Why do I have to tolerate it? I (and society) tolerate some pollution because it's a side effect of positive economic activity that benefits us all in one way or another.
Coughing and sneezing are natural behaviors of the human body and I can fault no one for that.
Smoking is purly a personal luxury, with no benefit to anyone but the smoker, and even then it merely perpetuates their addiction.
No, I don't actually flick cigarettes out of people's mouths. But I do make it known that I find their habit as filthy as public defecation. It's not just whining at a minor annoyance; I think the fact that most people would think so is the real sign of something gone horribly wrong.
Just because the habit has been tolerated for so long to such an extent that smokers expect to be allowed to do it anywhere they please does not make such behavior acceptible.
Open air? If I can smell it, it's there. Or shall I just go ahead and pee in the public pool, it'll dissipate enough that people probably won't notice it.
And don't get me started on all the cigarette butts on the streets of New York.
I agree with you 100%. TVs blaring in public spaces is one thing, TVs blaring in private establishments is quite another. And on that note, I oppose the smoking ban in NYC, yet I reserve the right to flick cigarettes out of people's mouths in the park. We share the space, and the responsibility for maintaining it for everyone. Smokers pollute like drunks taking a crap. If you smoke, think before you do it next time. Would you drop your pants and take a crap where you are? Then you probably shouldn't smoke there either.
This message has been brought to you by PetPeeve Enterprises.../rant
Be fair now, I didn't say I liked his music, I just said I prefer him to Ceefax. Which is a comment about Ceefax, and therefore on topic. What is Slashdot coming to these days? Sheesh!:P
The reality is that both major parties are centrist when it comes to actual government.
I might have agreed with you back in the '90s, but Bush represents a real shift to the right in the Republican party, and at this point there are three kinds of conservatives: those who recognize this and will be voting against Bush, those who haven't realized it yet and are buying into Bush's centrist rhetoric while ignoring his radical actions, and those who actually want a radical, religion-based President.
Whoops - my bad - I, er, read most of your post, but somehow missed that the complaining about efficiency was sarcastic, and missed the parts where you argued that efficiency didn't matter... Geez what a loony I am. Sorry...
You're arguing that an aspect of a process (efficiency, or lack thereof) is more important than the outcome of the process. Sometimes having the most efficient process sabotages the goal(s) of the process. If the goal of linux is to have more (or a specific set) of features, but Linus Torvalds rejects inefficient code (code with too many lines), then linux has to wait longer to get those features, or not have them at all.
In the case of linux, I would argue that Linus' goals include both features & code efficiency and quality; perhaps that's the balance he's trying to struggle with.
As for fact-checking, it seems the "more efficient" process that the mass media uses is not working. If the less efficient process of hundreds of bloggers poring over the facts works better, who cares how efficient it is? Perhaps eventually there will be independent groups of bloggers formed who concentrate on certain issues or something, but what it comes down to is: what's more important for fact-checking, efficiency or accuracy? I would argue accuracy.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said "media life", because that does imply I mean shelf life of the media. I meant damage resistance, ability to still be used despite data loss. My limited experience is that when a DVD has lots of scratches, watching them is painful if not impossible, but when a VHS tape has some twists or tracking problems or something, either something is still watchable/listenable, or you can at least just wind past the damaged part.
Maybe my Sony DVD player is just not very good at dealing with scratched discs.
I won't be buying a PS3 (unless it has Doom III and Half-Life 2), but then I never bought a PS1 or PS2 or XBox or GameCube or anything else. I'm not in the market.
But I also think it's too early for any new movie media standard. Sure, I'm an outlier, as demonstrated by what I just said about the PS3, but I just started getting some movies on DVD, and I imagine a good segment of the public only really got into DVD buying within the last few years. Even assuming 4-5 years before a new format is really available with lots of movies, who would want to buy it? DVDs are good enough for most people, and probably still will be in 4-5 years. If new players support old DVDs, and new content just starts coming out in HD on the new disc media, then I can see a slow switchover being painless and mattering little.
But then there's the issue of media life. I've checked out a few DVDs from the library over the past year or so, and they all had such damage that parts of the films were unwatchable. DVD-damage is much worse than VHS-tape-damage. At least with a VHS you can still get an idea of what's going on, hear the dialog, or fast-forward. A damaged DVD skips and pauses painfully, decides to jump to the next chapter, and can't fast-forward through the video file because it can't read the video file. Even denser media will undoubtedly be worse, right?
