Wow, precisely what I wanted to say! The linked MSN article says that Potter is great only because of what others have done, yet it ignores that Potter himself is constantly embarrassed by his fame. It may be less clear in the movies, but I thought it was clear in the books that he doesn't think he deserves his fame.
Not to mention - the series isn't finished yet. He's still a boy learning about life, who just recently learned (4th book, I believe) of his mother's sacrifice for him, and we have no idea what accomplishments or sacrifices he might choose to make in the final book.
Until the series is over, people shouldn't really be criticising Rowling for social statements made through the Potter series - as of now, I regard it as incomplete. It's as if I were to say:
Part 1: Rich people are better than poor people...
Part 2:...is a grave, mistaken assumption to have.
If you only hear part 1, and know that Part 2 exists, you shouldn't judge my views based only on Part 1...
His family is ridiculed, but not because they are Muggles, it's because of the way they behave - they themselves ridiclue "freaks" and those they don't understand, and are portrayed like the buffoons they are. If they were kind, Harry wouldn't have a problem with them.
The characters in the books who hate "ordinary people" are the villains. It shouldn't take much to see that!
The real opportunity would be for all these frustrated overworked workers to get together and say, "What can we do together, for each other, instead of for somebody else?"
Do you love your job? A lot of slashdotters are bound to say they do, if they work with computers, so let me rephrase that - do you love your employer? Do you go to work each day because you love what your company does and you want to devote your life to forwarding their mission? If so, fine, then buckle in and do the extra work because you're working towards a goal you believe in.
If, however, you don't care too much what your company does, and you just need a salary, a paycheck - then why do you do it? You just need the salary, the paycheck, to pay bills and buy necessities, right? And to purchase some entertainment from time to time?
Then why do you need to pay those bills? OK, so you want some electricity. You need to eat. You want to enjoy some entertainment now and then. How much of this can you provide yourself? And how much entertainment (movies, DVDs, vegging out to TV, buying new CDs) do you *need*? I mean, do you buy any of this stuff to counteract stress from work? Then wouldn't structuring your life differently result in less need for entertainment?
So learn to become more self-reliant for those things. Grow some of your own food if you can. Install some solar panels, use an energy co-op instead of an energy company, learn some trade skills, the sorts of things that people need to build the necessities of life.
I'm not saying go back to the trees. I'm not even saying do everything I say. I'm just tossing out food for thought...
I think many people have a job they don't like just because they think "that's the way things are, that's the nature of work - work is dull and hard, a necessary responsibility." But I think work should enrich the spirit - work should not be that thing you have to do so that you can live when you get off work. Work should be your life! You should enjoy it! If you don't enjoy your work, the answer is not "well, I gotta earn a paycheck somehow". It should be "ok, so I don't enjoy my current employment - what might I enjoy instead?"
I dunno, a fewotherplaces that I would regard as more reliable and trustworthy on this issue than Slashdot posters seem to suggest that Pay As You Throw should at least be piloted in NYC. Even the EPA is for such programs...
It's called compromise. ["]I'm on the edge on this bill, but...if you give this to my state/pet issue you have my vote[."]
That's not called compromise, that's called bribery.
The way it should work: "I'm on the edge on your bill, but... if you agree to vote on my (different) bill, you have my vote on yours."
Unrelated bills and laws should not be tied together for any reason. If you can't get enough votes for your bill, then maybe there's something wrong with the bill, and then it should be discussed so a better solution can be found - and the better solution should not involve an unrelated issue.
There really oughtta be a constitutional amendment to outlaw or discourage bills that address more than one issue... Or something...
Well, regardless of NYC's current mayor or the previous one, people have been telling the NYC administration to adopt pay-as-you-throw garbage management for a while, yet instead they decide to cut back on what we recycle. And now they come back half a year later and say they want to adopt pay-as-you-throw garbage management anyway!
You're right, it's not all the mayor's fault. "They" made a half-assed decision to start with, and now "they" will probably make another half-assed decision, unless they reinstate the recycling that they cut earlier.
Which begs the question, "How many people will actually recycle it?"
