For each bad use of technology, there is also a good use. atomic bombs vs. atomic power Genetic screening vs. mass genetic engineering of the population medical techniques and cures vs. bacteriological warfare. Technology as such is not good or evil, only specific applications. I can well imagine someone like.. say... Stephen Hawkins being quite happy to ftp his brain.
Look around. it's simple. it's sturdy. it's what a lot of your clothes, parts of your computer, furniture, cars, planes, toys, and a shitlod of other stuff is partially made of. It's polymers. plastics. a very versatile group of compounds that has had a dramatic effect on just about everyone's lives. It may not be THE most shaoing piece of tech, but it's changed the world as we know it.
Actually they havent done everything I want them to do. Even if I don't count the fact that I would like them to go bankrupt. They have compensated the legal bills, but what about the other damages done? let alone post a very large public apology and a link to eToy on their sites replacing the normal portal-page. Sure.. they did something. but not enough for me to consider them an honest business (if such a thing exists)
And pigs can fly... Probably what did the trick was thousands of email, each with the contents: We don't like you, the way you conduct business and I am spreading this to everyone I know. Furthermore, I am blocking your site, cancelling my orders (if any) and I'm not ordering anything from you anymore. It's not nice, it's not eloquent, but if enough people yell it in your ear...
I don't doubt the necessity of money (unlike cars there is no alternative to it) but I do doubt the necessity of incredible shitloads of money that you're not gonna spend anyway. Now you can't tell me that mr. Gates cannot live on $200000 a year. I pity the man whose biggest dream is to be rich.
hmm.. AFAIK the early versions of OS/2 were developed by MS and intended as the successor to win3.1. (correct me if I'm wrong). As for the incredibly high quality... I think windows is a little too unstable to be called 'incredibly high quality'. Ofcourse, you'll now think I'm jealous because Bill Gates is rich, and I'm not.. well.. I don't care that much about money. money is a tool, much like a car. Are you jealous of the person you see driving a ferrari? You may be.. but just as easily you may not. That doesn't mean I have a problem with money.. it just doesn't matter to me as long as I have enough to live off.
You just stepped on my patent on "Method of relieving the world from lawyers by removal, destruction or perforation of parts of the physical body of previously mentioned lawyers"
I have to disagree with you there. I don't think politeness is dead. The problem is that with the current multi-cultural society (which I am all in favour off) there is no such thing as universal etiquette. it reminds me of a very recent case in the Netherlands where some members of the board of some islamic school refused to shake hands with someone from city-council, who happened to be female. They claimed religious grounds, which in the end was accepted. Had I been the councilmember, I would not have accpeted this, as the councilmember, but what is sure is that both parties had their own idea of being polite. Etiquette isn't gone, it's just forked.
I agree with most of your point Jon.. but not with one thing: getting rude at times is necessary, even more so in the organic world. I have stopped being nice when it doesn't serve me, and I have found that the best way to get your point across is to go ver people's head. Something not to your liking in a shop, bank or organization? go to the boss. immediately. They are usually not the most knowledgeable, but tend to get so annoyed they give you just about anything you want. Being an annoying bastard works, even in the real world. Ofcourse.. being a little too rude may cause them not to take you very serious, so make it an intelligent insult, preferably so they don't notice you insulted them until you're out the door.
true. Very true. flaming someone face-to-face is a rare occurrence, yet an understandable one. A flame is most often a knee-jerk reaction, and a sign that a nerve has been hit. However, and most flamers will know this, flames also tend to cause a knee-jerk reaction back, which in a face-to-face situation can quickly degenrate into real violence. I have flamed people face-to-face, but made sure there would be no such physical attack, either by making sure there was no opportunity (bankmanagers will not punch you in the face) or by making sure I can get away fast enough (taxis cannot drive into the trainstation). However.. I have never flamed Jon.
And that could've failed to, like any other project, scientific or not. one COULD have done a lot of other things with the money, yes. but just because a project doesn't work, doesn't mean it is a complete failure.
hmm.. IANAL.. but it seems to me they contracted an outside corporation, secure computing. Secure computing doesn't keep the secure OS internal, which IMO means they release it. And release means the viral nature of GPL kicks in.
You havent heard that because we aren't involved in making cold fusion work the fleischman/pons (sp?) way. The entire thing cannot work and trying to get it to work is a waste of time.
As they are in the shoe-industry, chemical industry and lots of other. But saying 50% is against the photographee's will? I really, really doubt it. what proof do you have of this, if any. Sure, there will always be excesses, in just about every field. but I simply do not believe the 50% you state.
//rdj
Re:Image Alteration has it's uses.
on
Live or Memorex?