And no, I'm not oversimplifying the problem. I'm just answering the question the grandparent really wishes it were asking.
See, people say "what does it mean to be human" when they really mean "what makes sentient consciousness important (or unique, etc.)". Obviously, "human" has a specific biological meaning. Or, rather, homo sapiens does. But if Neanderthals were as sentient as homo sapiens, yet a different species, isn't that what we're really talking about? In that sense, would Neanderthals have been "human" in the way that the grandparent post means it?
So the real question is, what makes us special, apart from other life forms, and that is our self-aware nature and desire to improve ourselves, to transcend that nature. Any intelligence that exhibits those characteristics can be my friend any day, and should get legal protections and all that jazz. That's what the real issue is.
Oh, that's easy. What makes one human is the desire to improve oneself and become more than what one is. It's all about striving to grow as an individual. Why are people still hung up on this issue, it's so easy...
So why not just call it "No More Radio"? "Gnomoradio" is far from clear, especially for people who might never have heard of "Gnome" the destop environment.
It may be clever in context, but unless the goal was to create a new program so they could give it a clever name, they're really just undermining their own efforts.
You didn't get the point at all. I wasn't saying self-interested behavior isn't to be expected, I was agreeing with that. I was disagreeing with the sentiment that, because it is to be expected, that makes it OK. We can still say it is immoral and wrong. We can still say they shouldn't do it.
Just like, though we may believe that evolutionary pressures have formed male psychology such that it is advantageous to cheat on spouses and try to have children with multiple partners, we can still say it isn't right and we should try to rise above it.
To try to be more than human and rise above our base natures is the very definition of what it is to be human. (forgive the apparent redundency of that statement.) Corporations, of course, are not human, but a machine-like human creation, and therefore should not be legally recognized as such, and/or should be held to even higher moral standards than real humans.
Just because you know that certain behavior is to be expected of certain entities doesn't mean you can't still judge that behavior and the entity bad.
"Sure, the Devil enslaves souls for all eternity, but that's just to be expected, it doesn't mean the Devil is evil..."
"Sure, Microsoft abuses their monopoly and sabotages standards efforts, but that's just to be expected of large corporations in their position, it doesn't mean they're wrong.
if you don't have a computer flagging them then chances are you have a human flagging them. Who do you trust more?
Computer, human - everyone always forgets the spammers! I trust the spammers. After all, they're only thinking of me and all the products, services and opportunities I might otherwise be unaware of.
So the WINE in DarWINE can't stand for "Wine Is Not an Emulator" because, well, it sorta is? No problem - just change what the letters stand for! I suggest:
Wine Isn't Not an Emulator Wine Is Now an Emulator Wine on os x Is doing some New things, possibly including a bit of Emulation
Perhaps you should also wake the fuck up and realize that this whole mideast strategy IS NOT ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ. It's about forcibly killing Panislamic radicalism over the next several decades, perhaps in a generation, without letting it run its natural course over the next 2 to 3 centuries.
Perhaps if Bush had simply said that to begin with instead of towing the WMD line, people might have generally gone along with him. Perhaps we all could have an honest, adult discussion about the issue and what might be the best way to deal with it.
I still think war in Iraq was really not the best way to start combatting Islamic fundamentalism/radicalism, but perhaps I didn't have all the info. I certainly wasn't given the chance to change my mind or think about it, I was just told Iraq had WMDs and was linked to Osama, both of which turned out not to be true (and Osama's name hasn't been mentioned by the President more than 6-7 times in the past year - apparently not much of a concern for him).
I believe war can be just and necessary from time to time. I agree that fundamentalism of all kinds, especially the kind that tends towards militarism, is the biggest problem we need to be dealing with in the 21st century. Unfortunately Bush picked the wrong target, misled everyone and now we're in a mess that seems to be making things worse than better.
Is a DDOS attack not a form of speech? If financial contributions to political campaigns are considered "speech" then I see no reason why this shouldn't. Money silences (or makes louder) just as much.
Look to South America as well. It was chiefly Brazil, along with other South American, Asian, and probably African countries that took a stand at the world trade summit in Cancun last September. The group may not last, but it's the start of what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, everything looks up from down there!
Abolish them?
Or they get the TLD for the country in which they were originally founded.
Or they get the TLD for the country in which their headquarters reside.
Or they get TLDs for the countries in which they are incorporated.
So many acceptable solutions!
Why do I have to tolerate it? I (and society) tolerate some pollution because it's a side effect of positive economic activity that benefits us all in one way or another.
