I asked Simon about this at the Brighton Skeptics in the Pub meeting a few weeks ago, and he said that he prefers people to donate to The Libel Reform Campaign, who are trying to fix the UK law which allows this kind of lawsuit to happen.
"...it is best when between two consenting married adults who have had no others..."
No, it isn't. Unless they've read a *lot* of books about how to do it well. There's no substitute for sharing ideas and tips with a variety of people with different experiences. And the better you do it, the more involved you feel with your significant other.
"...and has negative consequences when done outside of a solid marriage relationship..."
No, it doesn't. It is what you make it - joyous, giving, caring, life-affirming, and just generally wonderful, or the opposite of this, or anything in between, depending on what you choose. Marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with it. The slight risk of catching something or getting pregnant is like the risk of being killed crossing the street: you have to be careful, but it's no reason to stay home and refrain from living your life to the full.
"With no one to compare to, your significant other is the best for you for now and for always!"
Yes, don't go out into the big scary world and find out for yourself. Be happy with what you have. This is best for you. Stay where you're put, stay ignorant, do what you're told, and don't ask questions - the mantra of mind-control the world over.
Taxing people less if they're too poor to be able to afford flat rate *is* treating everyone fairly.
Where do people get this idea that "they need the most support, so they should pay the most towards it"? The poorest are the ones who can *least* afford to pay for the programs which will keep them alive.
It's part of living in a civilised society that you try not to let anyone starve, or grow up uneducated, or have to live in the street, or die of something easily curable, if you can help it. Yes, that means taxing rich people more. Which is the lesser evil?
Rich people will still have fast cars and swimming pools if they're taxed a little more. For poor people, being taxed a little more can mean starvation.
Do people actually choose their vocation (and included in that, I assume, would be education choices) based on what tests appear to show they are "good" at rather than what actually interests them - and what they have found out they can do by actually TRYING it?
Maybe some do. I sure didn't. As a kid, I loved science, and I wanted to be an astronaut. I also mucked about with BASIC on our IBM PC a *lot*. Now I'm a software engineer because it's something I've always done, always enjoyed, and pays well. I also play various types of guitar and do martial arts - the first two reasons apply to those as well. My university had a computerised aptitude test that told me I should be a museum curator - essentially a bureaucrat. Way, *way* off.
Scientists try to advance our understanding of our world, which benefits us all. When you've made a mistake, admitting it and announcing it is the best way to continue to work towards that goal. Any prestige you might lose is far less important than the common good.
Can you imagine a typical politician or religious nutter behaving the same way? Unfortunately, they have the loudest voices, and they generate far more heat than light when something like this happens. It's a very tedious argument: "What you said is off by 1%, so you must be wrong and what I believe must be right." Making mistakes doesn't invalidate the scientific method; making them and learning from them is part of it.
Standard fanboi response: "He said something bad about my favourite? He must be a fanboi!" Fail.
Read the parent post again; it suggested that only Apple could get away with releasing a flawed product, which is obviously nonsense given MS's track record.
Home computers started in the 1970s as toys for hackers, became business office tools in the 1980s, design and educational tools in the 1990s, and home-entertainment/communications centers in the 2000s.
I wonder what they'll become in the 2010s? And the 2020s? "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with"?
(By the 2030s I plan to be permanently plugged in to the tubes, both digital and biological...)
I had exactly the opposite experience at Symbian: on the day when every Symbian employee was given a Nokia 7650 (the first consumer smartphone) I suggested on an internal chat group that people immediately change their ringtone - as soon as they had the phone in their hand - to anything other than that annoying, piercing Nokia jingle, for the sake of our collective sanity. Needless to say, it didn't happen.
On top of that, the CEO of the company had the loudest, chirpiest ringtone of all, and he used to leave his phone on his desk in his office just down the hall from our cube farm when he went out to lunch. Two things must ye know about CEOs of tech companies: one, they get a *lot* of calls, and two, apparently it's not the done thing to bitch-smack them for being incredibly inconsiderate to their engineering teams...
"My gf wants to get a volvo SUV, but when I even mention a Corolla/Tercel/Yarvis, she likes that they are fuel efficient, but is concerned about being hit by any full size vehicle (not just a Hummer/SUV)."
A Corolla is a full-sized car. SUV's are ludicrous-sized.
"Anybody have any good arguments for justifying these ultra-light cars (VW, SmartCar) to those that do equate a certain size=safety measure?"
Anybody have any good arguments for justifying SUV's? The bigger your car is, the more likely you are to kill someone when you hit them.
The problem is that issues like these just don't occur to Joe Sixpack. He's always been able to sell something on to a third party and have it work, because that's just common sense. It's only relatively recently that companies have started frantically squelching artificial limitations into their products. Not being able to play a DVD you'd paid for in a DVD player you'd paid for was bad enough, but it was only the start. Today, if you pay good money for a music file that will only play on your own computer, the resale value of the product you've bought is nil as soon as you get it home, and that's just a nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
I asked Simon about this at the Brighton Skeptics in the Pub meeting a few weeks ago, and he said that he prefers people to donate to The Libel Reform Campaign, who are trying to fix the UK law which allows this kind of lawsuit to happen.
"...it is best when between two consenting married adults who have had no others..."
No, it isn't. Unless they've read a *lot* of books about how to do it well. There's no substitute for sharing ideas and tips with a variety of people with different experiences. And the better you do it, the more involved you feel with your significant other.
"...and has negative consequences when done outside of a solid marriage relationship..."
