magnitudes more on movies in the last 3 years than I have on music. If they keep up the current model (which it looks like they don't want to), they'll keep getting my money. If they decide to follow in RIAA's footsteps, I'll respond the same way.
When it gets to the point where you forgo eating, or wear diapers so you don't have to take potty breaks, you've gone beyond the point of a casual (or even a serious) user and well into the realm of addiction. You might want to consider if you've passed that point when you don't do those things without the computer there, too. Sadly, I'm at work and they disapprove of my game of choice, because I could sure use a hit right now...
Nothing sucks more in the modern world than knowing that your generous gift is going to make everyone involved in bringing it to everyone else rich but you. This is my biggest gripe about organ donation. I heard that the total amount of money made by various people (recovery, handling, transportation, etc.) in organ recovery runs somewhere around $55,000 US. Why not throw a few grand towards the burial of the person who died to give us this opportunity? It gets even uglier in other cases. If I have a rare disease/condition, the possibilities are endless for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and patent a genetic treatment which will net them billions, and doubtless make the primary researchers wealthy, to boot. And what do I get? Besides a patent on my genes, I get the privelege to pay for the treatment for the rest of my life. This guy doesn't even get that benefit for his altruism, just the warm feeling of having done right (and letting everyone else get rich off of his altruism). If this guy has any brains at all, he'll sign a deal for wads of cash (or part of the profits from the patented treatment) to have some pharmaceutical company have reasonable access to him for the development of that treatment. He has something valuable, and I don't see why he shouldn't get some reward for that value. Someone (probably a number of someones) are going to get rich off a cure for AIDS, he might as well be one of them.
And yes, I still sign my donor card, and pay for life insurance to help deal with the leftovers when they're done carving me up. I just wish I lived in a country where they paid for blood donation. I hate needles enough that I won't go through that inconvenience without a good reason, and the warm fuzzies won't cut it.
Re:So why is Tamiflu withdrawn from customers?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
...there *will* be another pandemic. This is guaranteed unless of course you don't believe in evolution.
What I believe has no bearing on it. People believed the world was flat. It didn't changed when their beliefs did. There's also no guarantee that there will be a flu pandemic. The odds might be incredily high for my lifetime, and doubtless higher as the time span increases, but that doesn't constiture a guarantee, either. And doing nothing because it isn't guaranteed isn't a smart choice, either.
The Black Death is believed to be carried by fleas on rats. The rats (along with lots of other mammals) were dying from the Black Death as well. So, your "if a flu virus like H5N1 can both cross infect birds, but is almost harmless to them, and humans, and is highly lethal," scenario doesn't need to be true in order for H5N1 to be a big problem.
Back up a bit. It does match what he said. You said it yourself. Fleas were the carrier. Rats were just a more widespread transportation method. The fleas weren't dying, the rats and people were. To make it analogous to the grandparent post, the fleas (with the help of the rats) and birds would be in the same category. The fleas survive, the people die. The birds survive, the people die.
Slashdot Mirror
Any person with a IQ above room temperature will get the hint.
I don't know about you, but I keep the room temperature between 18 and 22 degrees Celsius. People with IQs that low barely know how to breathe. Of course, that hovers around the 295 Kelvin mark, but do you know how hard it is to find someone with an IQ approaching 200, let alone 300? Now I don't know about any other useful temperature units...except for some arbitrary system with no simple correlation between different units (even ones for measuring the same things!) and goofy names like furlong, inch, stone, grain, and Fahrenheit.
While bathing has been around as a social and hygenic event for millenia, don't be so sure about hygiene in general. It was only in the mid-1800s that doctors were discovering that washing your hands between autopsies and deliveries would reduce infant mortality by 50%! And yet, nowadays, we find such ideas absurd.
I wasn't making any associations between anyone, merely the invalid concept that the only time someone is making a choice of their own free will is when they decide to go against what they were raised to believe or do. That criteria is still entirely dependant on the beliefs of another, and sounds a lot like knee-jerk rebellion. In fact, the reference I used in regards to not bathing was "free thinkers". Are you trying to say that only athiests are free thinkers? (I don't think you are, but you don't appear to have read my comment very well.)
I understand why athiests don't practice religion or beleive in a god. They've assessed it by whatever criteria mattered to them, and it didn't meet their standards. The assumption that the gp made that someone who beleived in god (and was raised to do so) couldn't do the same thing and come to a different conclusion is the part I take objection to.
Thanks for the info. I'll have to do some reading.
About isotopic dating. First, I believe strontium dating is used as well, since different isotopes with different half-lifes will have different windows in which they're accurate, and I understand the general about radioactive isotopic dating. This doesn't address the unknown quantity on my part (and possible assumption on scientists' part) that no new isotopes were introduced to the system which would skew the results over certain time periods. That and the circular reference for where the item was found (which I put on the level of rumour) are the two issues I have with dating.