Coughing and sneezing are natural behaviors of the human body and I can fault no one for that.
Smoking is purly a personal luxury, with no benefit to anyone but the smoker, and even then it merely perpetuates their addiction.
No, I don't actually flick cigarettes out of people's mouths. But I do make it known that I find their habit as filthy as public defecation. It's not just whining at a minor annoyance; I think the fact that most people would think so is the real sign of something gone horribly wrong.
Just because the habit has been tolerated for so long to such an extent that smokers expect to be allowed to do it anywhere they please does not make such behavior acceptible.
Open air? If I can smell it, it's there. Or shall I just go ahead and pee in the public pool, it'll dissipate enough that people probably won't notice it.
And don't get me started on all the cigarette butts on the streets of New York.
I agree with you 100%. TVs blaring in public spaces is one thing, TVs blaring in private establishments is quite another. And on that note, I oppose the smoking ban in NYC, yet I reserve the right to flick cigarettes out of people's mouths in the park. We share the space, and the responsibility for maintaining it for everyone. Smokers pollute like drunks taking a crap. If you smoke, think before you do it next time. Would you drop your pants and take a crap where you are? Then you probably shouldn't smoke there either.
/rant
This message has been brought to you by PetPeeve Enterprises...
Be fair now, I didn't say I liked his music, I just said I prefer him to Ceefax. Which is a comment about Ceefax, and therefore on topic. What is Slashdot coming to these days? Sheesh! :P
The reality is that both major parties are centrist when it comes to actual government.
I might have agreed with you back in the '90s, but Bush represents a real shift to the right in the Republican party, and at this point there are three kinds of conservatives: those who recognize this and will be voting against Bush, those who haven't realized it yet and are buying into Bush's centrist rhetoric while ignoring his radical actions, and those who actually want a radical, religion-based President.
I prefer Ceephax.
What library is making you rent?
Whoops - my bad - I, er, read most of your post, but somehow missed that the complaining about efficiency was sarcastic, and missed the parts where you argued that efficiency didn't matter... Geez what a loony I am. Sorry...
You're arguing that an aspect of a process (efficiency, or lack thereof) is more important than the outcome of the process. Sometimes having the most efficient process sabotages the goal(s) of the process. If the goal of linux is to have more (or a specific set) of features, but Linus Torvalds rejects inefficient code (code with too many lines), then linux has to wait longer to get those features, or not have them at all.
In the case of linux, I would argue that Linus' goals include both features & code efficiency and quality; perhaps that's the balance he's trying to struggle with.
As for fact-checking, it seems the "more efficient" process that the mass media uses is not working. If the less efficient process of hundreds of bloggers poring over the facts works better, who cares how efficient it is? Perhaps eventually there will be independent groups of bloggers formed who concentrate on certain issues or something, but what it comes down to is: what's more important for fact-checking, efficiency or accuracy? I would argue accuracy.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said "media life", because that does imply I mean shelf life of the media. I meant damage resistance, ability to still be used despite data loss. My limited experience is that when a DVD has lots of scratches, watching them is painful if not impossible, but when a VHS tape has some twists or tracking problems or something, either something is still watchable/listenable, or you can at least just wind past the damaged part.
Maybe my Sony DVD player is just not very good at dealing with scratched discs.
I won't be buying a PS3 (unless it has Doom III and Half-Life 2), but then I never bought a PS1 or PS2 or XBox or GameCube or anything else. I'm not in the market.
But I also think it's too early for any new movie media standard. Sure, I'm an outlier, as demonstrated by what I just said about the PS3, but I just started getting some movies on DVD, and I imagine a good segment of the public only really got into DVD buying within the last few years. Even assuming 4-5 years before a new format is really available with lots of movies, who would want to buy it? DVDs are good enough for most people, and probably still will be in 4-5 years. If new players support old DVDs, and new content just starts coming out in HD on the new disc media, then I can see a slow switchover being painless and mattering little.
But then there's the issue of media life. I've checked out a few DVDs from the library over the past year or so, and they all had such damage that parts of the films were unwatchable. DVD-damage is much worse than VHS-tape-damage. At least with a VHS you can still get an idea of what's going on, hear the dialog, or fast-forward. A damaged DVD skips and pauses painfully, decides to jump to the next chapter, and can't fast-forward through the video file because it can't read the video file. Even denser media will undoubtedly be worse, right?
It's a problem?
