We'd probably find life sooner with people there, even if colonizing takes a while. Just make very, very sure the planet isn't contaminated in the process.
We are mobile bags of microbes in solution. Contamination would be inevitable with people jumping around over there [insert jurassic park reference here].
Look, you're missing the point about GM foods. It isn't all freaking out about Frankenfood, for crying out loud! Read the arguments. Opponents to the proliferation of GM food are also very concerned about the long-term issues of food security, because capital-intensive closed-source products like GM seeds means giving up food sovereignty to foreign life-sciences monopolies. As once published in a Cargilll newsletter: "He who controls the seed controls the farmer, and he who controls the farmer controls the nation."
So: help that makes you a slave is not really help at all, it just defers short term suffering for greater long-term suffering [oh, we can fix that knee for you for the next few months, but after that you'll never walk again, it's okay because we have a special deal on wheelchairs]. Further, tying GM reliance to food aid then crying 'criminal neglect' is disingenuous when agricultural subsidies and WTO/IMF policies cause as much suffering as any drought conditions.
And please try to be a little more scientific if you're going to be a proponent of technologies. The comparison of husbandry and breeding with genetic engineering is specious.
People who are concerned about the manner in which new technologies are developed and implemented are not all reactionaries, kneeJerks, or boneheaded luddites, folks. Please just drop the "I hate those anti-technology people" rhetoric and be reasonable.
Mostly, these activists are asking that we just slow down and use the Precautionary Principle when bringing out novel technologies that have the potential to interact with the world in unforseen ways. It's really just being sensible instead of rash.
The ETC group is not just focussed on technology: "The issue of ownership and control of this all-pervasive technology is paramount." Mooney has been one of the better informed observers on this issue for 20 years.
Go ahead and promote a technology without caring about its implementation; that's like running a department store with no cash registers, just a jar by the door--it won't work.
To paraphrase Vico: our skill with invention always surpasses our understanding of ourselves.
Actually, the number is much more than billions, it is more like one hundred quadrillion. You are outnumbered in your own body. The Little Masters use us like donkeys.
"folk of such unusual sexualities are as "different" from the majority as if they were another gender altogether."
Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. They ARE another gender, there are many genders in practise today. Thus there is no one word that is accurate, okay? We're talking about a kind of accuracy that is inclusive and not abusive. So do some homework since you're obviously willing to put out some energy, it's a complex topic, and don't go looking to the church or state for answers.
As far as generic relative terms, 'unusual' definitely applies to transsexual parents, and 'fairly common' applies to semi-monogamous childless lesbians. There's a whole range, and it's analog, not digital, right? 'Aberrant' relies on binary thinking, it suggests that said behaviour is undesireable and should be suppressed, and reinforces in-groups and out-groups with a destructive power imbalance. There is no need for a term to replace 'aberrant'. It's the 21st century, get used to ambiguity.
You know, the term "aberrant" is more value-laden than you grant it. Just because it rains a hundred days a year in a place, it is seen as rainy, even though rainy days are in the minority, and it isn't that much more than is typical elsewhere. What is "normal" or "standard" is really a matter of common perception, and I think that is the point here. A minority behaviour, however common or uncommon, can be considered "normal" in respect to standards of behaviour, so as to be inclusive and maintain the social glue.
In other words, the term is probably best used in a different way when applied to either experimental results or society.
I'm trying to make a case for greater gender heterogeneity as a common social trait than you suggested, is all. I don't disagree with much of the substance of your assertions, merely the spirit. And, to stay remotely on topic, I think that science fiction is a crucial form to explore new gender possibilities, as our societies change radically.
Some classes of Tibetan society are polyandrous, in my experience. Two-spirited is a term well served by google, as I don't have space here to elucidate -- but essentially a third gender -- not all about social "jobs", much more than that.
One could make the case that a great deal of all subsequent SF is a rehash of plots proposed by Olaf Stapledon. Someone really needs to trace this out thoroughly.