[English] seems to have incorporated just about every word under the sun, so really it should only be used by hardcore language hobbyists.
Have you seen how most people use English? It appears they all think they're hardcore language hobbyists...
If your parents took you as a child, you pretty much didn't make that decision on your own. It was engrained in you as a child. If you never attended church as a child, and started going on your own as an adult, then you can make the claim that you made a choice.
Hmm, my parents taught me to bathe as a child. I'd like to believe I prefer being clean, but if I believed as you did, I'd have to assume it was only engrained in me. I suppose it's only the free thinkers who don't bathe (or those whose parents didn't teach them to bathe), and shame on me for promoting bathing in my kids.
This is the same kind of thinking that calls the gothic subculture non-conformity, even though all those people wear black leather/latex, black lipstick and nail polish, pale makeup, and dark hair. At least they don't dress like their parents...
I agree with almost all of what you said. Although religious faith is important to me, that doesn't mean it needs to be taught in a science class.
As for evolution, I see only two potential flaws that aren't adressed by the theory.
First, at what point is evolution possible? This is one of the indirect questions often raised when people discuss Titan. What conditions are required for life to be possible, and is it possible for it to start without a push from somewhere else? Keep in mind that there a number of theories, espeically in math, where a defined starting point is required before the algorithms will function. This is the hole that ID tries to fill, and fails because it isn't scientific. Until something comes along that proves one way or the other whether we need that push, evolution is the winner in this argument.
Second, how accurate are our measurements for dating? I've heard before (I don't work in the field, so I put it on about the same level as rumour), that one of the big criteria for dating samples are where they are in the strata. This is cyclical. "It's between point A and point B, which we've dated, so it must be from between those two points chronoligically." I can think of flaws in that technique all day. If that data is to be taken into account at all, it should be noted in a separate area from measured data. Also, how much material of a specific isotope would it take to throw off isotope dating? Something that would fit into a large asteroid in reasonable proportions? Do we have any idea if the isotopic ratios we see in carbon and strontium, among others, are the norm for the inner planets, our solar system, our galaxy? Or are we just assuming that any introduction of foreign matter (which happens every day) isn't going to skew the results? I haven't bothered to look this up, I wouldn't even know the right questions to ask to search it in a reasonable timeframe, but assumptions can introduce crucial flaws in any theory. That said, even with some serious errors in fossil dating, there are no competing scientific theories to displace evolution on this basis.
I don't mind creationists or ID proponents looking for scientific evidence to prove their beliefs, but until you have it, accept that it isn't science, it's faith, and keep your arguments on firmer ground. If you really want your kids taught differently (and possibly less accurately), don't put them in public schools.
While all that you said is true, it still doesn't give RMS (or you) the right to insist that I call Linux GNU/Linux. Hell, under the GPL, I could repackage everything distributed by GNU, give them whatever arbitrary names I wanted, and distribute that with my own (renamed) version of Linux. Now give me a good reason (and ego-stroking isn't a good reason) for why I should take a simple and descriptive name and make it longer and unwieldy. And giving credit where it's due is pretty flimsy because anyone who actually cares about where their software comes from already know about the preponderance of GNU software included with most, if not all, Linux distros.
I'm all for RMS, you, or anyone else insisting we should change the OS name to include GNU. That's what freedom is. Just don't assume that I have to do so.
I don't know what you mean by incorrect science teaching, and would like some clarification. For instance, I was taught the Bohr model for atomic configuration, the Rutherford model, and the electron cloud model (can't remember the exact name, but the one where the inner electrons are mostly irrelevant, and the outer electrons control reactivity and molecular arrangement). While none of these is as accurate as some quantum theories about how electrons, atoms, and molecules operate, none are incorrect, per se. They are merely incomplete. But how many kids in grade 6 are going to understand the math behind any of the quantum theories, anyway? Using more basic models to increase your grasp of a subject so you can more easily grasp the more advanced models is a common technique in science, as is using simpler models when they adequately describe the problem set (Newtonian vs. Einsteinian physics).
Hopefully your education wasn't outright wrong, but merely incomplete. I wouldn't guarantee that in most public education schools in North America, though.
Well, I think the idea itself is pretty cool. If we can keep the signal sufficiently directional (shouldn't be too hard) and focussed (again, not a huge problem) it could be like using a magnifying glass on a bug. I would like to see if their idea works (and how close it is to my idea), but it's also nice to know that it's cheap enough that it would be difficult to stop anyone else from starting a similar project to 'protect' their airspace.
While 20M pounds sounds like a lot of money, it's a significant amount less than a fighter jet. From a military standpoint, this is pretty cheap, especially if the volume of space it can cover is significant.
