As some uninformed person once said, "I may not know art, but I know what I like."
And personally, I don't like the first "poem" listed.
The first one says: Words aren't free anymore bicornuate-bicervical uterus one-eyed hemi-vagina www.unbehagen.com
This is supposed to be a poem? Come on, it's childish gibberish at best, and at worst it is a verbal attack on women. And since it is is response to the keyword "symtom", what relevence is it?
The second one says: Follow your dreams Did I just urinate ? Directly into the wind www.unbehagen.com
Again, childish drivel, in response to the keyword "dream".
the third one actually is redeeming: mary !!! I love you come back john
While not great literature, very emotive. In response to "mary", by the way.
And the last: don't ever do that again aaargh ! are you mad ? ooops !!!
This one is in response to the keyword "money". so while it isn't as tasteless as the first two, what relevence does it have?
While I do support artistic expression, even the ones I find offensive or dimwitted, I also support the right of companies to limit their services as they see fit. If Google decides that these "poems" are offensive to their normal audience, they have the right to stop them. At least suspend them pending further review, and possibly see where the artist is going with it.
If these "poems" (I can't even legitimately call them poems, so yes the quotes are needed.) contained racist comments, they would be pulled in the same way. Since a large number of people may find at least the first two offensive, Google can pull them if they like, or if their legal advisors deem it appropriate.
I haven't read the whole page, just the top part, so I don't know where the porn ties into it, but this doesn't seem as big a deal as the submitter makes it out to be. If I searched for "dream" and got a link about peeing into the wind, I wouldn't be to impressed with the service.
What about the large number that don't make a sport out of killing? Hunting for food has been a human occupation for millenia, but now it's bad because some people hunt for sport?
What about the large number of bulls killed in Spain and Latin America, just for the sport of bull-fighting? There it is a whole society that condones the sport of killing. Do you feel they are less evolved than you, because you are above that?
How is hunting, even for sport, more objectionable than raising cows or chickens in pens and cages, then cutting their heads off in a slaughterhouse? Both mean animals die, and their flesh is eaten. But one is 'Good' and one is 'Bad'.
Sandman935 quoted "I would argue that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that citizens have a means to resist an oppressive government and take up arms against it. "
Sandman935 responded "I would argue that this argument is a load of crap. Personal firearms are not enougn to resist an oppressive government, if that government is the United States. "
So by his reasoning, he must believe we should repeal the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, because it is not effective anymore. You can't fight the government, just give in to it. So we should also stop worrying about the DMCA, and the new one whose acronym escapes me, (CDBDTA???? Make it difficult, and no one can fight it. I can't even remember it.) We should repeal the First Amendment, since we can't fight the government.
Hell, let's just repeal the whole Constitution, and have the current government rule for life, with no limits to their power. We obviously can't change the system.
Talk about a load of crap. Your agrument is that and more. And who ever said fighter aircraft and armored vehicles were illegal? Many people own WWII planes. Ever go to an airshow? You should, and get an education about reality. And how could an armored vehicle itself be illegal. "Sorry, sir, but your vehicle doesn't meet California's 'Non-armor' requirement, and must be confiscated." That's just silly of you.
Besides, just because there are laws passed limiting gun possession, especially automatic rifles, and limiting high-explosives or artillery, many groups consider those laws to be unconstitutional, and own those things regardless. The fact the the ATF and FBI don't like it is not one of their concerns.
Actually, at this time of year, several ranges have rectangular targets. If you look closely, you can see the numbers 1, 0, 4, 0 in the top left corner.
The people shaped targets are mainly going to be used by people who have to shoot at people for their job, such as police and bodyguards. Can't fault them for that, with their life on the line if they miss.
"What's the chance of some spammer using his sister's Yahoo address as the FROM address?"
Oh shit, imagine the damage that could do if they did.
From: YourSister@yahoo.com
Hey Brother, Mom was just saying about a problem your wife was talking to her about at the hair-dressers the other day. Everyone there agreed what you need is...
Natural Herbal Viagra Substitute Natural Cream Penis-enlarger, rub it on daily Plus Patented Hair Tonic with Minoxidal Chuck Norris' Weight bench
Go to my websight for all your needs, xxx.slutstore.com/~yoursistersnamehere And by the way, see your wife at xxx.slutfest.com/~freepics.
It doesn't matter to me if the spam actually came from Yahoo or not. I receive many that have the From being a Yahoo address. So just by blocking anything from Yahoo, it all goes away. And since I didn't know anyone with a Yahoo account, I never had to worry about missing a valid message. That is all that has to change now, thanks to my sister.
My sister was wondering why I never replied to her emails that she's been sending for the last few months. I never saw them. I have blocks for all Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink, & MSN addresses, as well as others.
So I unblocked yahoo, and have received a message from her so I know the 'unblock' is working. I also received 5 spams, 3 within the first hour, so I have also verified that the block was working well too.
Now I just have to redo the block, letting hers through.