"broader norms", "two spirited", et al are allowances for variation, not an absence of a norm or a major devition from the "human norm.
Not sure I follow your grammar here, though I'm intrigued. I was suggesting that two-spiritedness is and was a common norm with a complex set of gendered expectations well beyond the matrix you laid out--a suggestion only, since I'm getting the info from friends in that situation. In no sense was it aberrant before the arrival of Jesuits, quite the reverse.
Polyandry is not serial monogamy or adultery. Polyandry is a continuous, expanding network of lovers, theoretically with no formal bounds against those within the network and a clear line of who is in and who is out.
You are confusing polyandry, which has a clear definition of a woman with more than one mate, with polyamory, which has no clear definition, although yours is one that is commonly brought up. Polyandry is an ancient tradition in various cultures, well documented. Polyamory, as you point out, is probably a modern phenomenon, though we don't know much about ancient civilizations in that respect. I was stretching polyandry into serial monogamy to make the point that there is evidence to suggest that it may be common for humans throughout the ages to have more than one life partner, however nothing seems conclusive through lack of evidence. And, IANAExpert, just interested.
I believe that polyamory is a topic that serious science fiction must begin dealing with more frequently [OK, I'm not holding my breath hollywood].
I have the suspicion that, at least historically speaking, adultery requires a mass social gathering and very much doesn't happen in hunter-gatherer societies; if a small group has members that for some reason wish to have multiple partners, they probably have a formal status for it.)
Man, you have never lived in a small village have you!! LOL!
I saw the "Cogenitor" episode of Enterprise recently, and thought that the plot flopped because of shallow characterization and some really basic continuity problems [e.g. an hour of cultural education and context would have taken care of most misunderstandings... time that the plot allotted the characters]. So I think the formal problems didn't give us a chance to really deal with the topic of gender complexity in any convincing or even interesting way.
Oh, yeah, I do give him credit, he proposes all kinds of interesting relationships... but I think he utterly ruins it with a continuous coy drooling leer [see another post on the same topic up the thread]. Thus the curse!
I didn't say he was a Cleaver borg, I just damned him [for purveying an adolescent male lustiness that sells books, under the guise of sexlib]. An inside joke.
"Father-male-provider mother-female-nurterer (sic) has been the norm throughout humanity for thousands of years."
I presume you are talking about social norms, not biological.
That's a claim that you should really try to back up, it isn't as self-evident as you suggest. I think you are exporting and naturalizing your gender mores. You may be right about idealized gender roles in civilization, but that's a brief period in the species' duration and only recently ascendant. However, many societies (often the hunter-gatherers that dominate our history) have broader norms, including roles like 'two-spirited' (to use a local NA term, after all we should assimilate like good settlers, eh?).
I currently know lots of 'mainstream' "mother-female-provider-grandmother-nurturer-uncle -support" style families [many variations therof], and they are aplenty, check out the stats--even arguably the practical [if not ideologically correct] norm.
Polyandry [aka adultery when taboo or 'serial monogamy' as an alternate strategy] is also a dominant norm, it just doesn't work very well when combined with taboos. Some of us manage lifetime monogamy [like canada geeese], but not many.
Fascinating how threatening this issue is to so many, it points to the tenuousness of the taboos surrounding it. All the more reason for science fiction to explore it responsibly.
1) Trek Universe: the galaxy populated by white people with funny foreheads. I mean, chimps are nearly identical to us genetically, look at them!
2) Bad magic physics: they're going a few light years and the stars are just zipping by. Come on!
3) Continuity is sacrificed for goofy morality. Guys who turn into giants wear uberlycra pants all the time.
4) Cultural continuity in the galaxy. OK, B5 had some truly wierd aliens, like the vorlons, and a narrative that helped explain the continuity somewhat, but the rest...
5) The general lack of plots involving easily predictable tech, like nanotech, ubiquitous computing, and radical bioengineering of human flesh.