Here in NYC we can't recycle glass any more. Stupid mayor. Now they want to institute a "pay as you throw" garbage tax, which I think is actually a good idea, but only if they reinstate full recycling.
So anyway, how will these things be recyclable? They're part plastic and part metal, right? They really need to educate people & city recycling programs about how and where to put these if they're truly going to be responsible about their products....as we all should be responsible for what we produce and consume...
Regardless, surely having no physical matter at all is the best solution! Ah, but then we have to worry about how dirty the computer chip manufacturing process is. Trying to be responsible is so damn frustrating sometimes! Maybe I should just give in and pollute to my heart's content!
I've paid quite a bit of attention to the Libertarian Party, and I'm sorry, but I find them quite frightening. The essay I linked to earlier pretty much sums up what I feel about them. libertarianism in general isn't too bad, but the US Libertarian Party is quite questionable, and American Ayn Randian libertarianism in general has its problems.
As for comparing the Libertarian Party to the Republicans and Democrats, they're not the only three parties in the US...
Re:Sigh... Let's Have a Slashdot "Discussion!"
on
Carbon Releases in Asia
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While there is truth in your comments, they could apply to any discussion on Slashdot, not just the ones about the environment. So, perhaps we should get rid of Slashdot? Or perhaps you should just avoid stories and discussions that you feel are going to waste your time?
Personally, I did learn a couple of things from this story's discussion. That's why I come to Slashdot. Why do you?
I wholeheartedly agree. I consider myself a green, but I'm more of an electric green... In no way to I scream "down with tech!" - but I see no reason not to be conscious of our wastes and to be willing to improve our tech in that respect.
People who love a certain tech, whose lives are wrapped around that tech, will always complain when others start pointing out the downsides of said tech. Yet they should see calls for improvement as nothing more than calls for improvement; certainly if they love the tech, they should jump at the challenge to improve it!
Yeah, some people will start going around saying "down with microchips - back to the trees", but you can safely ignore them (or at least their "solution").
That's an incredibly good point - I hadn't thought of the benefit of reduced fuel consumption thanks to info tech.
Still, it's always good to make known the costs of any tech, old or new, if you can. If the 20th century has taught us one thing, it's that waste shouldn't be ignored.
You're right that internet commerce and communications enhancements help reduce our reliance on transportation technologies.
Still, I hope just a few power gaming addicts might reconsider the necessity of the latest & greatest power-hungry chips... Just repeat after me:
"It's OK to use my current silicon a few more years."
"The games I enjoyed playing yesterday are still fun today."...and so on.
Not to speak for the parent to which you replied, but...
Sure, that's a good point - people do consider a little more than money when making decisions. Quality of product is definitely a concern (if you can afford it).
Yet, the question then is, do people still consider everything they could? Have we perhaps learned, at some time in the 20th century, that there might be some costs we tend to overlook, that we weren't even aware of before?
But of course, it may be too costly to worry about hidden costs...
Read the original chip article. Only states estimated costs - no mention of any benefit.
It strikes me as only healthy to take time to examine the costs of our actions. It seems to me that people do not do this often enough.
It also strikes me that criticizing a study of the costs of computer chips for not taking time to point out the benefits of computer chips is like criticizing a study of the costs of cars for not pointing out the benefits of cars. Everyone knows the benefits of cars already; that's why we all use them. And car manufacturers do a good enough job of advertising their products. I would say the same goes for the info tech industry. Computer chips are already everywhere, in practically everything. It would be irrational *not* to wonder about possible downsides, and it seems a bit irrational to demand that everyone speaking up about the downsides should do a full cost-benefit analysis.
And besides, the benefits are going to vary widely across all the many possible uses. The environmental costs of a chip might not outweigh the benefits of using said chip to computer protein folding, but I'd think they might outweigh the benefits of using said chip to animate a child's toy...
I'm not saying they shouldn't do such an analysis or such a study. But of course, as with all things, science must go forth in steps - first you do the smaller study pointing out the problem with the sewer system, then people give you more money to help with solutions or to do the fuller analysis. At least that's my impression.
As for the fact that you "make waste, too", your personal byproducts are decidedly different from the byproducts of silicon manufacturing.