And no, I'm not oversimplifying the problem. I'm just answering the question the grandparent really wishes it were asking.
See, people say "what does it mean to be human" when they really mean "what makes sentient consciousness important (or unique, etc.)". Obviously, "human" has a specific biological meaning. Or, rather, homo sapiens does. But if Neanderthals were as sentient as homo sapiens, yet a different species, isn't that what we're really talking about? In that sense, would Neanderthals have been "human" in the way that the grandparent post means it?
So the real question is, what makes us special, apart from other life forms, and that is our self-aware nature and desire to improve ourselves, to transcend that nature. Any intelligence that exhibits those characteristics can be my friend any day, and should get legal protections and all that jazz. That's what the real issue is.
what makes one human?
Oh, that's easy. What makes one human is the desire to improve oneself and become more than what one is. It's all about striving to grow as an individual. Why are people still hung up on this issue, it's so easy...
So why not just call it "No More Radio"? "Gnomoradio" is far from clear, especially for people who might never have heard of "Gnome" the destop environment.
It may be clever in context, but unless the goal was to create a new program so they could give it a clever name, they're really just undermining their own efforts.
As a progressive, I agree - Michael Moore is a deceptive, roundabout-lying-without-really-lying liar, and generally a slimy scumbag.
But at least he's not President of the United States. Just think of the damage someone like that would do in that position!
Oh, wait...
listen to my dad play Glenn Miller Orchestra tunes on a kazoo
Got a torrent?
You didn't get the point at all. I wasn't saying self-interested behavior isn't to be expected, I was agreeing with that. I was disagreeing with the sentiment that, because it is to be expected, that makes it OK. We can still say it is immoral and wrong. We can still say they shouldn't do it.
Just like, though we may believe that evolutionary pressures have formed male psychology such that it is advantageous to cheat on spouses and try to have children with multiple partners, we can still say it isn't right and we should try to rise above it.
To try to be more than human and rise above our base natures is the very definition of what it is to be human. (forgive the apparent redundency of that statement.) Corporations, of course, are not human, but a machine-like human creation, and therefore should not be legally recognized as such, and/or should be held to even higher moral standards than real humans.
I agree. I ride the train to work every day, but I'd much rather read and listen to music than zone out to a video.
Of course, everyone said the iPod was a dumb idea when it came out, maybe one of these video things will take off...
Just because you know that certain behavior is to be expected of certain entities doesn't mean you can't still judge that behavior and the entity bad.
"Sure, the Devil enslaves souls for all eternity, but that's just to be expected, it doesn't mean the Devil is evil..."
"Sure, Microsoft abuses their monopoly and sabotages standards efforts, but that's just to be expected of large corporations in their position, it doesn't mean they're wrong.
if you don't have a computer flagging them then chances are you have a human flagging them. Who do you trust more?
Computer, human - everyone always forgets the spammers! I trust the spammers. After all, they're only thinking of me and all the products, services and opportunities I might otherwise be unaware of.
So the WINE in DarWINE can't stand for "Wine Is Not an Emulator" because, well, it sorta is? No problem - just change what the letters stand for! I suggest:
Wine Isn't Not an Emulator
Wine Is Now an Emulator
Wine on os x Is doing some New things, possibly including a bit of Emulation
Perhaps if Bush had simply said that to begin with instead of towing the WMD line, people might have generally gone along with him. Perhaps we all could have an honest, adult discussion about the issue and what might be the best way to deal with it.
I still think war in Iraq was really not the best way to start combatting Islamic fundamentalism/radicalism, but perhaps I didn't have all the info. I certainly wasn't given the chance to change my mind or think about it, I was just told Iraq had WMDs and was linked to Osama, both of which turned out not to be true (and Osama's name hasn't been mentioned by the President more than 6-7 times in the past year - apparently not much of a concern for him).
I believe war can be just and necessary from time to time. I agree that fundamentalism of all kinds, especially the kind that tends towards militarism, is the biggest problem we need to be dealing with in the 21st century. Unfortunately Bush picked the wrong target, misled everyone and now we're in a mess that seems to be making things worse than better.
Is a DDOS attack not a form of speech? If financial contributions to political campaigns are considered "speech" then I see no reason why this shouldn't. Money silences (or makes louder) just as much.
Look to South America as well. It was chiefly Brazil, along with other South American, Asian, and probably African countries that took a stand at the world trade summit in Cancun last September. The group may not last, but it's the start of what you're talking about.