Or maybe follow the advice others have said, forward all the spam to my congress-critters. Can't stand most of them anyway, so it should be fun.:^)
Great book. Loved reading the scientists take on slide rules versus calculators small enough you can hang them on your belt with a piece of rope.
I didn't think about it when I read the story earlier, but I can definitely see how you'd freak out if you're in the middle of the story like that. Time to sit down, have a drink, and check the Weather Channel.
By the way, who is reading the story? How good of a job do they do? I've never used one of those audio books, but that one could be great for it.
For fun, I tried your experiment. (Where did I see that picture before??? Just recently, I know.... How funny, eh?)
As I made the asteroid larger, I noticed how wide the crater would be. With an 8000 kilometer wide asteroid, the crater would have a diameter greater than the circumference of the entire planet. Kind of silly that they didn't notice that.
Realisticly, that large of a rock would either pulverize the planet into a new asteroid belt, or a large blob of molton rock would be jettisoned out the other side. That large blob would of course also contain countless humans and other artifacts of the surface on that side of the planet. Either way, we would cease to exist.
So, why aren't this well respected bunch of scientists worried more about the lost of 5500 square kilometers of ice in the Amundsen Sea area?
The BBC article you linked to talked about it after getting all apoplectic about a mere 3250 square kilometer ice shelf. Why is this one ice shelf more important that another which is far larger?
Plus the article does correctly say that the temperature in the interior of Antarctice is actually dropping. So how is this the result of global warming?
By the way, I love your last line above: "THEY are not sandal-wearing hippie museli munchers: they'r PhDs, grad students, professors etc who spend 6 months a year living on the ice."
Yes, I am sure the long-haired hippies who spend 6 months living on the ice don't wear sandals. But that doesn't mean they don't munch on museli, whatever that is.
Re:OT, but I just had to say...
on
Patent Nonsense
·
· Score: 1
Yes, I totally agree. I think one reason this doesn't happen more often is noone wants to lose karma by having their thread modded (-1 Offtopic). I was actually surprised mine wasn't modded (-1 Troll, And A Sick Troll At That).
In fact, the last time I made a comment like this, it happened to be the same time that CmdrTaco and crew were moving everything over to new hardware. This was last fall sometime. The whole thread disappeared, everything from my post through about 5 responses. I just figured I had touched someone's nerve at/.HQ, and they zapped me and the discussion. (Not the infamous Bitchslap, because I wasn't re-posting it. Just a wake-up call to get my attention.) But I am sure it was just a glitch while transferring the database to the new servers. wink-wink
And of course I always try to give credit where it's due. The arguments ragmana gave were good ones, which I just don't agree with. But most importantly, he made several statements that agreed with each other. Even when dealing with people face-to-face on something they believe in that isn't that common, no matter what group the people are from. But notice ragmana cheats, by being a logician, which I am sure helps to form strong, logically sound arguments.:^)
Anyhow, we'll see where this stands after ragmana composes a response. I wouldn't be opposed to exchanging opinions in another forum if a more suitable one was suggested.
You obviously have thought about this topic before. I figured you original post was just a knee-jerk reaction to corporate greed. But your statements are clear, reasoned, and most of all, consistent. (Are we still on Slashdot here?)
That being said, I disagree with much of your arguments, and feel others are not relevent.
First, saying that drug companies won't lose a dime means nothing to drug companies, or almost any other company. They expect a profit for their product and effort. They expect more profit for more product and more effort. This is to cover their earnings statements for stock prices, and to make it worthwhile from the "can we get sued for anything" standpoint. These two concerns alone will keep companies from voluntarily giving drugs/medicines without proper profit.
So my solution to this predicament isn't to force them to give away their product for low prices. It is to revamp the stock market and litigation process. Then when these two stumbling blocks are gone, strongly encourage companies to be more giving of cheap drugs.
Second, you are right, that was a bad joke. But if the end-result of your plan is more deaths in the third world, would you accept the blame? You don't think that would happen, but what if it did? All too often, people with your viewpoint never even think about this. But it is a possibility, it should be mentioned, debated, and talked about.
Third point, No, medicine is not a right. Why do you think it is everyone's right to have an artificial chemical made halfway around the world? Was it their right before the drug was invented? Of course not. But just because the drug _is_ invented, people have an inate right to it? I don't follow the reasoning. (Notice, I do agree that you have reasoned this out, as I mentioned above. But I just can't see the link you do.)
And as far as "medicine=survival", I don't accept that as a reason for anything else you suggest. Have you seen the trailers for that new movie "John Q", about a boy who needs a heart transplant, but the family can't afford it? Are you willing to pay for every heart transplant in the world? Because "heart=survival" is certainly more definite that "medicine=survival". But if you want every medical need to be given to everyone who can't afford it, who will pay for it? You are talking about a social health system, which won't work for long. Just ask the French who had the privilege of having a Doctor's Strike a couple months ago. Check this link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/euro pe/news id_1777000/1777952.stm The US may not have everything right, but at least I can count on doctors to be at their office, waiting to take my money.