6) Political dullardry. Haven't these damn script writers read Sam Delaney or KS Robinson? Things are going to get wild and wierd, mutate and evolve.
7) Gender idiocy. Again, things have changed radically in just the last 10 years, what makes you scriptflakes think we're going to maintain a Cleaver family morality in perpetuity? Damn that Heinlein. See Varley, Delaney, Stephenson. Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears, and we're figuring that out already.
8) Economic ideology. New economies are the nature of social progression, STNG tries to be blandly utopian as a cop-out, let's see some interesting econotech please.
I was looking for a thread to contribute to but there are so many saying the same thing: dump your box and get a new one. Whatever!
You need to run new versions of your dtp apps, that's why you're upgrading to OS X, right? (--no other compelling reason if it's a moneymaking production machine... otherwise just heed the advice to stick with what you have.)
So get a used video card that will do Quartz-- an ATI Rage 128 pro w/ 16mb of VRAM is your minimum -- and get a minimum of 320MB of RAM, plus a larger hard drive. That's it, really! About US$250 and you're in.
Skip USB or firewire cards unless you need them for scanners/printers, backup devices, or a tablet. If you have an A/V personality card in there it won't work, but you don't use it anyway, most likely.
Partition the new drive with the first partition 8GB for OSX, a 2GB partition for OS9, and the rest for your big docs.
I work all day with A/V production quality G4's, but most of the work I wind up doing (standard Adobe/Macromedia production apps, and basic video prep) is on a 366MHz G3 iBook with 320MB of RAM, 8MB video, a weeny 800x600 screen, and a 20GB HD. Yeah it's a slow interface compared to OS 9, but it runs for months without a reboot and I never wait for an application, I just switch apps. The reboot/stability thing has saved lots of time itself, so on average over the course of a year I'd say OS X is faster on this machine than 9. Oh, and invest a few pennies in LaunchBar for real keyboard speed, unless you're a mouser.
Productivity is between the ears and hands, people, more than CPU's. I know a very skilled book/logo designer making a handsome living using OS 8.6, Quark3, Photoshop4, on a 250MHz 604e machine.
How can one call marijuana a narcotic? It has mild narcotic-like effects for some people, but there is no way it can kill you.
I think that's a political definition rather than scientific, to disguise its relatively benign effects. Any botanical pharmacologists out there who can clarify?
Land of the free, heh. How many U.S. citizens have lost their home for a bag of 20 joints? How many are incarcerated for something they've done to their own bodies?
I dispute that definition of mental illness, as would many artists (and e.g. Herbert Marcuse, see the grandparent post), who are far more influential in such definitions in the long run than you may suspect. I think the most useful reference point is more likely to be some kind of average of the species rather than society; the definition of well-being is going to be an open debate for a long time.
To paraphrase Marcuse, what's the point of helping someone adapt to a society that's ill? Does it mean you're well if you function happily within madness? What is your benchmark for sanity when so many of the things accepted as normal are crazy, even using that society's standards? Many fiction plots [even Schmollywood blockbusters] reference this experience. I've had brilliant friends whose schizophrenia or delusional paranoia showed glimpses of a deep clarity of observation, unable to reconcile the many hypocrisies and cruelties around them.
If you are ever given the opportunity to work with homeless folk in a sympathetic fashion, you'll discover that some of them live are there voluntarily--not through laziness [insert obligatory neo-con/pseudo-libertarian snub here] or hard luck but out of a social response that makes sense to them. Being homeless is not easy or lazy. Some cultures have a recognized system for this condition, a Hindu practise comes to mind which allows for those who've concluded their family responsibilities to renounce materialism and wander off homeless, with honour.
On the other hand, the hard luck cases really do want a leg up and out, but ever heard of a rut? they do exist. Have you ever gotten stuck and asked for a push? Being on the street can bring on addictions and depression [rather than solely the other way around].