·
· Score: 2
ofcourse this doesn't completely apply to sports, where advertisements run loose. Not to mention the sponsored sides of the field, on players' shirts etc. but to blot out 'objectionable' signs ETHICAL? jeez.. it looks like censorship, it smells like censorship.. and it probably is. Actually, the rule is a little more complicated and since I am not a lawyer I cannot explain it much further. But indeed in most programs you cannot prominently show a product name, and this is actively enforced. You want a commercial as a company, then you buy a commercial, not some guy who makes your favourite soap-series.
>why is the U.S., supposedly the world's most advanced nation, having to play catch-up to the rest of the world?
It's not. The US has turned into a police-state in many ways. most european countries are more advanced in just about every area. What is worse in the hubris of the US, thinking they are the ultimate democratic country, and enforcing democracy in the world. But guess what.. democracy is not an ideal system by far, and can quickly turn into a tyranny of the/a majority. IMO the biggest problem is the endless lobbying and incredible power of corporations, who seem to have rights beyond that of real persons. Once a business gets large enough, it becomes almost impossible to punish. I won't pretend to have the perfect solution, but something needs to be done.
In dutch we have an expression for these kinds of things: Amerikaanse toestanden. This translates approximately to 'American situations' with strong negative connotations. Needless to say it's never used in a positive sense.
The whole argument about the clueless masses is exactly why I am not in favour of a jury system in law. In the netherlands we have a judge who does the judging, not a group of random people, and for us it seems to work quite well in general. It's not perfect, but it gets the job done. I feel that the person who knows the law also speaks the law, thus creating law (jurisprudence). Ofcourse there's a lot to say for the jury system too. The biggest advantage of a judge ruling in court (IMO) is that at least he has a working knowledge of part of the case already, the law part. A large part of a judge's job is to get informed about what the case actually deals with and the consequences of a verdict for jurisprudence.
Slashdot Mirror
Solution: don't bring this kind of technology to the US, where you can get sued cos your coffee's hot.
And win...
//rdj
For each bad use of technology, there is also a good use.
atomic bombs vs. atomic power
Genetic screening vs. mass genetic engineering of the population
medical techniques and cures vs. bacteriological warfare.
Technology as such is not good or evil, only specific applications. I can well imagine someone like.. say... Stephen Hawkins being quite happy to ftp his brain.
//rdj
And ofcourse because it's hardly any threat to public health.
Look around. it's simple. it's sturdy. it's what a lot of your clothes, parts of your computer, furniture, cars, planes, toys, and a shitlod of other stuff is partially made of. It's polymers. plastics. a very versatile group of compounds that has had a dramatic effect on just about everyone's lives. It may not be THE most shaoing piece of tech, but it's changed the world as we know it.
//rdj
Actually they havent done everything I want them to do. Even if I don't count the fact that I would like them to go bankrupt. They have compensated the legal bills, but what about the other damages done? let alone post a very large public apology and a link to eToy on their sites replacing the normal portal-page. Sure.. they did something. but not enough for me to consider them an honest business (if such a thing exists)
//rdj
And pigs can fly... Probably what did the trick was thousands of email, each with the contents: We don't like you, the way you conduct business and I am spreading this to everyone I know. Furthermore, I am blocking your site, cancelling my orders (if any) and I'm not ordering anything from you anymore. It's not nice, it's not eloquent, but if enough people yell it in your ear...
//rdj
Well... the harder you tell kids that something's bad, the harder they will try to do it anyway.
//rdj
I don't doubt the necessity of money (unlike cars there is no alternative to it) but I do doubt the necessity of incredible shitloads of money that you're not gonna spend anyway. Now you can't tell me that mr. Gates cannot live on $200000 a year.
I pity the man whose biggest dream is to be rich.
//rdj
hmm.. AFAIK the early versions of OS/2 were developed by MS and intended as the successor to win3.1. (correct me if I'm wrong). As for the incredibly high quality... I think windows is a little too unstable to be called 'incredibly high quality'. Ofcourse, you'll now think I'm jealous because Bill Gates is rich, and I'm not.. well.. I don't care that much about money. money is a tool, much like a car. Are you jealous of the person you see driving a ferrari? You may be.. but just as easily you may not. That doesn't mean I have a problem with money.. it just doesn't matter to me as long as I have enough to live off.
//rdj
You just stepped on my patent on
"Method of relieving the world from lawyers by removal, destruction or perforation of parts of the physical body of previously mentioned lawyers"
Sue! Sue! Sue!