Now for the kicker. I personally don't believe there are 'inalienable human rights'. For anyone. You have the right to that which you would fight for if pressed. I have the right to own land, because I will fight to defend it. I have the right to my my books and toys for the same reason. The government doesn't have the power to give me this right, only I do. I don't have the right to live, (which some people have told me very clearly) nor the right to liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness. That is just so much paternal mumbo-jumbo from a group that was trying to throw off tyranny. The Bill of Rights enshrines certain ideals that are termed "rights", but the government tramples those rights all the time. The concept of human rights is used by anyone who has an agenda they need to force on someone else. The universal cry is "But it's my/his/her/their right."
I like Heinlein's take on it in the novel "Starship Troopers". If you are floating in the middle of the ocean, slowly sinking under the waves, where is your 'right' to live? Will the waves not drown you, because you have a right to life? Of course the waves don't care about your concept of a 'right to life'.
Furthermore, the only right I recognize is the right to a chance. You have a chance to live. If medicine is needed to live, and you can't get it, you won't live. But you had the chance. You did live for a while. I feel this applies not only to humans, but to everything else. Every animal and plant has the right to a chance to do something. If someone or something eats them first, tough luck. If they get trampled by a herd of buffalo, so be it. That's the chance you take.
The same applies to business and other pursuits. You have the right to a chance to be the president, an olymian, business-owner, etc. If you don't make it, well, you still had a chance. Even if someone takes an active interest in keeping you from succeeding, you had a chance. If someone kills me on my way home today, I still had a chance of living tomorrow. Just my dumb luck to get killed before then.
Now as for companies helping the poor third-world people with free or low-cost drugs, if they don't want to, you can't make them. Because they will fight for their "right" to run a business how they see proper. And they have the law on their side. And yes, they have many politicians in their pocket as well. But until you can change the laws, and require them to give the stuff away, they won't. And if you can change the laws like that, you better make them immune from lawsuits, or they still won't do it.
My final point is one I have stated before, but noone ever agrees with me. For all the actions which companies do, that you disagree with, do you evaluate your patronage of that company? Do you buy one brand of product because its maker is more concerned with helping others? Do you refuse to buy paper from a company because they are cutting down the rain forest, and buy from another company that isn't? Or do you just buy whatever brand you want, or what's on sale, with no deeper consideration than convenience and price?
Oh, and I also toss a penny in the cup now and then. Cheers.
So where would those third-world inhabitants get their life-saving medicines if all the drug companies stop looking for cures for diseases? Many of the currently-patented medicines only work for selected things, such as the latest viral infections, and will be useless in a few years as the viruses/bacteria mutate.
If you want the drug companies to stop investing in new research, keep saying they don't deserve to profit from human misery. They will oblige your sincere concern by concentrating on diseases that only affect rich old Americans. (Plenty of money, they can't take it with them, and don't want to leave it to their spoiled kids.) Then you will know you're responsible for all the third-world deaths.
By the way, if my message isn't clear, medicine is not a 'right'. 'Human rights' aren't even well standardized to begin with. For you to tell a company they "do not deserve" their profit because someone's poor, but it's ok if someone else is rich, is such a crock. Do you freely give your time and possessions to the poor people in your city? Every month, week, day? Do you offer to pay for someone's lunch if they are hungrier than you? Do you even put a penny in the dish beside the cash-register at the gas station?
But you expect companies to be forced to. Maybe we should just have higher taxes so we can all pay for medicine for the whole world. Or force McDonald's to have to feed the third world, since they are one of those "highly profitable companies" you talk about.
"There are several other examples of different species interbreeding. Most commonly this happens with humans."
Oh great! Make a controversial statement like that. Sure, go ahead. You just opened up a whole new can of worms buddy. A huge can of 50,000 worms to be exact. And each one is a new species.
That just increased the number of species. Now the new estimate for the total number of species is 10,050,000 to 100,050,000. And since we have to catalog these 50,000 worms, you set us back a whole year. I hope you're happy.
Signed, Prof. I. M. Yuseless Chairman Worldwide Council of Species Discovery and Navel-gazing Sciences Discoverer of the Who (Horton was a student of mine)
How many of the 10-100 million species they anticipate finding are bacteria? The eco-radicals say there are hundreds of "Species" becoming extinct every day/week/month (depending on how much funding they are asking for), but they don't say species of what. Turns out someone brushed their teeth after a weeklong binge, and exterminated 200 species of plaque.
(And if you think plaque isn't worth saving, check this article about "Intergeneric Communication in Dental Plaque Biofilms". Without this 'streptococcus-rich biofilm', what would these researchers do?
Do we really care to "discover" every special variant of the streptococcus bacteria? In every person's mouth? In every dog's and cat's mouth?
Granted the number of insect species is estimated in the multi-millions as well, but to reach 100 million separate species, these guys must be navel-gazing and wondering what lives there.
So you want to make GOLD atoms by hitting LEAD atoms with three anti-protons?