On the gripping hand, some are indubitably 'crazy' and 'we' don't know what to do with them. This is a cultural problem as much as political. Mental health is a consensus built by well-paid middle class executives-of-the-spirit who have been educated according to some questionable premises and assumptions. 'Consumers' of the mental health system [at least that's the self-applied term in Canada] know the system is one of control rather than assistance [for the most part]. This initiative looks to be an extension of that system of control, a paternal system based on bad parenting ethics.
Just came through the ms.blaster anxiety pox without a drop of sweat, as we're using OS X and one win98 box [now I'm glad that IT was too incompetent to put win2K on it...]. It got me thinking about the last time I saw a mac virus, oh, about 11 years ago, and how easy it was to fix with freeware by John Norstad, and about the "Crack a Mac" contest in '97. Things were pretty secure on classic macs. Now, I still feel pretty secure, indicated by the way the gloating bubbled up when I warned compadres to lock down their XP boxes. I'm happy to see that built-in firewall loaded, when I occasionally reboot, and there's always snort if I get paranoid--plus all the other *nixy goodness.
When I received one box back from servicing today, a botched update completed itself upon booting, and a warning came up that a particular video driver file may be compromising the OS's security, did I want to fix and use, not use, or just use it? Nice. All I have to do is run software update. I want more of that caution built in, but as things stand, keep it up Cupertino.
No, it's actually relevant to the topic to mention that the FDA's approval process, while unlikely to be influenced by direct corruption (e.g. bribery), is likely infected with institutionalized corruption in the far subtler but far-reaching form of golfing-buddy favours and the old game of hiring the right people.
Examine the history of Aspartame, and correlate that with the employment osmosis between FDA officials and Monsanto's management, for example. Similar forms of failure of 'due process' can be found wherever there is employee movement between industry management and government. "It's no longer a conflict of interest if they don't work there, is it?"
The current administration's foreign policy seems to circle around oil-rich regions. Any surprise that they're almost all former oil execs?
Oh yeah! Sounds great! Let's see, umm... me@hotmail.com. Nope, hmm. me2@hotmail.com. MMMh. me2dood@hotmail.com. Eh! is anything available!? meetooooyoudamnpigbilly@hotmail.com. ARRGGHH how can that be taken! OK try this: me_bork_bork_bork_boogliachoo129@hotmail.com... Finally. OK, login here, WHAT? spam already?
Slashdot Mirror
We are mobile bags of microbes in solution. Contamination would be inevitable with people jumping around over there [insert jurassic park reference here].
Oh, your system is great at nutrition and has no problem with hunger, women are safe, and causes no health problems.
because their "goverments" are stupid and evil
Hm, yes, we should bring these international criminals to justice. Oh, wait...
there's a plank in your eye.
So: help that makes you a slave is not really help at all, it just defers short term suffering for greater long-term suffering [oh, we can fix that knee for you for the next few months, but after that you'll never walk again, it's okay because we have a special deal on wheelchairs]. Further, tying GM reliance to food aid then crying 'criminal neglect' is disingenuous when agricultural subsidies and WTO/IMF policies cause as much suffering as any drought conditions.
And please try to be a little more scientific if you're going to be a proponent of technologies. The comparison of husbandry and breeding with genetic engineering is specious.
Mostly, these activists are asking that we just slow down and use the Precautionary Principle when bringing out novel technologies that have the potential to interact with the world in unforseen ways. It's really just being sensible instead of rash.
The ETC group is not just focussed on technology: "The issue of ownership and control of this all-pervasive technology is paramount." Mooney has been one of the better informed observers on this issue for 20 years.
Go ahead and promote a technology without caring about its implementation; that's like running a department store with no cash registers, just a jar by the door--it won't work.
To paraphrase Vico: our skill with invention always surpasses our understanding of ourselves.
Actually, the number is much more than billions, it is more like one hundred quadrillion. You are outnumbered in your own body. The Little Masters use us like donkeys.
*sigh* ...
"folk of such unusual sexualities are as "different" from the majority as if they were another gender altogether."
Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. They ARE another gender, there are many genders in practise today. Thus there is no one word that is accurate, okay? We're talking about a kind of accuracy that is inclusive and not abusive. So do some homework since you're obviously willing to put out some energy, it's a complex topic, and don't go looking to the church or state for answers.
As far as generic relative terms, 'unusual' definitely applies to transsexual parents, and 'fairly common' applies to semi-monogamous childless lesbians. There's a whole range, and it's analog, not digital, right? 'Aberrant' relies on binary thinking, it suggests that said behaviour is undesireable and should be suppressed, and reinforces in-groups and out-groups with a destructive power imbalance. There is no need for a term to replace 'aberrant'. It's the 21st century, get used to ambiguity.
You know, the term "aberrant" is more value-laden than you grant it. Just because it rains a hundred days a year in a place, it is seen as rainy, even though rainy days are in the minority, and it isn't that much more than is typical elsewhere. What is "normal" or "standard" is really a matter of common perception, and I think that is the point here. A minority behaviour, however common or uncommon, can be considered "normal" in respect to standards of behaviour, so as to be inclusive and maintain the social glue.
In other words, the term is probably best used in a different way when applied to either experimental results or society.
I'm trying to make a case for greater gender heterogeneity as a common social trait than you suggested, is all. I don't disagree with much of the substance of your assertions, merely the spirit. And, to stay remotely on topic, I think that science fiction is a crucial form to explore new gender possibilities, as our societies change radically.
Some classes of Tibetan society are polyandrous, in my experience. Two-spirited is a term well served by google, as I don't have space here to elucidate -- but essentially a third gender -- not all about social "jobs", much more than that.
Thanks! that's disgusting. I'll look for a copy.
One could make the case that a great deal of all subsequent SF is a rehash of plots proposed by Olaf Stapledon. Someone really needs to trace this out thoroughly.
Not sure I follow your grammar here, though I'm intrigued. I was suggesting that two-spiritedness is and was a common norm with a complex set of gendered expectations well beyond the matrix you laid out--a suggestion only, since I'm getting the info from friends in that situation. In no sense was it aberrant before the arrival of Jesuits, quite the reverse.
Polyandry is not serial monogamy or adultery. Polyandry is a continuous, expanding network of lovers, theoretically with no formal bounds against those within the network and a clear line of who is in and who is out.
You are confusing polyandry, which has a clear definition of a woman with more than one mate, with polyamory, which has no clear definition, although yours is one that is commonly brought up. Polyandry is an ancient tradition in various cultures, well documented. Polyamory, as you point out, is probably a modern phenomenon, though we don't know much about ancient civilizations in that respect. I was stretching polyandry into serial monogamy to make the point that there is evidence to suggest that it may be common for humans throughout the ages to have more than one life partner, however nothing seems conclusive through lack of evidence. And, IANAExpert, just interested.
I believe that polyamory is a topic that serious science fiction must begin dealing with more frequently [OK, I'm not holding my breath hollywood].
I have the suspicion that, at least historically speaking, adultery requires a mass social gathering and very much doesn't happen in hunter-gatherer societies; if a small group has members that for some reason wish to have multiple partners, they probably have a formal status for it.)
Man, you have never lived in a small village have you!! LOL!
I saw the "Cogenitor" episode of Enterprise recently, and thought that the plot flopped because of shallow characterization and some really basic continuity problems [e.g. an hour of cultural education and context would have taken care of most misunderstandings... time that the plot allotted the characters]. So I think the formal problems didn't give us a chance to really deal with the topic of gender complexity in any convincing or even interesting way.
Oh, yeah, I do give him credit, he proposes all kinds of interesting relationships... but I think he utterly ruins it with a continuous coy drooling leer [see another post on the same topic up the thread]. Thus the curse!
Please provide a synopsis [don't care abt spoilers] since it looks like it will be hard for me to get--I've read most other Herbert titles.