I would agree that they're alarmists cruising for donations. However, I think they have a kernel of a point to their sensationalism.
Is it really necessary to just keep adding to landfills? Can we reduce our waste? Can we waste more wisely? On the flip side, but entirely related to waste, can we consume more wisely? If so, why not? What's wrong with wanting to have less of an impact on the environment?
What does it really mean to use land to its full potential? Does that mean raping it? Or having a relationship more like stewardship, so the land continues to be fertile and usable long into the future? Personally, I'm not anti-technology, but I am a little anti-growth, and I don't think "sustainability" is just a new buzz-word... At least, it isn't to me.
I didn't find it humorous just because I'm familiar with fish farms, and I know that farming has nothing to do with planting...
I didn't find it unhumorous, either - it just didn't make me laugh, and like I said, I couldn't tell if you knew what fish farms were like or not, so I erred on the side of description (as opposed to simply ignoring you.)
I don't know if you're trolling or just haven't seen any fish farms, but the one's I've seen usually have big tubs of water and fish resting on ground that could otherwise be used for other purposes, so it would certainly qualify as fishing on land.
And all of this still ignoring the fact that the WCS article (not the CNN one) doesn't say people are fishing on land...
Though I would still criticize them for leaving out some areas and generally using sensationalist tactics, which don't help the general cause ecology-mindedness...
Perhaps better than antarctica, as long as the area of ocean I move to isn't arctic ocean!
But seriously, good point. I wholeheartedly agree that this statistic seems forced, unscientific, and sensationalist things like this don't really help the ecological, environmental cause in the long run.
And I do think that cause is a worthy one, as long as the goal is a better, more fulfilling life for all humans in the long run, and not, as some seem to think, a preference for the non-human at the expense of humans.
There are as many business/anti-environment/capitalist(?) whackos as there are environmentalist whackos, if you ask me. Do they all reach equilibrium? I don't know.
You mention, "If we eat too much food, one of two things will happen: we figure out how to make more food, or we die."
The question I would raise is this: is the "more food" we figure out how to make actually good for us? Is it good for society?
Is it wrong for some of us to question the authorities and try for a third option (other than "make more food" and "we die"), where we take things a little slower and relax? Why do we need more food? Is whatever we're doing fulfilling us, giving us fuller lives?
Certainly I have no right to force other people to have fewer children and eat organic food, but on the same line of reasoning, does the rest of the world have the right to force its by-products into my life, on the assurances that as long as our GNP is good, everything is good?
Economic, technological, ecological and political decisions affect us all, and all should be made democratically. So far politics is roughly democratic. I say, not good enough.
Statistics like this make for good short-term press, but bad end results. The rob credibility from those of us who just think there is a different way and are trying to live our lives with more kindness towards and acknowledgement of others and the Earth.
Basically, the reason I'm responding to you is that, while I agree that this sort of statistic and press is pretty much wrong and a bad thing to do, I don't think it's very nice or productive to generalize out to "environmentalist whacko friends." Perhaps you really do think that all environmentalist concerns are best ignored, but I would hope that you are just being reactionary to a provacative statistic, and don't really hold all environmental concerns as "sensationalist crap".
Those of us who do not try to provoke or sensationalize go widely unnoticed because of it.
You're right, of course. They should have said 83% of earth's usable surface area is being used. And as soon as you move to Antarctica and live there on your own with no outside help for at least a few years, I'll agree that they should include Antarctica and those other regions as usable surface area.
Seriously, though, it does chap my hide when organizations like these use questionable science to further the cause of ecology. It's just idiotic. I consider myself a green (lower-case-g) and the thing is, we who want a sustainable earth will get nowhere blatantly ignoring good science and flubbing things to further our cause.
The ends do not justify the means - how often must people learn this?
Slashdot Mirror
Majority Schmajority. A majority is made up of individual minorities; the only way to form a majority is to communicate your ideas to individuals.
I hadn't heard about this, but I heard about it now, and I will be participating. He passed it on to one person; his post was a success.
Then join a food co-op. If there isn't one in your area, get some friends together and start one.
There's no good reason anyone should be making a profit off your need for food to stay alive...