First, it seems that the anti-protons would react with any particles (as opposed to anti-particles) that they contact. But since anti-protons have a charge, they might not hit what you want. Using anti-nuetrons would be better, being neutral, so the electrons and protons don't affect it. But what if the first anti-particle just hit a neutron in the lead atom, and made an isotope, but don't degrade the atom down to a gold atom? You would probably have to use more than three to get the required reduction in protons to turn lead into gold.
Now for the second part. What would be the effect on an atom when several anti-particles are fired at it? The explosion would be very tiny to our observation, since we are made of billions of atoms, but to the atom itself, it would be catastrophic. Compare it to a house. There are wood 2-by-4s in the walls, holding everything together. An anti-2-by-4 comes flying in, contacts a wall, and annihilates itself along with the point of the wall it touched. Total conversion of matter and anti-matter into energy. How much energy do you think those two items have? Would it be enough to destroy the house? Probably.
So for an atom, you would have the remainder of the neutrons, protons, and electrons, even though they weren't hit with the anti-matter, sent spinning out of control like Darth Vader at the end of Star Wars. No gold for you.
Well, first about the children of a banker, noone has ever been described as a 'starving banker'.
But it isn't about the spouse or children of the author starving. Maybe they are fully working professionals with 6-digit bank accounts, and the author's work in question doesn't generate any money at all. It is about authors having control over their work during their lifetime, because they are the ones who made the work in question. Why should I be able to take a story written by someone else, print my own copies of it, and sell them? With or without acknowledging who originally wrote it, or adding my own embellishments.
I think that literature should be protected by copyright for the life of the author, so they have control over who can print it, make derivative works, or expand on it. The original author made the original work, so why should anyone else expect to profit from it without permission. (Profit here may not be monetary, it may be social standing, or professional regard too. So someone who writes derivative works to put in the public domain still profits from their actions.)
But what if the original author dies a month after their work is published? Should everyone immediately be able to usurp their works? I think 20 years is adequate to cover this situation. But even for work produced long before their death, the author's heirs should have control for a certain period of time, because they are the heirs of the original author of the work. I don't care if the heirs are the author's spouse, children, neices, neighbor, or an orphanage that an author decides to bestow with their estate. An author leaves a legacy containing the works that he or she produced. That legacy should be inheritable, and protected for a short time. Even if the heirs decide not to allow any use of the works, and therefor negate your argument against the "universe [owing] something to the children of an author" Indeed that is one of the complaints, that the heirs won't let a derivative work be made, even for a large payment. They feel that profiting from the work of the original author would be wrong.
Now, if you noticed I used the phrase "literature should be protected", but not everything is literature. JRR Tolkiens wrote literature in "The Lord of the Rings", but my college physics textbook was not literature. It wasn't even good reading. For 'knowledge based' works, the copyright should be shorter than for literature. Same as corporate copyrights.
Other postings have said there are 10,000 novels from 1929 that we can't read, because they are still under copyright. But who cares, most of them weren't very good. Look at the thousands of books in bookstores now that are garbage. (Pick whatever genre you don't like.) Do I care that they are protected for a century by copyright? Not in the least. Would the authors lose control over their works if they were released to the public domain? Of course not. Noone wants to read a second version of the crap that they don't want to read the original verion of in the first place. Nobody would bother making their own copies of it. But that doesn't mean that the copyright should automatically be revoked.
So, in conclusion...No the universe doesn't owe anything to the children or spouse of an author. But neither does it owe anything to the general public either. It is the authors who deserve to control their own work that I am in support of. And that extends to their heirs, for a short time, as the guardians of an author's legacy.
It would be of much interest to probate court proceedings, which routinely have to consider claims of 'illegitimate' heirs that want part of their parent's estate.
And is it any less involved for a man to have his sperm frozen for later use, by him and his wife, than a man who has a one-night stand and years later discovers the woman got pregnant and had a baby. The welfare laws would expect him to pay, even though he had no intention of having a child, and knew nothing about it for years or decades.
"(This one's kinda silly, but maybe not.) Don't want there to be an incentive for people to knock you off in order to get your IP. Want someone's IP? Assassinate them!"
Everytime I see something about 'IP', I think the person is talking about network addresses. Not that it usually makes any difference. But it makes the above paragraph have a totally different tone.
Imagine if people wanted to kill you to get your IP address. "So, either we get your IP, or you sleep with the fishes." "Really, I can't give it to you. It's DHCP, honest to God!!"
Slashdot Mirror
As some uninformed person once said,
"I may not know art, but I know what I like."
And personally, I don't like the first "poem" listed.
The first one says:
Words aren't free anymore
bicornuate-bicervical uterus
one-eyed hemi-vagina
www.unbehagen.com
This is supposed to be a poem? Come on, it's childish gibberish at best, and at worst it is a verbal attack on women. And since it is is response to the keyword "symtom", what relevence is it?
The second one says:
Follow your dreams
Did I just urinate ?