I didn't say he was a Cleaver borg, I just damned him [for purveying an adolescent male lustiness that sells books, under the guise of sexlib]. An inside joke.
I would say RTFP, but it _was_ a bit ambiguous.
"Father-male-provider mother-female-nurterer (sic) has been the norm throughout humanity for thousands of years."
e -support" style families [many variations therof], and they are aplenty, check out the stats--even arguably the practical [if not ideologically correct] norm.
I presume you are talking about social norms, not biological.
That's a claim that you should really try to back up, it isn't as self-evident as you suggest. I think you are exporting and naturalizing your gender mores. You may be right about idealized gender roles in civilization, but that's a brief period in the species' duration and only recently ascendant. However, many societies (often the hunter-gatherers that dominate our history) have broader norms, including roles like 'two-spirited' (to use a local NA term, after all we should assimilate like good settlers, eh?).
I currently know lots of 'mainstream' "mother-female-provider-grandmother-nurturer-uncl
Polyandry [aka adultery when taboo or 'serial monogamy' as an alternate strategy] is also a dominant norm, it just doesn't work very well when combined with taboos. Some of us manage lifetime monogamy [like canada geeese], but not many.
Fascinating how threatening this issue is to so many, it points to the tenuousness of the taboos surrounding it. All the more reason for science fiction to explore it responsibly.
1) Trek Universe: the galaxy populated by white people with funny foreheads. I mean, chimps are nearly identical to us genetically, look at them!
2) Bad magic physics: they're going a few light years and the stars are just zipping by. Come on!
3) Continuity is sacrificed for goofy morality. Guys who turn into giants wear uberlycra pants all the time.
4) Cultural continuity in the galaxy. OK, B5 had some truly wierd aliens, like the vorlons, and a narrative that helped explain the continuity somewhat, but the rest...
5) The general lack of plots involving easily predictable tech, like nanotech, ubiquitous computing, and radical bioengineering of human flesh.
6) Political dullardry. Haven't these damn script writers read Sam Delaney or KS Robinson? Things are going to get wild and wierd, mutate and evolve.
7) Gender idiocy. Again, things have changed radically in just the last 10 years, what makes you scriptflakes think we're going to maintain a Cleaver family morality in perpetuity? Damn that Heinlein. See Varley, Delaney, Stephenson. Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears, and we're figuring that out already.
8) Economic ideology. New economies are the nature of social progression, STNG tries to be blandly utopian as a cop-out, let's see some interesting econotech please.
9) No one ever excretes in the future.
I was looking for a thread to contribute to but there are so many saying the same thing: dump your box and get a new one. Whatever!
You need to run new versions of your dtp apps, that's why you're upgrading to OS X, right? (--no other compelling reason if it's a moneymaking production machine... otherwise just heed the advice to stick with what you have.)
So get a used video card that will do Quartz-- an ATI Rage 128 pro w/ 16mb of VRAM is your minimum -- and get a minimum of 320MB of RAM, plus a larger hard drive. That's it, really! About US$250 and you're in.
Skip USB or firewire cards unless you need them for scanners/printers, backup devices, or a tablet. If you have an A/V personality card in there it won't work, but you don't use it anyway, most likely.
Partition the new drive with the first partition 8GB for OSX, a 2GB partition for OS9, and the rest for your big docs.
I work all day with A/V production quality G4's, but most of the work I wind up doing (standard Adobe/Macromedia production apps, and basic video prep) is on a 366MHz G3 iBook with 320MB of RAM, 8MB video, a weeny 800x600 screen, and a 20GB HD. Yeah it's a slow interface compared to OS 9, but it runs for months without a reboot and I never wait for an application, I just switch apps. The reboot/stability thing has saved lots of time itself, so on average over the course of a year I'd say OS X is faster on this machine than 9. Oh, and invest a few pennies in LaunchBar for real keyboard speed, unless you're a mouser.