No, it doesn't. It is what you make it - joyous, giving, caring, life-affirming, and just generally wonderful, or the opposite of this, or anything in between, depending on what you choose. Marriage doesn't have to have anything to do with it. The slight risk of catching something or getting pregnant is like the risk of being killed crossing the street: you have to be careful, but it's no reason to stay home and refrain from living your life to the full.
"With no one to compare to, your significant other is the best for you for now and for always!"
Yes, don't go out into the big scary world and find out for yourself. Be happy with what you have. This is best for you. Stay where you're put, stay ignorant, do what you're told, and don't ask questions - the mantra of mind-control the world over.
Taxing people less if they're too poor to be able to afford flat rate *is* treating everyone fairly.
Where do people get this idea that "they need the most support, so they should pay the most towards it"? The poorest are the ones who can *least* afford to pay for the programs which will keep them alive.
It's part of living in a civilised society that you try not to let anyone starve, or grow up uneducated, or have to live in the street, or die of something easily curable, if you can help it. Yes, that means taxing rich people more. Which is the lesser evil?
Rich people will still have fast cars and swimming pools if they're taxed a little more. For poor people, being taxed a little more can mean starvation.
Do people actually choose their vocation (and included in that, I assume, would be education choices) based on what tests appear to show they are "good" at rather than what actually interests them - and what they have found out they can do by actually TRYING it?
Maybe some do. I sure didn't. As a kid, I loved science, and I wanted to be an astronaut. I also mucked about with BASIC on our IBM PC a *lot*. Now I'm a software engineer because it's something I've always done, always enjoyed, and pays well. I also play various types of guitar and do martial arts - the first two reasons apply to those as well. My university had a computerised aptitude test that told me I should be a museum curator - essentially a bureaucrat. Way, *way* off.
Scientists try to advance our understanding of our world, which benefits us all. When you've made a mistake, admitting it and announcing it is the best way to continue to work towards that goal. Any prestige you might lose is far less important than the common good.
Can you imagine a typical politician or religious nutter behaving the same way? Unfortunately, they have the loudest voices, and they generate far more heat than light when something like this happens. It's a very tedious argument: "What you said is off by 1%, so you must be wrong and what I believe must be right." Making mistakes doesn't invalidate the scientific method; making them and learning from them is part of it.
Standard fanboi response: "He said something bad about my favourite? He must be a fanboi!" Fail.
Read the parent post again; it suggested that only Apple could get away with releasing a flawed product, which is obviously nonsense given MS's track record.
What other company could get away with producing a product like this and succeed?
Way to ignore the enormous elephant in the room.
Four or five close friends in high school?
Hand in your geek card. Now.
Have a look at the Liberal Democrats' site - it's a little reassuring. Then, please, get off your arse and get involved.
Home computers started in the 1970s as toys for hackers, became business office tools in the 1980s, design and educational tools in the 1990s, and home-entertainment/communications centers in the 2000s.
I wonder what they'll become in the 2010s? And the 2020s? "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with"?
(By the 2030s I plan to be permanently plugged in to the tubes, both digital and biological...)
I had exactly the opposite experience at Symbian: on the day when every Symbian employee was given a Nokia 7650 (the first consumer smartphone) I suggested on an internal chat group that people immediately change their ringtone - as soon as they had the phone in their hand - to anything other than that annoying, piercing Nokia jingle, for the sake of our collective sanity. Needless to say, it didn't happen.
On top of that, the CEO of the company had the loudest, chirpiest ringtone of all, and he used to leave his phone on his desk in his office just down the hall from our cube farm when he went out to lunch. Two things must ye know about CEOs of tech companies: one, they get a *lot* of calls, and two, apparently it's not the done thing to bitch-smack them for being incredibly inconsiderate to their engineering teams...
We all know dumb people with degree's
Well, we do now.
Of my 6 classes (3 of which are AP) and can already get my normal day's worth of homework done during downtime before I leave school.
Let me guess, grammar is not one of your AP subjects - right?
...and I, for one, welcome our new fish-crab-dolphin-hybrid-oh-god-it's-just-not-worth-it-anymore... (sobs)
Dude, this is Slashdot. A formal occasion means we wear socks.
Finally, we know what stage 2 is!
Stage 1: (whatever)
Stage 2: Solve the mystery of photosynthesis, which has been baffling scientists for decades.
Stage 3: Profit!
I put a small and annoying child in the box once. It was a Schrödinger's brat.
You need help, mate. Seriously.
Unless the Government's really screwed up...
Let me guess - you're new, right?
I wonder what that guy is doing now.
I'm buying my mom a yacht. Did you ever start that band you were always talking about?
...this is why you should do well in school if you can - so when an opportunity like this comes along, they'll want you.
It's not *your* standards that are the problem, mate.
"My gf wants to get a volvo SUV, but when I even mention a Corolla/Tercel/Yarvis, she likes that they are fuel efficient, but is concerned about being hit by any full size vehicle (not just a Hummer/SUV)."
A Corolla is a full-sized car. SUV's are ludicrous-sized.
"Anybody have any good arguments for justifying these ultra-light cars (VW, SmartCar) to those that do equate a certain size=safety measure?"
Anybody have any good arguments for justifying SUV's? The bigger your car is, the more likely you are to kill someone when you hit them.
Try taking the goggles off. And don't you tell me they do nothing!
The problem is that issues like these just don't occur to Joe Sixpack. He's always been able to sell something on to a third party and have it work, because that's just common sense. It's only relatively recently that companies have started frantically squelching artificial limitations into their products. Not being able to play a DVD you'd paid for in a DVD player you'd paid for was bad enough, but it was only the start. Today, if you pay good money for a music file that will only play on your own computer, the resale value of the product you've bought is nil as soon as you get it home, and that's just a nonsense.