Directly into the wind
www.unbehagen.com
Again, childish drivel, in response to the keyword "dream".
the third one actually is redeeming:
mary !!!
I love you
come back
john
While not great literature, very emotive. In response to "mary", by the way.
And the last:
don't ever do that again
aaargh !
are you mad ?
ooops !!!
This one is in response to the keyword "money". so while it isn't as tasteless as the first two, what relevence does it have?
While I do support artistic expression, even the ones I find offensive or dimwitted, I also support the right of companies to limit their services as they see fit. If Google decides that these "poems" are offensive to their normal audience, they have the right to stop them. At least suspend them pending further review, and possibly see where the artist is going with it.
If these "poems" (I can't even legitimately call them poems, so yes the quotes are needed.) contained racist comments, they would be pulled in the same way. Since a large number of people may find at least the first two offensive, Google can pull them if they like, or if their legal advisors deem it appropriate.
I haven't read the whole page, just the top part, so I don't know where the porn ties into it, but this doesn't seem as big a deal as the submitter makes it out to be. If I searched for "dream" and got a link about peeing into the wind, I wouldn't be to impressed with the service.
Please say that you've heard of it.
Don't tell me you use 10W30. Everyone knows how bad petroleum based lubricants are on latex membranes.
Even PAM cooking spray would be preferable to WD40, plus you can get that Real Butter Flavor smell.
Check this link:
m l
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48913,00.ht
Granted it won't change most people's minds, but it shows a very strong argument for gun ownership, and a novel way to highlight it.
What about the large number that don't make a sport out of killing? Hunting for food has been a human occupation for millenia, but now it's bad because some people hunt for sport?
What about the large number of bulls killed in Spain and Latin America, just for the sport of bull-fighting? There it is a whole society that condones the sport of killing. Do you feel they are less evolved than you, because you are above that?
How is hunting, even for sport, more objectionable than raising cows or chickens in pens and cages, then cutting their heads off in a slaughterhouse? Both mean animals die, and their flesh is eaten. But one is 'Good' and one is 'Bad'.
Sandman935 quoted "I would argue that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that citizens have a means to resist an oppressive government and take up arms against it. "
Sandman935 responded "I would argue that this argument is a load of crap. Personal firearms are not enougn to resist an oppressive government, if that government is the United States. "
So by his reasoning, he must believe we should repeal the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, because it is not effective anymore. You can't fight the government, just give in to it. So we should also stop worrying about the DMCA, and the new one whose acronym escapes me, (CDBDTA???? Make it difficult, and no one can fight it. I can't even remember it.) We should repeal the First Amendment, since we can't fight the government.
Hell, let's just repeal the whole Constitution, and have the current government rule for life, with no limits to their power. We obviously can't change the system.
Talk about a load of crap. Your agrument is that and more. And who ever said fighter aircraft and armored vehicles were illegal? Many people own WWII planes. Ever go to an airshow? You should, and get an education about reality. And how could an armored vehicle itself be illegal. "Sorry, sir, but your vehicle doesn't meet California's 'Non-armor' requirement, and must be confiscated." That's just silly of you.
Besides, just because there are laws passed limiting gun possession, especially automatic rifles, and limiting high-explosives or artillery, many groups consider those laws to be unconstitutional, and own those things regardless. The fact the the ATF and FBI don't like it is not one of their concerns.
Actually, at this time of year, several ranges have rectangular targets. If you look closely, you can see the numbers 1, 0, 4, 0 in the top left corner.
The people shaped targets are mainly going to be used by people who have to shoot at people for their job, such as police and bodyguards. Can't fault them for that, with their life on the line if they miss.
"What's the chance of some spammer using his sister's Yahoo address as the FROM address?"
Oh shit, imagine the damage that could do if they did.
From: YourSister@yahoo.com
Hey Brother,
Mom was just saying about a problem your wife was talking to her about at the hair-dressers the other day. Everyone there agreed what you need is...
Natural Herbal Viagra Substitute
Natural Cream Penis-enlarger, rub it on daily
Plus Patented Hair Tonic with Minoxidal
Chuck Norris' Weight bench
Go to my websight for all your needs, xxx.slutstore.com/~yoursistersnamehere
And by the way, see your wife at xxx.slutfest.com/~freepics.
It doesn't matter to me if the spam actually came from Yahoo or not. I receive many that have the From being a Yahoo address. So just by blocking anything from Yahoo, it all goes away. And since I didn't know anyone with a Yahoo account, I never had to worry about missing a valid message. That is all that has to change now, thanks to my sister.
My sister was wondering why I never replied to her emails that she's been sending for the last few months. I never saw them. I have blocks for all Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink, & MSN addresses, as well as others.
:^)
So I unblocked yahoo, and have received a message from her so I know the 'unblock' is working. I also received 5 spams, 3 within the first hour, so I have also verified that the block was working well too.
Now I just have to redo the block, letting hers through.
Or maybe follow the advice others have said, forward all the spam to my congress-critters. Can't stand most of them anyway, so it should be fun.