Productivity is between the ears and hands, people, more than CPU's. I know a very skilled book/logo designer making a handsome living using OS 8.6, Quark3, Photoshop4, on a 250MHz 604e machine.
You're right; should urinating be illegal just because I can do it in H. Rosen's gas tank?
How can one call marijuana a narcotic? It has mild narcotic-like effects for some people, but there is no way it can kill you.
I think that's a political definition rather than scientific, to disguise its relatively benign effects. Any botanical pharmacologists out there who can clarify?
Land of the free, heh. How many U.S. citizens have lost their home for a bag of 20 joints? How many are incarcerated for something they've done to their own bodies?
I dispute that definition of mental illness, as would many artists (and e.g. Herbert Marcuse, see the grandparent post), who are far more influential in such definitions in the long run than you may suspect. I think the most useful reference point is more likely to be some kind of average of the species rather than society; the definition of well-being is going to be an open debate for a long time.
Conformity does not, in itself, make you healthy.
To paraphrase Marcuse, what's the point of helping someone adapt to a society that's ill? Does it mean you're well if you function happily within madness? What is your benchmark for sanity when so many of the things accepted as normal are crazy, even using that society's standards? Many fiction plots [even Schmollywood blockbusters] reference this experience. I've had brilliant friends whose schizophrenia or delusional paranoia showed glimpses of a deep clarity of observation, unable to reconcile the many hypocrisies and cruelties around them.
If you are ever given the opportunity to work with homeless folk in a sympathetic fashion, you'll discover that some of them live are there voluntarily--not through laziness [insert obligatory neo-con/pseudo-libertarian snub here] or hard luck but out of a social response that makes sense to them. Being homeless is not easy or lazy. Some cultures have a recognized system for this condition, a Hindu practise comes to mind which allows for those who've concluded their family responsibilities to renounce materialism and wander off homeless, with honour.
On the other hand, the hard luck cases really do want a leg up and out, but ever heard of a rut? they do exist. Have you ever gotten stuck and asked for a push? Being on the street can bring on addictions and depression [rather than solely the other way around].
On the gripping hand, some are indubitably 'crazy' and 'we' don't know what to do with them. This is a cultural problem as much as political. Mental health is a consensus built by well-paid middle class executives-of-the-spirit who have been educated according to some questionable premises and assumptions. 'Consumers' of the mental health system [at least that's the self-applied term in Canada] know the system is one of control rather than assistance [for the most part]. This initiative looks to be an extension of that system of control, a paternal system based on bad parenting ethics.
When I received one box back from servicing today, a botched update completed itself upon booting, and a warning came up that a particular video driver file may be compromising the OS's security, did I want to fix and use, not use, or just use it? Nice. All I have to do is run software update. I want more of that caution built in, but as things stand, keep it up Cupertino.
"sites full of crazies"
Please, specify which ones are the crazies.
8-/
No, it's actually relevant to the topic to mention that the FDA's approval process, while unlikely to be influenced by direct corruption (e.g. bribery), is likely infected with institutionalized corruption in the far subtler but far-reaching form of golfing-buddy favours and the old game of hiring the right people.
Examine the history of Aspartame, and correlate that with the employment osmosis between FDA officials and Monsanto's management, for example. Similar forms of failure of 'due process' can be found wherever there is employee movement between industry management and government. "It's no longer a conflict of interest if they don't work there, is it?"
The current administration's foreign policy seems to circle around oil-rich regions. Any surprise that they're almost all former oil execs?
"...leave some critical, easy to add features missing..."
Like a simple redirect.
Oh yeah! Sounds great! Let's see, umm... me@hotmail.com. Nope, hmm. me2@hotmail.com. MMMh. me2dood@hotmail.com. Eh! is anything available!? meetooooyoudamnpigbilly@hotmail.com. ARRGGHH how can that be taken! OK try this: me_bork_bork_bork_boogliachoo129@hotmail.com ... Finally. OK, login here, WHAT? spam already?