Also, I don't know how much power a good ham radio can transmit, but isn't it in the tens or hundreds of watts? That increases the output of the array I suggested by an order or two of magnitude.
How about a large group of transmitters, not unlike, say a bunch of mirrors (optical energy), or a radio telescope array that can transmit as well as recieve? 10000 2-watt transmitters with low diffusion might be about as effective as a 20 kilowatt transmitter with low diffusion, but the only way to be sure (and to know what its effective range and limitations are) is to test it...
And yes, there is good evidence to suggest the mirror thing works.
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
I object!
People with different skills and talents will experience different challenges and benefits. News at 11!
Imagine a version of Windows with no notepad, wordpad, IE, Windows Explorer, Windows Media Player, screensaver, network browser, task manager, disk defragmenter, TCP stack, Instant Messenger, backup tool, cd player, email client, remote desktop, scripting tool, command prompt or shell.
I think we can all agree that the minimum requirements of an OS are to allow you to do basic management of your hardware, and run one or more programs in a sane manner. I think we can also toss in a basic text editor, just for kicks. That gives us notepad, Windows Explorer (a.k.a. UI shell), task manager, command prompt and shell. Well, when you include all that in Windows, it almost becomes useful. In fact, that looks pretty damn near like the list for Windows 3.1, which wasn't exactly considered a commercial flop.
Now, imagine if MS provided the other tools, and an api listing which could be duplicated (and replaced) by other software vendors. Browser by Firefox! TCP stack by BSD! (Oh, wait...) Email by pine! Media player by WinAmp! This isn't entirely unreasonable. People would fall over themselves to match the specs released by MS for the chance at real integration into the OS. This would require an open api by MS, at least in those areas, and the ability to uninstall their software, which I just don't see happening.
I don't know all the details, and can't be bothered to discover them, but when you introduce your course with disparaging remarks of the opposing view (which may well be the majority view of those in power there), you open yourself to getting shut down on something other than the merits (or lack thereof) of the course you want to teach.
On a somewhat tangential note, has the act of pointing and laughing at someone who doesn't agree with what the evidence indicates ever worked to change people's minds? And if they're just doing it because it's fun to point and laugh at these people, why are you surprised this course was dropped?
Why not let us make our own decisions about what to watch--and let the networks make their own decisions about what to air?
That's all well and good, so long as the network displays their standards and they're followed. This was my whole problem with the Janet Jackson thing. I personally have no problem with exposed breasts, but I'm not interested in hers. The problem I have, and which the network should have, is that the choice was removed from me, via being removed from the network. The network can't decide what I see, only what they show. But I can't decide what I'm going to watch unless they know what's going to be shown, and notify me of it. Janet has no right deciding for me, or for anyone but herself, what should be displayed on air.
This is all a theoretical situation for me, since I don't watch sports. But damned if I want her lead permeating the media to the point where I have no expectation of what's going to be aired at any given time. Fortunately, it seems to have gone the other direction with warnings after the commercial breaks, which makes me very happy.
Organic chemistry is anything with carbon in it. It needn't be in ring form, such as benzene. Chains, such as alcohols, sugars, and fats, are included.
Yep, I can't disagree with most of what you said this time around, either. The only problem is, if you look at just about every society out there (or those that aren't out there anymore), they have their criteria for what is appropriate and penalize those who don't play by the rules. And as you said, this applies to all but a small subset, the (proven) geniuses and (sometimes poser) artists.
I try not to judge by appearances, which is all I really have control over. I've met some pretty interesting people who dress like bums most times, and some very boring, untalented or downright evil people who dress very well and expensively. I might be swayed by their appearances initially, but at least I try to judge them on their inner qualities.
I'm personally not confident people in general will ever change, although I'd be happy if they did. I wouldn't be following right in Einstein's footsteps and getting a closet full of brown suits, but you have to admit it left him with more time for stuff that actually matters.
Well, I work in IT, and I have no problem wearing whatever is required for the job. Being in programming, I don't have to poke around in dirty machines, so I have no problem wearing whatever it takes to perform my job well. One of my duties is to provide a good impression to the clients. They're trusting me with a significant part of their business's success, and making it easier for them to do that is important. When I'm meeting clients for the first time, I make sure to wear dress pants, shirt, and shoes. If for some reason I have to meet executive-level clients, I'll switch to a full suit. If after the first meeting I see that the level of dress I'm following is higher than the client follows, I may scale back. Jeans and a button-down shirt is more than acceptable for the construction company we have as a client. At other places, the dress code never goes down - the client's attitude makes it fairly clear that's what they need to feel comfortable putting their trust in me and the company I work at.