God, at first glance I thought you said the book was written by Conan O'Brian. That would have made it a whole new experience.
Great book. Loved reading the scientists take on slide rules versus calculators small enough you can hang them on your belt with a piece of rope.
I didn't think about it when I read the story earlier, but I can definitely see how you'd freak out if you're in the middle of the story like that. Time to sit down, have a drink, and check the Weather Channel.
By the way, who is reading the story? How good of a job do they do? I've never used one of those audio books, but that one could be great for it.
For fun, I tried your experiment. (Where did I see that picture before??? Just recently, I know.... How funny, eh?)
As I made the asteroid larger, I noticed how wide the crater would be. With an 8000 kilometer wide asteroid, the crater would have a diameter greater than the circumference of the entire planet. Kind of silly that they didn't notice that.
Realisticly, that large of a rock would either pulverize the planet into a new asteroid belt, or a large blob of molton rock would be jettisoned out the other side. That large blob would of course also contain countless humans and other artifacts of the surface on that side of the planet. Either way, we would cease to exist.
So, why aren't this well respected bunch of scientists worried more about the lost of 5500 square kilometers of ice in the Amundsen Sea area?
The BBC article you linked to talked about it after getting all apoplectic about a mere 3250 square kilometer ice shelf. Why is this one ice shelf more important that another which is far larger?
Plus the article does correctly say that the temperature in the interior of Antarctice is actually dropping. So how is this the result of global warming?
By the way, I love your last line above:
"THEY are not sandal-wearing hippie museli munchers: they'r PhDs, grad students, professors etc who spend 6 months a year living on the ice."
Yes, I am sure the long-haired hippies who spend 6 months living on the ice don't wear sandals. But that doesn't mean they don't munch on museli, whatever that is.
Yes, I totally agree. I think one reason this doesn't happen more often is noone wants to lose karma by having their thread modded (-1 Offtopic). I was actually surprised mine wasn't modded (-1 Troll, And A Sick Troll At That).
/.HQ, and they zapped me and the discussion. (Not the infamous Bitchslap, because I wasn't re-posting it. Just a wake-up call to get my attention.) But I am sure it was just a glitch while transferring the database to the new servers. wink-wink
:^)
In fact, the last time I made a comment like this, it happened to be the same time that CmdrTaco and crew were moving everything over to new hardware. This was last fall sometime. The whole thread disappeared, everything from my post through about 5 responses. I just figured I had touched someone's nerve at
And of course I always try to give credit where it's due. The arguments ragmana gave were good ones, which I just don't agree with. But most importantly, he made several statements that agreed with each other. Even when dealing with people face-to-face on something they believe in that isn't that common, no matter what group the people are from. But notice ragmana cheats, by being a logician, which I am sure helps to form strong, logically sound arguments.
Anyhow, we'll see where this stands after ragmana composes a response. I wouldn't be opposed to exchanging opinions in another forum if a more suitable one was suggested.
You obviously have thought about this topic before. I figured you original post was just a knee-jerk reaction to corporate greed. But your statements are clear, reasoned, and most of all, consistent. (Are we still on Slashdot here?)
o pe/news id_1777000/1777952.stm
That being said, I disagree with much of your arguments, and feel others are not relevent.
First, saying that drug companies won't lose a dime means nothing to drug companies, or almost any other company. They expect a profit for their product and effort. They expect more profit for more product and more effort. This is to cover their earnings statements for stock prices, and to make it worthwhile from the "can we get sued for anything" standpoint. These two concerns alone will keep companies from voluntarily giving drugs/medicines without proper profit.
So my solution to this predicament isn't to force them to give away their product for low prices. It is to revamp the stock market and litigation process. Then when these two stumbling blocks are gone, strongly encourage companies to be more giving of cheap drugs.
Second, you are right, that was a bad joke. But if the end-result of your plan is more deaths in the third world, would you accept the blame? You don't think that would happen, but what if it did? All too often, people with your viewpoint never even think about this. But it is a possibility, it should be mentioned, debated, and talked about.
Third point, No, medicine is not a right. Why do you think it is everyone's right to have an artificial chemical made halfway around the world? Was it their right before the drug was invented? Of course not. But just because the drug _is_ invented, people have an inate right to it? I don't follow the reasoning. (Notice, I do agree that you have reasoned this out, as I mentioned above. But I just can't see the link you do.)
And as far as "medicine=survival", I don't accept that as a reason for anything else you suggest. Have you seen the trailers for that new movie "John Q", about a boy who needs a heart transplant, but the family can't afford it? Are you willing to pay for every heart transplant in the world? Because "heart=survival" is certainly more definite that "medicine=survival". But if you want every medical need to be given to everyone who can't afford it, who will pay for it? You are talking about a social health system, which won't work for long. Just ask the French who had the privilege of having a Doctor's Strike a couple months ago. Check this link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/eur
The US may not have everything right, but at least I can count on doctors to be at their office, waiting to take my money.