//rdj
I have to disagree with you there. I don't think politeness is dead. The problem is that with the current multi-cultural society (which I am all in favour off) there is no such thing as universal etiquette. it reminds me of a very recent case in the Netherlands where some members of the board of some islamic school refused to shake hands with someone from city-council, who happened to be female. They claimed religious grounds, which in the end was accepted. Had I been the councilmember, I would not have accpeted this, as the councilmember, but what is sure is that both parties had their own idea of being polite. Etiquette isn't gone, it's just forked.
//rdj
Hmm.. maybe I should try that lesbian happy hour.. especially if they'll be on me like you say...
//rdj, enforcing a stereotypical view of white young men.
I agree with most of your point Jon.. but not with one thing: getting rude at times is necessary, even more so in the organic world. I have stopped being nice when it doesn't serve me, and I have found that the best way to get your point across is to go ver people's head. Something not to your liking in a shop, bank or organization? go to the boss. immediately. They are usually not the most knowledgeable, but tend to get so annoyed they give you just about anything you want. Being an annoying bastard works, even in the real world.
Ofcourse.. being a little too rude may cause them not to take you very serious, so make it an intelligent insult, preferably so they don't notice you insulted them until you're out the door.
//rdj
true. Very true. flaming someone face-to-face is a rare occurrence, yet an understandable one. A flame is most often a knee-jerk reaction, and a sign that a nerve has been hit. However, and most flamers will know this, flames also tend to cause a knee-jerk reaction back, which in a face-to-face situation can quickly degenrate into real violence. I have flamed people face-to-face, but made sure there would be no such physical attack, either by making sure there was no opportunity (bankmanagers will not punch you in the face) or by making sure I can get away fast enough (taxis cannot drive into the trainstation). However.. I have never flamed Jon.
//rdj
Who's this abstain character?
And why does he/she qualify for the Hemos award?
//rdj
And that could've failed to, like any other project, scientific or not. one COULD have done a lot of other things with the money, yes. but just because a project doesn't work, doesn't mean it is a complete failure.
//rdj
Nah.. it's not the standard male fantasy. She isn't nude (yet...)
//rdj
hmm.. IANAL.. but it seems to me they contracted an outside corporation, secure computing. Secure computing doesn't keep the secure OS internal, which IMO means they release it. And release means the viral nature of GPL kicks in.
//rdj
You havent heard that because we aren't involved in making cold fusion work the fleischman/pons (sp?) way. The entire thing cannot work and trying to get it to work is a waste of time.
//rdj
As they are in the shoe-industry, chemical industry
and lots of other. But saying 50% is against the photographee's will? I really, really doubt it. what proof do you have of this, if any. Sure, there will always be excesses, in just about every field. but I simply do not believe the 50% you state.
//rdj
ofcourse this doesn't completely apply to sports, where advertisements run loose. Not to mention the sponsored sides of the field, on players' shirts etc.
but to blot out 'objectionable' signs ETHICAL? jeez.. it looks like censorship, it smells like censorship.. and it probably is. Actually, the rule is a little more complicated and since I am not a lawyer I cannot explain it much further. But indeed in most programs you cannot prominently show a product name, and this is actively enforced. You want a commercial as a company, then you buy a commercial, not some guy who makes your favourite soap-series.
//rdj
>why is the U.S., supposedly the world's most advanced nation, having to play catch-up to the rest of the world?
It's not. The US has turned into a police-state in many ways. most european countries are more advanced in just about every area. What is worse in the hubris of the US, thinking they are the ultimate democratic country, and enforcing democracy in the world. But guess what.. democracy is not an ideal system by far, and can quickly turn into a tyranny of the/a majority. IMO the biggest problem is the endless lobbying and incredible power of corporations, who seem to have rights beyond that of real persons. Once a business gets large enough, it becomes almost impossible to punish.
I won't pretend to have the perfect solution, but something needs to be done.
//rdj
In dutch we have an expression for these kinds of things: Amerikaanse toestanden.
This translates approximately to 'American situations' with strong negative connotations. Needless to say it's never used in a positive sense.
//rdj
The whole argument about the clueless masses is exactly why I am not in favour of a jury system in law. In the netherlands we have a judge who does the judging, not a group of random people, and for us it seems to work quite well in general. It's not perfect, but it gets the job done. I feel that the person who knows the law also speaks the law, thus creating law (jurisprudence). Ofcourse there's a lot to say for the jury system too. The biggest advantage of a judge ruling in court (IMO) is that at least he has a working knowledge of part of the case already, the law part. A large part of a judge's job is to get informed about what the case actually deals with and the consequences of a verdict for jurisprudence.
//rdj
Now that you have money to burn, will there be a slasdot world tour?
//rdj