Wow, precisely what I wanted to say! The linked MSN article says that Potter is great only because of what others have done, yet it ignores that Potter himself is constantly embarrassed by his fame. It may be less clear in the movies, but I thought it was clear in the books that he doesn't think he deserves his fame.
...is a grave, mistaken assumption to have.
Not to mention - the series isn't finished yet. He's still a boy learning about life, who just recently learned (4th book, I believe) of his mother's sacrifice for him, and we have no idea what accomplishments or sacrifices he might choose to make in the final book.
Until the series is over, people shouldn't really be criticising Rowling for social statements made through the Potter series - as of now, I regard it as incomplete. It's as if I were to say:
Part 1: Rich people are better than poor people...
Part 2:
If you only hear part 1, and know that Part 2 exists, you shouldn't judge my views based only on Part 1...
This AC said just what I was going to say.
His family is ridiculed, but not because they are Muggles, it's because of the way they behave - they themselves ridiclue "freaks" and those they don't understand, and are portrayed like the buffoons they are. If they were kind, Harry wouldn't have a problem with them.
The characters in the books who hate "ordinary people" are the villains. It shouldn't take much to see that!
(in fewer words than my last rambling post)
The real opportunity would be for all these frustrated overworked workers to get together and say, "What can we do together, for each other, instead of for somebody else?"
But that'll never happen...
Do you love your job? A lot of slashdotters are bound to say they do, if they work with computers, so let me rephrase that - do you love your employer? Do you go to work each day because you love what your company does and you want to devote your life to forwarding their mission? If so, fine, then buckle in and do the extra work because you're working towards a goal you believe in.
If, however, you don't care too much what your company does, and you just need a salary, a paycheck - then why do you do it? You just need the salary, the paycheck, to pay bills and buy necessities, right? And to purchase some entertainment from time to time?
Then why do you need to pay those bills? OK, so you want some electricity. You need to eat. You want to enjoy some entertainment now and then. How much of this can you provide yourself? And how much entertainment (movies, DVDs, vegging out to TV, buying new CDs) do you *need*? I mean, do you buy any of this stuff to counteract stress from work? Then wouldn't structuring your life differently result in less need for entertainment?
So learn to become more self-reliant for those things. Grow some of your own food if you can. Install some solar panels, use an energy co-op instead of an energy company, learn some trade skills, the sorts of things that people need to build the necessities of life.
I'm not saying go back to the trees. I'm not even saying do everything I say. I'm just tossing out food for thought...
I think many people have a job they don't like just because they think "that's the way things are, that's the nature of work - work is dull and hard, a necessary responsibility." But I think work should enrich the spirit - work should not be that thing you have to do so that you can live when you get off work. Work should be your life! You should enjoy it! If you don't enjoy your work, the answer is not "well, I gotta earn a paycheck somehow". It should be "ok, so I don't enjoy my current employment - what might I enjoy instead?"
I dunno, a few other places that I would regard as more reliable and trustworthy on this issue than Slashdot posters seem to suggest that Pay As You Throw should at least be piloted in NYC. Even the EPA is for such programs...
It's called compromise. ["]I'm on the edge on this bill, but...if you give this to my state/pet issue you have my vote[."]
That's not called compromise, that's called bribery.
The way it should work: "I'm on the edge on your bill, but... if you agree to vote on my (different) bill, you have my vote on yours."
Unrelated bills and laws should not be tied together for any reason. If you can't get enough votes for your bill, then maybe there's something wrong with the bill, and then it should be discussed so a better solution can be found - and the better solution should not involve an unrelated issue.
There really oughtta be a constitutional amendment to outlaw or discourage bills that address more than one issue... Or something...
Well, regardless of NYC's current mayor or the previous one, people have been telling the NYC administration to adopt pay-as-you-throw garbage management for a while, yet instead they decide to cut back on what we recycle. And now they come back half a year later and say they want to adopt pay-as-you-throw garbage management anyway!
:P
You're right, it's not all the mayor's fault. "They" made a half-assed decision to start with, and now "they" will probably make another half-assed decision, unless they reinstate the recycling that they cut earlier.
IMHO
Which begs the question, "How many people will actually recycle it?"