Now for the kicker. I personally don't believe there are 'inalienable human rights'. For anyone. You have the right to that which you would fight for if pressed. I have the right to own land, because I will fight to defend it. I have the right to my my books and toys for the same reason. The government doesn't have the power to give me this right, only I do. I don't have the right to live, (which some people have told me very clearly) nor the right to liberty, nor the pursuit of happiness. That is just so much paternal mumbo-jumbo from a group that was trying to throw off tyranny. The Bill of Rights enshrines certain ideals that are termed "rights", but the government tramples those rights all the time. The concept of human rights is used by anyone who has an agenda they need to force on someone else. The universal cry is "But it's my/his/her/their right."
I like Heinlein's take on it in the novel "Starship Troopers". If you are floating in the middle of the ocean, slowly sinking under the waves, where is your 'right' to live? Will the waves not drown you, because you have a right to life? Of course the waves don't care about your concept of a 'right to life'.
Furthermore, the only right I recognize is the right to a chance. You have a chance to live. If medicine is needed to live, and you can't get it, you won't live. But you had the chance. You did live for a while. I feel this applies not only to humans, but to everything else. Every animal and plant has the right to a chance to do something. If someone or something eats them first, tough luck. If they get trampled by a herd of buffalo, so be it. That's the chance you take.
The same applies to business and other pursuits. You have the right to a chance to be the president, an olymian, business-owner, etc. If you don't make it, well, you still had a chance. Even if someone takes an active interest in keeping you from succeeding, you had a chance. If someone kills me on my way home today, I still had a chance of living tomorrow. Just my dumb luck to get killed before then.
Now as for companies helping the poor third-world people with free or low-cost drugs, if they don't want to, you can't make them. Because they will fight for their "right" to run a business how they see proper. And they have the law on their side. And yes, they have many politicians in their pocket as well. But until you can change the laws, and require them to give the stuff away, they won't. And if you can change the laws like that, you better make them immune from lawsuits, or they still won't do it.
My final point is one I have stated before, but noone ever agrees with me. For all the actions which companies do, that you disagree with, do you evaluate your patronage of that company? Do you buy one brand of product because its maker is more concerned with helping others? Do you refuse to buy paper from a company because they are cutting down the rain forest, and buy from another company that isn't? Or do you just buy whatever brand you want, or what's on sale, with no deeper consideration than convenience and price?
Oh, and I also toss a penny in the cup now and then. Cheers.
So where would those third-world inhabitants get their life-saving medicines if all the drug companies stop looking for cures for diseases? Many of the currently-patented medicines only work for selected things, such as the latest viral infections, and will be useless in a few years as the viruses/bacteria mutate.
If you want the drug companies to stop investing in new research, keep saying they don't deserve to profit from human misery. They will oblige your sincere concern by concentrating on diseases that only affect rich old Americans. (Plenty of money, they can't take it with them, and don't want to leave it to their spoiled kids.) Then you will know you're responsible for all the third-world deaths.
By the way, if my message isn't clear, medicine is not a 'right'. 'Human rights' aren't even well standardized to begin with. For you to tell a company they "do not deserve" their profit because someone's poor, but it's ok if someone else is rich, is such a crock. Do you freely give your time and possessions to the poor people in your city? Every month, week, day? Do you offer to pay for someone's lunch if they are hungrier than you? Do you even put a penny in the dish beside the cash-register at the gas station?
But you expect companies to be forced to. Maybe we should just have higher taxes so we can all pay for medicine for the whole world. Or force McDonald's to have to feed the third world, since they are one of those "highly profitable companies" you talk about.
"There are several other examples of different species interbreeding.
Most commonly this happens with humans."
Oh great! Make a controversial statement like that. Sure, go ahead. You just opened up a whole new can of worms buddy. A huge can of 50,000 worms to be exact. And each one is a new species.
That just increased the number of species. Now the new estimate for the total number of species is 10,050,000 to 100,050,000. And since we have to catalog these 50,000 worms, you set us back a whole year. I hope you're happy.
Signed,
Prof. I. M. Yuseless
Chairman
Worldwide Council of Species Discovery and Navel-gazing Sciences
Discoverer of the Who (Horton was a student of mine)
"Living things are mostly H,C,N,O,S and P."
;^)
Yes, but on Wheel of Fortune, in the final puzzle, they give you R,S,T,L,N, and E.
So who's right?
How many of the 10-100 million species they anticipate finding are bacteria?
s tr acts/2000/00-037.htm)
The eco-radicals say there are hundreds of "Species" becoming extinct every day/week/month (depending on how much funding they are asking for), but they don't say species of what. Turns out someone brushed their teeth after a weeklong binge, and exterminated 200 species of plaque.
(And if you think plaque isn't worth saving, check this article about "Intergeneric Communication in Dental Plaque Biofilms". Without this 'streptococcus-rich biofilm', what would these researchers do?
http://www.erc.montana.edu/Res-Lib99-SW/pubs/Ab
Do we really care to "discover" every special variant of the streptococcus bacteria? In every person's mouth? In every dog's and cat's mouth?