I'm not a fan of this idea that what I wear is some indicator of who I am. I have nothing but disdain for pseudo-non-conformists who religiously conform to the dress codes of a minority and then spout off about their supposed individuality (goth, anyone?). I can wear clothing from sweats, t-shirt and no shoes right up to a tuxedo, and still feel like I'm being true to myself (although damned if I'm going to try programming for a day in a tux), and why shouldn't I? Clothes, like language, are a tool you can use to give an impression of yourself to the world. Sometimes that impression changes, and why shouldn't your language or clothing change to match?
I disagree entirely. I don't buy CDs. Or almost never. They just aren't worth the crap shot for something good, since you can almost never sample the full CD before you buy anyway (wasn't it Metallica who said that the order of songs on their CDs was important, and didn't want to allow singles downloads?), and some of the crap on a given CD isn't worth anything. When I do buy CDs, I try to get good used ones - fuck the RIAA, and if the artists get screwed too this way, well too bad. They still got their first sale, but they didn't get anything from me. But why am I still paying close to the same price for a product whose manufacturing costs has drastically reduced, and why would it cost the same for the data and no media at all (which is about where Apple's pricing comes in)? My plan is to sign up for an online streaming service (and possibly record the stream for my future pleasure, not unlike what I've done with radio), and note the musicians/songs that I especially like. Then I'll look for their used CDs, and if I think they're not greedy bastards I might send them cash via mail. Either way, FUCK RIAA! They're greedy bastards, selling grossly overpriced products, and punitively suing anyone who disagrees with them.
The MPAA is close on their heels, but is doing two key things different. First, they're making sure to provide real value over the "freely available" alternatives. Extra features, nice menus, higher quality (which I'll grant is one place where RIAA can't really compete due to relative file sizes). Second, they're selling stuff where they already made their money (or can't hope to make wads more money) at reduced prices. Prices range from ~$5 for some really old or truly crappy stuff to ~$20 for extremely hot stuff. I've been very happy with products I've bought from all ranges, mostly due to having been able to peruse the core content previously (via T.V., or having seen it in theatres years ago). I've spent magnitudes more on movies in the last 3 years than I have on music. If they keep up the current model (which it looks like they don't want to), they'll keep getting my money. If they decide to follow in RIAA's footsteps, I'll respond the same way.
When it gets to the point where you forgo eating, or wear diapers so you don't have to take potty breaks, you've gone beyond the point of a casual (or even a serious) user and well into the realm of addiction. You might want to consider if you've passed that point when you don't do those things without the computer there, too. Sadly, I'm at work and they disapprove of my game of choice, because I could sure use a hit right now...
Nothing sucks more in the modern world than knowing that your generous gift is going to make everyone involved in bringing it to everyone else rich but you. This is my biggest gripe about organ donation. I heard that the total amount of money made by various people (recovery, handling, transportation, etc.) in organ recovery runs somewhere around $55,000 US. Why not throw a few grand towards the burial of the person who died to give us this opportunity? It gets even uglier in other cases. If I have a rare disease/condition, the possibilities are endless for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and patent a genetic treatment which will net them billions, and doubtless make the primary researchers wealthy, to boot. And what do I get? Besides a patent on my genes, I get the privelege to pay for the treatment for the rest of my life. This guy doesn't even get that benefit for his altruism, just the warm feeling of having done right (and letting everyone else get rich off of his altruism). If this guy has any brains at all, he'll sign a deal for wads of cash (or part of the profits from the patented treatment) to have some pharmaceutical company have reasonable access to him for the development of that treatment. He has something valuable, and I don't see why he shouldn't get some reward for that value. Someone (probably a number of someones) are going to get rich off a cure for AIDS, he might as well be one of them.
And yes, I still sign my donor card, and pay for life insurance to help deal with the leftovers when they're done carving me up. I just wish I lived in a country where they paid for blood donation. I hate needles enough that I won't go through that inconvenience without a good reason, and the warm fuzzies won't cut it.
...there *will* be another pandemic. This is guaranteed unless of course you don't believe in evolution.
What I believe has no bearing on it. People believed the world was flat. It didn't changed when their beliefs did. There's also no guarantee that there will be a flu pandemic. The odds might be incredily high for my lifetime, and doubtless higher as the time span increases, but that doesn't constiture a guarantee, either. And doing nothing because it isn't guaranteed isn't a smart choice, either.
The Black Death is believed to be carried by fleas on rats. The rats (along with lots of other mammals) were dying from the Black Death as well. So, your "if a flu virus like H5N1 can both cross infect birds, but is almost harmless to them, and humans, and is highly lethal," scenario doesn't need to be true in order for H5N1 to be a big problem.
Back up a bit. It does match what he said. You said it yourself. Fleas were the carrier. Rats were just a more widespread transportation method. The fleas weren't dying, the rats and people were. To make it analogous to the grandparent post, the fleas (with the help of the rats) and birds would be in the same category. The fleas survive, the people die. The birds survive, the people die.