...as we all should be responsible for what we produce and consume...
Here in NYC we can't recycle glass any more. Stupid mayor. Now they want to institute a "pay as you throw" garbage tax, which I think is actually a good idea, but only if they reinstate full recycling.
So anyway, how will these things be recyclable? They're part plastic and part metal, right? They really need to educate people & city recycling programs about how and where to put these if they're truly going to be responsible about their products.
Regardless, surely having no physical matter at all is the best solution! Ah, but then we have to worry about how dirty the computer chip manufacturing process is. Trying to be responsible is so damn frustrating sometimes! Maybe I should just give in and pollute to my heart's content!
Well, it's hard to find a low horse these days...
I've paid quite a bit of attention to the Libertarian Party, and I'm sorry, but I find them quite frightening. The essay I linked to earlier pretty much sums up what I feel about them. libertarianism in general isn't too bad, but the US Libertarian Party is quite questionable, and American Ayn Randian libertarianism in general has its problems.
t ml
As for comparing the Libertarian Party to the Republicans and Democrats, they're not the only three parties in the US...
Now libertarian socialism, on the other hand, there's something that's not a bad idea... http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/polemica.h
While there is truth in your comments, they could apply to any discussion on Slashdot, not just the ones about the environment. So, perhaps we should get rid of Slashdot? Or perhaps you should just avoid stories and discussions that you feel are going to waste your time?
Personally, I did learn a couple of things from this story's discussion. That's why I come to Slashdot. Why do you?
Sure there are problems, and different options are better for different places...
Regardless, I agree with you, and I just wanted to reply with this link to Guerilla Solar: http://www.homepower.com/magazine/guerrilla.cfm
Yeehaw!
Off-topic, of course - I just have one thing to say about this: http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html
I wholeheartedly agree. I consider myself a green, but I'm more of an electric green... In no way to I scream "down with tech!" - but I see no reason not to be conscious of our wastes and to be willing to improve our tech in that respect.
People who love a certain tech, whose lives are wrapped around that tech, will always complain when others start pointing out the downsides of said tech. Yet they should see calls for improvement as nothing more than calls for improvement; certainly if they love the tech, they should jump at the challenge to improve it!
Yeah, some people will start going around saying "down with microchips - back to the trees", but you can safely ignore them (or at least their "solution").
That's an incredibly good point - I hadn't thought of the benefit of reduced fuel consumption thanks to info tech.
...and so on.
Still, it's always good to make known the costs of any tech, old or new, if you can. If the 20th century has taught us one thing, it's that waste shouldn't be ignored.
You're right that internet commerce and communications enhancements help reduce our reliance on transportation technologies.
Still, I hope just a few power gaming addicts might reconsider the necessity of the latest & greatest power-hungry chips... Just repeat after me:
"It's OK to use my current silicon a few more years."
"The games I enjoyed playing yesterday are still fun today."
Not to speak for the parent to which you replied, but...
Sure, that's a good point - people do consider a little more than money when making decisions. Quality of product is definitely a concern (if you can afford it).
Yet, the question then is, do people still consider everything they could? Have we perhaps learned, at some time in the 20th century, that there might be some costs we tend to overlook, that we weren't even aware of before?
But of course, it may be too costly to worry about hidden costs...
Read the original chip article. Only states estimated costs - no mention of any benefit.
It strikes me as only healthy to take time to examine the costs of our actions. It seems to me that people do not do this often enough.
It also strikes me that criticizing a study of the costs of computer chips for not taking time to point out the benefits of computer chips is like criticizing a study of the costs of cars for not pointing out the benefits of cars. Everyone knows the benefits of cars already; that's why we all use them. And car manufacturers do a good enough job of advertising their products. I would say the same goes for the info tech industry. Computer chips are already everywhere, in practically everything. It would be irrational *not* to wonder about possible downsides, and it seems a bit irrational to demand that everyone speaking up about the downsides should do a full cost-benefit analysis.
And besides, the benefits are going to vary widely across all the many possible uses. The environmental costs of a chip might not outweigh the benefits of using said chip to computer protein folding, but I'd think they might outweigh the benefits of using said chip to animate a child's toy...