Granted the number of insect species is estimated in the multi-millions as well, but to reach 100 million separate species, these guys must be navel-gazing and wondering what lives there.
C'mon. I don't care about dual-channel RAMBUS. I need something to get more speed out of my 64MB of EDO I have in my Pentium 133MHz computer.
At least until I can afford to get a new one that is. Next year. If the wife lets me.
So you want to make GOLD atoms by hitting LEAD atoms with three anti-protons?
First, it seems that the anti-protons would react with any particles (as opposed to anti-particles) that they contact. But since anti-protons have a charge, they might not hit what you want. Using anti-nuetrons would be better, being neutral, so the electrons and protons don't affect it. But what if the first anti-particle just hit a neutron in the lead atom, and made an isotope, but don't degrade the atom down to a gold atom? You would probably have to use more than three to get the required reduction in protons to turn lead into gold.
Now for the second part. What would be the effect on an atom when several anti-particles are fired at it? The explosion would be very tiny to our observation, since we are made of billions of atoms, but to the atom itself, it would be catastrophic. Compare it to a house. There are wood 2-by-4s in the walls, holding everything together. An anti-2-by-4 comes flying in, contacts a wall, and annihilates itself along with the point of the wall it touched. Total conversion of matter and anti-matter into energy. How much energy do you think those two items have? Would it be enough to destroy the house? Probably.
So for an atom, you would have the remainder of the neutrons, protons, and electrons, even though they weren't hit with the anti-matter, sent spinning out of control like Darth Vader at the end of Star Wars. No gold for you.
Good idea though.
Well, first about the children of a banker, noone has ever been described as a 'starving banker'.
But it isn't about the spouse or children of the author starving. Maybe they are fully working professionals with 6-digit bank accounts, and the author's work in question doesn't generate any money at all. It is about authors having control over their work during their lifetime, because they are the ones who made the work in question. Why should I be able to take a story written by someone else, print my own copies of it, and sell them? With or without acknowledging who originally wrote it, or adding my own embellishments.
I think that literature should be protected by copyright for the life of the author, so they have control over who can print it, make derivative works, or expand on it. The original author made the original work, so why should anyone else expect to profit from it without permission. (Profit here may not be monetary, it may be social standing, or professional regard too. So someone who writes derivative works to put in the public domain still profits from their actions.)
But what if the original author dies a month after their work is published? Should everyone immediately be able to usurp their works? I think 20 years is adequate to cover this situation. But even for work produced long before their death, the author's heirs should have control for a certain period of time, because they are the heirs of the original author of the work. I don't care if the heirs are the author's spouse, children, neices, neighbor, or an orphanage that an author decides to bestow with their estate. An author leaves a legacy containing the works that he or she produced. That legacy should be inheritable, and protected for a short time. Even if the heirs decide not to allow any use of the works, and therefor negate your argument against the "universe [owing] something to the children of an author" Indeed that is one of the complaints, that the heirs won't let a derivative work be made, even for a large payment. They feel that profiting from the work of the original author would be wrong.
Now, if you noticed I used the phrase "literature should be protected", but not everything is literature. JRR Tolkiens wrote literature in "The Lord of the Rings", but my college physics textbook was not literature. It wasn't even good reading. For 'knowledge based' works, the copyright should be shorter than for literature. Same as corporate copyrights.
Other postings have said there are 10,000 novels from 1929 that we can't read, because they are still under copyright. But who cares, most of them weren't very good. Look at the thousands of books in bookstores now that are garbage. (Pick whatever genre you don't like.) Do I care that they are protected for a century by copyright? Not in the least. Would the authors lose control over their works if they were released to the public domain? Of course not. Noone wants to read a second version of the crap that they don't want to read the original verion of in the first place. Nobody would bother making their own copies of it. But that doesn't mean that the copyright should automatically be revoked.
So, in conclusion...No the universe doesn't owe anything to the children or spouse of an author. But neither does it owe anything to the general public either. It is the authors who deserve to control their own work that I am in support of. And that extends to their heirs, for a short time, as the guardians of an author's legacy.
It would be of much interest to probate court proceedings, which routinely have to consider claims of 'illegitimate' heirs that want part of their parent's estate.
And is it any less involved for a man to have his sperm frozen for later use, by him and his wife, than a man who has a one-night stand and years later discovers the woman got pregnant and had a baby. The welfare laws would expect him to pay, even though he had no intention of having a child, and knew nothing about it for years or decades.
Shhhh. It's a secret.
"(This one's kinda silly, but maybe not.) Don't want there to be an incentive for people to knock you off in order to get your IP. Want someone's IP? Assassinate them!"
Everytime I see something about 'IP', I think the person is talking about network addresses. Not that it usually makes any difference. But it makes the above paragraph have a totally different tone.
Imagine if people wanted to kill you to get your IP address. "So, either we get your IP, or you sleep with the fishes." "Really, I can't give it to you. It's DHCP, honest to God!!"