I'm not saying they shouldn't do such an analysis or such a study. But of course, as with all things, science must go forth in steps - first you do the smaller study pointing out the problem with the sewer system, then people give you more money to help with solutions or to do the fuller analysis. At least that's my impression.
As for the fact that you "make waste, too", your personal byproducts are decidedly different from the byproducts of silicon manufacturing.
I would hope...
I would agree that they're alarmists cruising for donations. However, I think they have a kernel of a point to their sensationalism.
Is it really necessary to just keep adding to landfills? Can we reduce our waste? Can we waste more wisely? On the flip side, but entirely related to waste, can we consume more wisely? If so, why not? What's wrong with wanting to have less of an impact on the environment?
What does it really mean to use land to its full potential? Does that mean raping it? Or having a relationship more like stewardship, so the land continues to be fertile and usable long into the future? Personally, I'm not anti-technology, but I am a little anti-growth, and I don't think "sustainability" is just a new buzz-word... At least, it isn't to me.
I didn't find it humorous just because I'm familiar with fish farms, and I know that farming has nothing to do with planting...
I didn't find it unhumorous, either - it just didn't make me laugh, and like I said, I couldn't tell if you knew what fish farms were like or not, so I erred on the side of description (as opposed to simply ignoring you.)
Sorry.
I don't know if you're trolling or just haven't seen any fish farms, but the one's I've seen usually have big tubs of water and fish resting on ground that could otherwise be used for other purposes, so it would certainly qualify as fishing on land.
And all of this still ignoring the fact that the WCS article (not the CNN one) doesn't say people are fishing on land...
Though I would still criticize them for leaving out some areas and generally using sensationalist tactics, which don't help the general cause ecology-mindedness...
Perhaps better than antarctica, as long as the area of ocean I move to isn't arctic ocean!
But seriously, good point. I wholeheartedly agree that this statistic seems forced, unscientific, and sensationalist things like this don't really help the ecological, environmental cause in the long run.
And I do think that cause is a worthy one, as long as the goal is a better, more fulfilling life for all humans in the long run, and not, as some seem to think, a preference for the non-human at the expense of humans.
There are as many business/anti-environment/capitalist(?) whackos as there are environmentalist whackos, if you ask me. Do they all reach equilibrium? I don't know.
You mention, "If we eat too much food, one of two things will happen: we figure out how to make more food, or we die."
The question I would raise is this: is the "more food" we figure out how to make actually good for us? Is it good for society?
Is it wrong for some of us to question the authorities and try for a third option (other than "make more food" and "we die"), where we take things a little slower and relax? Why do we need more food? Is whatever we're doing fulfilling us, giving us fuller lives?
Certainly I have no right to force other people to have fewer children and eat organic food, but on the same line of reasoning, does the rest of the world have the right to force its by-products into my life, on the assurances that as long as our GNP is good, everything is good?
Economic, technological, ecological and political decisions affect us all, and all should be made democratically. So far politics is roughly democratic. I say, not good enough.
Statistics like this make for good short-term press, but bad end results. The rob credibility from those of us who just think there is a different way and are trying to live our lives with more kindness towards and acknowledgement of others and the Earth.
Basically, the reason I'm responding to you is that, while I agree that this sort of statistic and press is pretty much wrong and a bad thing to do, I don't think it's very nice or productive to generalize out to "environmentalist whacko friends." Perhaps you really do think that all environmentalist concerns are best ignored, but I would hope that you are just being reactionary to a provacative statistic, and don't really hold all environmental concerns as "sensationalist crap".
Those of us who do not try to provoke or sensationalize go widely unnoticed because of it.
You're right, of course. They should have said 83% of earth's usable surface area is being used. And as soon as you move to Antarctica and live there on your own with no outside help for at least a few years, I'll agree that they should include Antarctica and those other regions as usable surface area.
Seriously, though, it does chap my hide when organizations like these use questionable science to further the cause of ecology. It's just idiotic. I consider myself a green (lower-case-g) and the thing is, we who want a sustainable earth will get nowhere blatantly ignoring good science and flubbing things to further our cause.
The ends do not justify the means - how often must people learn this?